The best way to learn about Jesus and Paul is by directly reading

File: cownen.jpg (42KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x450px

woah, what made you have that revelation? donut the shape of jesus anus?

>>1833749
I know it might sound like a surprise but some Christians don't believe that

>>1833744
Jesus never existed

>>1834626
It's weird people would rather believe Jesus didn't exist based on doctrines that come out 2000 years after He existed, rather than the doctrines of His being real 2000 years ago when He is recorded to live

>>1834887
What records, bro?

>>1834892
NT, Mara Letters and King Agbar letter, Coptic Text, OT Prophecies, alabaster box, early temple in Jordon, the modern scholar validating His existence according to mainstream history, early historians, nero persecution and confirmation of Christianity's existence in the years 30 to 60

>>1834996
the apostles, the Talmud, josephus

>>1835010
Tacitus, Pliny the younger.

Jesus is not the only person in history with "little evidence", there is also Socrates, Homer, Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, even Muhammad, even Ceaser.

People are somehow finding "more non existent evidence" to prove that they "didn't exist" when clearly many doctrines mentions all of these figures, with personality and truth

>>1834996
>>1835010
>>1835025
Some of this evidence is rather dubious.

>>OT prophecies
This in particular is bullshit.

That said, some jewish dissident named jesus getting nailed to some wood 2000 years ago after pissing of the authorities where he lived is not some impossible or improbable thing.

All the hocus pocus is dumb though, there is no such thing as magic and people don't rise from the dead.

>>1834996
>NT
Mark was written as a book of parables and secret revealing texts for a Mystery religion, the rest of them just copy Mark. Not reliable.
>Mara Letters
Not independent of the Gospels. Not reliable.
>the modern scholar validating His existence according to mainstream history
They completely can't be wrong
>early historians
And literally none of them are independent of the Gospels.
>nero persecution and confirmation of Christianity's existence in the years 30 to 60
>Christians exist so Jesus exists
The logic doesn't follow, you're under the impression that there needed to be a historical Jesus to explain the origin of Christianity.
>Tacitus
He literally got it from Pliny the Younger who also only said there were Christians who believed what they did based on information he got from Christians, which is not independent of the Gospels.
>Jesus is not the only person in history with "little evidence"
None of the other ones were Pauline revelatory beings from Heaven

File: Kawaii Jesu.png (32KB, 334x351px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 334x351px

>>1834626
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/09/04/an-atheists-defense-of-the-historicity-of-jesus/

>"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

- Bart Ehrman

>"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.

- Michael Grant

>"In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

- Richard Burridge

>>1835010
>the apostles
There's no telling what the early Apostles believed.
>the Talmud
The Talmud says he was stoned and hanged about 100 years before the Gospels are set, this isn't an argument for Historicity, in fact it supports Mythicism.

Just for fun:
>OT prophecies
>Written in after hand to push the Messiahship of a faux historical Jesus.

>>1835066
>Quote mining means I'm correct

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus

File: Peter.jpg (30KB, 307x400px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 307x400px

>>1835068
>There's no telling what the early Apostles believed.

They believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.

File: g.jpg (31KB, 318x466px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 318x466px

No.

>>1835076
Yes, in a Celestial form.

File: Giotto_Peter_sword.jpg (45KB, 582x466px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 582x466px

>>1835072
The academic consensus is established; Jesus walked on Earth.

>inb4 that one cuckold prof gets posted

>>1835087
They can't possibly be wrong, at alllll, bruh

File: Fedora.gif (3KB, 36x26px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 36x26px

>>1835083
Not according to the evidence.

>>1835058
>>1835060
>>1835068
It literally looks like
>nope
>nope
>nope
>nope
>nope

Its like you could get a whole bunch of leads to solve a case and just be like "no dude that sounds ridiculous lmao cause"

>This in particular is bullshit.

If ^ that is the quality you provide to the thread after being given multiple leads what makes

>Mark was written as a book of parables and secret revealing texts for a Mystery religion, the rest of them just copy Mark. Not reliable.
>Not independent of the Gospels. Not reliable
>The logic doesn't follow, you're under the impression that there needed to be a historical Jesus to explain the origin of Christianity.

^ What makes these anymore reliable? All your doing is saying "not reliable" and that's pretty much it theres no "here is why it isn't reliable"

>>1835098
You want me to go in depth?

File: Reptiles.jpg (529KB, 830x1112px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 830x1112px

>>1835091
I wonder who could be behind this post?

>>1835105
Sure, buddy. Whatever you say.

>>1835060
>>1835068
Even the Gospels too are reliable, as well as Paul's the Apostles revelation.

> which is not independent of the Gospels.
That is also the point is to find non-biblical evidence of Jesus, and they obviously knew of the Gospel so of course they are going to use them.

Like, to them the Gospel is a historical source because they were living very close to those times, so they aren't going to "prove Christianity true objectively with non biblical sources" because back then Biblical doctrines, especially Early Christianity and the Gospels are historical; at least to the historians who lived closest to Jesus

File: REPENT.jpg (90KB, 609x480px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 609x480px

>>1835112

>>1835103
No thanks. I am sure you are a smart person just very set on believing that every lead is fake because you have been accustomed to not believe for so long that even looking into it might be scary or something.

>>1835123
I used to believe he was historical, you idiot, I used to believe he was god. I still do, I just believe he never existed as a human/godman on this Earth. I believe he was the Firstborn angel of god who was exalted to godhood and given a name above all names.

File: 1423461961885.png (184KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 500x290px

>>1835139

>>1835142
>Being so angry at the truth

>>1835147
>>1835097

>>1835097
What evidence?

>>1835139
So why let personal beliefs get in the way of very apparent and historical source evidence?

You could have mentioned you believed in Jesus when you said that you thought He didn't exist historically -; when you first started posting in the very beginning

File: dfw.gif (533KB, 384x288px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 384x288px

>>1835155
>>1835066

>>1835158
Because the evidence is no reliable and is often misrepresented.

>>1835166
Quote mining is not evidence, you imbecile

Tell me the evidence.

>>1835167
Then, the "non evidence" is also just as misrepresented and just as unreliable.

File: 1475698739458.jpg (81KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x500px

>>1835171
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/09/04/an-atheists-defense-of-the-historicity-of-jesus

>>1835178
So you don't actually know the evidence, you're just linking already debunked 'evidence'

>>1835173
It is weird how the "he doesn't exist" stuff appears way later than the "he actually exists" stuff which is also recorded the same time he is supposed to have lived

File: 1471526518730.jpg (92KB, 1300x960px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1300x960px

>>1835185
>debunked

>>1835186
Maybe its a plot to try to get people to stop believing in what Jesus teaches.

>>1835186
Is that why 2 Peter was replying to a sect that didn't believe in an Earthly savior.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

>>1835186
Also, all the stuff just didn't survive or was doctored.

>>1835186
It's weird how the "Pope Joan didn't exist" stuff comes way later than the "Pope Joan did exist" stuff, despite narratives and statues indicating that people did believe in her nearer to her supposed time.

>>1835193
It's like who is the first person to call it "nah it wasn't real bro" and what date was this claimed? Also, what makes it reliable?

>>1835200
The Apostles, including Paul who met Jesus after He died, worked very hard to tell Jews and Gentiles that Jesus is the Messiah they were all waiting for.

>>1835216
Even with like Aristotle and Muhammed, on 4chan everyone's all like "they didn't exist cause this new evidence that we pulled out of our ass" even though people firmly believed on these names and teachings of these messengers (c350BC) and (c600AD), and with Jesus (c30AD)

But if it comes out in 2016AD, it's valid because some people on the internet like to make claims that have no fundamental structure in recorded history?

>>1835223
Paul's letters were first and he never mentions any disciples of an Earthly Jesus. All he says was the way to know Jesus was OT scriptures and revelation.

>>1835218
Right?

Like okay Jesus existed in 30AD, here are some valid documents from 50 to 70 AD about Him.

"Oh whats this? this document denies Christianity and came out 20 minutes ago? oh yeah, this is definately historically accurate whats the source? Oh the internet, yeah, sure... totally."

>>1835239
>Then, three years later, I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him for fifteen days, but I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother Galatians 1:18-19

Paul meets up with Peter and also meets James, the brother of Jesus. James is also recorded to be the brother of Jesus according to non Christian sources from around that time

>>1835247
>There are no mentions saved of a Jesus never being on Earth, that means no one said he never existed

File: evangelical blazer pepe.png (36KB, 500x331px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x331px

>>1835239
>he never mentions any disciples of an Earthly Jesus.

>But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

- 1 Corinthians 15:20

In order to be raised from the dead, one has to be alive first...

>>1835262
The brother of the Lord reference is talking about a baptised Christian named James, a fictive kinship. They were called brothers and sisters of the Lord

File: ConversionofPaul_000.jpg (75KB, 588x700px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 588x700px

>>1835262
Paul claims divine visions in Galatians, the road to Damascus where Christ converts Paul.

>for you know brothers that the Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man, for I did not recieve it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Christ"

Basically, Paul tells us that He has the revelation and conversion through the Risen Christ, openly and being accepted by the Apostles, Paul has great credibility

>>1835276
He was alive in the Celestial realm then was crucified by demons in the lower heavens

>>1835268
It is just weird that in this age, people will eat up the load of crap that steams from the internets "new evidence" that has no base in history

>>1835287
The fucking case for the historical Jesus is full of speculation and fallacies, no one says shit about that.

>>1835279
Actually Paul never says he went to Damascus, he went to Arabia to preach to them.

File: m'lady.gif (163KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 640x640px

>>1835286
>>1835097

>>1835304
Sure, buddy.

>>1835277
> 19 I saw none of the other apostles, only James, the Lord's brother

He is talking about Apostle James, not some regular baptized brother or sister names James. Paul clearly mentions the Apostle James

>I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie

File: lion-lamb6.jpg (1001KB, 1062x612px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 1062x612px

>>1835310
>>1835120

>>1835286
Not according to the Quran. They all thought they crucified Jesus but God did not let the demons overcome Jesus.

>>1835292
So is the "no he didn't exist bruh" full of speculation and "fallacies" and everyone has something to say to a believer or non believer.

There are just more sources out there we have to be willing to at least give them a chance.

>>1835311
In the Greek it's more like "I saw no other apostles, and James is not an Apostle, but is the Lord's brother.

The gospels don't even support James 'the brother of the Lord' being an Apostle.

>>1835299
You are trolling the internet.
>now as he journeyed he approached Damascus and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him (Acts)

Clearly says that Paul is on his way to Damascus in this whole chapter in Acts Chapter 9

>>1835335
Acts is not reliable and here's why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MUUP4l6l4

>>1835323
Not with the history of Christians doctoring evidence and making forgeries.

>>1835329
It actually looks more like "other moreover of the apostles, none I saw, if not (except) James, the brother of the Lord"

James is referred to as an Apostle and also the brother of Christ.

>>1835352
>if not means except
Biblical fucking Greek is so accurate :^)

>>1835347
Acts is reliable. It gives historical information from around c 40s +, corresponds to gospel teachings , and is latest dated up to 70 or 80 AD.

Just because some youtuber made a video doesn't invalidate the book of Acts which came out 2000 years before bad youtube videos.

>>1835368
So it's not independent of the Gospels. Pffft

>>1835351
Sure lets hold something against a group of people who lived over 500 to 2000 years ago and keep holding that one thing against them all the time and never forget about it so we never get anywhere with historical and religious development.... no

>>1835369
I'd rather read Acts in confidence in the Spirit of the Lord who helped it be possible to be written 2000 years ago than some youtube video that is filled with propaganda and false information.

Maybe the video has some points cool, yeah I didn't watch it because the point is its another example of how something that comes out 2000 years later says "Acts isn't reliable because we said so", even though Acts is written 2000 years ago by some very intelligent people who worked very hard to make it possible for us to believe in the Word of God

>>1835370
No one for hundreds of years mentions the Testamonium Flavianium or the Jamsian passage.

>>1835380
How convenient for you.

>>1835380
>the older something is, the more reliable it is
Therefore, we should discard everything in the bible that does not square with The Epic of Gilgamesh, as that is older.

>>1835383
Its crazy cause there is more than one case of stuff being mentioned only hundred of years later, or having "sketchy" validity, not just with Christianity.

Josephus also mentions John the Baptist and Herod.

>>1835394
OR you could look up the research on other topics the same way you would with Christianity or any other interest you have.

It isn't "by this logic we have to discredit everything that doesn't line up because this other text is older", that doesn't sound right. That would be like saying "don't believe Paul because Jesus was here before Paul", or "believe in Moses he was way cooler than Jesus because he came out before mainstream media"

>>1835403
Just because John the Baptist and Herod were real, doesn't mean Jesus was. Just because there were Trojans and probably a Trojan war doesn't prove the historicity of Hercules

>>1835408
So, in other words, the gospels aren't magically immune to the normal methods of historical analysis, and ought to be examined with the same critical eye that examines other holy texts with dubious historical accuracy.

>>1835417
>The criterion from embarrassment
>critical eye

I'm not sure why people hop on the "Jesus didn't exist thing" thing. It's a pretty silly tactic to go for, a Yeshuah probably did exist, and considering the Roman's policy of not fucking around with sedition could very well have crucified a Yeshuah for stirring up shit. The angle you should focus on is tearing apart the "Jesus" of the scriptures, which could very well be a literary creation distinct from this Yeshuah.

>>1835428
Would you try speaking English?

>>1835414
Those people are connected to Jesus' historical authenticity. Think about like Pythagoras and Socrates, Homer, Aristotle, etc, even Ceaser, that means they all "didn't exist" just because of those later documents and their elusive proof of existence?

>>1835417
Everything you research, you should do it right. It could be Christianity or a non religious historical event. We don't need to go "they magically immune", but we need to take into consideration the factors of historical authenticity that it lines up with and be practical about our research.

>>1835417
They should be analyzed the best way, the same with anything else in history.

>>1835442
Like I said before, those people weren't firstborn angels of god that existed in the celestial realm.

Change is coming, you bums, don't be angry when it does.

>>1835453
I know we all like watching movies with dramatic and sentimental comebacks.

What's important is how hard people worked to keep Christianity alive and how hard people worked to make it "unreal" in modern times. Even so called Christians make Christianity less valid on purpose by proposing it as a falsehood and also a condemning religion.

But everyone has the right to religion and belief, so everyone can get along, even if they have different religious beliefs. It is very possible

>>1835461
I hope Christianity dies.

>>1835467
You may not respect someone else's belief, but respect their right to hold a belief.

>>1835471
Even if that belief is irrational?

File: tfw.png (29KB, 250x226px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 250x226px

>>1835476
From whose perspective?

>>1835481
Every rational person's.

>>1835442
>We don't need to go "they magically immune", but we need to take into consideration the factors of historical authenticity that it lines up with and be practical about our research.
Right, so if we remove this magical immunity then we find that a belief being well-cherished is not evidence of its accuracy. And because the objective of a historical record has changed significantly in the relatively recent past, when we turn an eye to these old records we do so with the objective of separating fact from fiction, embellishment, modification for the purposes of narrative or moralizing, etc.

File: 1475816254984.png (664KB, 1001x823px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 1001x823px

>>1835485
So God's perspective?

>>1835476
What you call irrational is not always irrational. Usually it is called "bias perception"

>>1835491
You can look at Christianity through an atheistic and scholarly perspective and identify the existence of Jesus.

>>1835493
Demonstrate that their's a god without appealing to the argument from design because it's presuppositional.

>>1835438
>Doesn't know what the criterion from embarrassment is

File: Blonde.gif (21KB, 111x150px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 111x150px

>>1835506
If there is a God, then His perspective would be the most rational one. That is all I'm saying.

>>1835503
Yes, that is one potential outcome of a potential analysis. However, how closely the figure of the apocalyptic preacher Yeshua (if that even was the name of the originator) that can be attested to in a historical context actually resembles the idea of "Jesus Christ" presented in the Gospels is another matter entirely.

File: >Islam.jpg (226KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1000x1000px

>>1835521

>>1835521
>"And He shows you His signs, then whichever of the signs of Allah(swt) do you deny?""And they say: Why are not signs sent down upon him from his Lord? Say: The signs are with Allah(swt), and I am only a plain warner."

>>1835524
No penises and vaginees in the architecture, guys

File: Kabaa.gif (2MB, 800x337px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x337px

>>1835531
*Toy Story alien voice*

CUUUUUUBEEEEE

>>1835529
"And in no way does any sign of the signs of their Lord come up to them, except that they were veering away from it."

>>1835535
The cube of Saturn