Was jesus a jew?

yes but modern jews are khazars.

File: yo vey.jpg (267KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1024x683px

>>1859867
DAS RITE

>>1859695

Not just a Jew but a rabbi. They found a record of him teaching at a synagogue from his "lost years" quite recently, and there's no evidence he ever eschewed any part of his Judaism, or wanted his followers to do so.

>>1859695
Yes, and he was a massive cunt.

He just managed to subvert word into thinking he was some kind of "altruistic fish-giver".

>>1859695
Yes.

>>1859879
>They found a record of him teaching at a synagogue
I call bullshit.

Genetically, it is his ethnicity:
>This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: [Matthew 1:1]

Religiously, he teaches precepts of Judaism:
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. [Mark 12:29]

>"Which ones?" the man asked. Jesus answered, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, [Matthew ]

Paul mentions that there is not a Jew God and Gentiles God that are different, that they are the same God
> [Romans 3:29]Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

Then Paul shows us our labelling of Jew and Gentiles are insufficient, because we are all one in the same God.
>There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

If Jesus' Judaism was the same Judaism as the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadducees would have accepted Him with open arms. Though, something about what He teaches really made people angry with Him, and even in the present, people still become very angry when there is mention of Him.

> All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

>>1860087

They were angry at Jesus because Jesus claimed to be the Son Of Man and the Pharisees did not like that. They didn't like how Jesus called them out on their hypocrisy and told everyone that was selling in the temple of God to GTFO with a whip.

>>1860087

>and even in the present, people still become very angry when there is mention of Him.

They're still angry because the Jews are still waiting for the first Messiah to appear as it was foretold in the book of Isiah but that Messiah was Jesus who came 2000 years ago.

>>1859695
Jesus didn't exist. He was a mystical construct created by rabbi Paul.

He was a celt but just because he lived in the middle east idiots automatically assume he was a jew

>>1860133
Super edgy.

>>1860113
There is a group of Jews that believed He is the Son of Man, John the Baptist would be a great example of this section that was receiving John's Baptism; many Jews, like Mary, Joseph, etc, are Jews who believed that Jesus is the Messiah.

>>1860127
According to many Jews today, Jesus, to them, did not fulfill all the requirements, and many Jews will observe today's Christian practices as having no relation to what their practices are.

>>1860141
>Mary
>believed Jesus to be the messiah
Luke 8:21 begs to differ.

>>1859695
Are you baiting or retarded or just underage? He was a Jewish dissident what do you fucking think.

>>1860140
Paul's Jesus is not Jesus of gospels. He doesn't perform miracles, he lives and dies in unspecified past. Paul also alludes to Ascension of Isaiah with its non-physical savior.

>>1860155

>Luke 8:21

>And he answered and said to them, My mother and my brothers are these which hear the word of God, and do it

How does that beg to differ? Here is the verse before:

>Luke 8:20

>And it was told him by certain which said, Your mother and your brothers stand without, desiring to see you

He doesn't say "they aren't my disciples" He says "you guys are my brothers and my mother" showing that all are related to Christ, beyond the physical ethnicity and physical family relations Christ emphasizes relationship to His Spirit

>>1860179
Paul also killed Christians before he "made it all up", so I doubt Paul wrote Isaiah and all the OT scriptures before he was born all to "make it all up" after he killed people who believed in Christ, who Paul "made up".

>>1860197
>Paul also killed Christians
According to Luke who was quite clearly mythologizing Paul decades after his death. And no, Paul didn't write Ascension but he clearly read it and considered some version of it canon.

>>1860197
How does Jesus exist before Paul "made him up", Paul obviously learned about Jesus from somewhere, and Paul says Jesus ministered to him; because Paul persecuted Christians before he was a Christian.

Saul existed before Paul. Saul knew of Jesus before Paul loved Jesus. Paul could not have made up Jesus when Saul clearly already knew who Jesus was, but had no idea what Jesus was.

>>1860213
Paul/Saul thing is again brought up only by Luke. Paul never brings it up.

>>1860226
Mention of Saul
>But Saul was going everywhere to destroy the church. He went from house to house, dragging out both men and women to throw them into prison.


And the Paul mentions he persecuted others
>And I persecuted the followers of the Way, hounding some to death, arresting both men and women and throwing them in prison.

>>1860235
>told him that acts aren't a good source on Paul
>brings up sources from Acts

>>1860239
Acts is a good source on Paul, you may not think so, but a lot of people think that Acts is a great source to mention Paul.

>>1860253
A lot of people that Quran is a good source of Muhammad, that doesn't magically make it so. Acts are basicly a self insert fanfiction about Paul written by his suposed pupil that Paul never mentions in his writings and which was written decades after his death.

>>1860271
The Quran is a good source about Muhammed. I know you have a strong opinion about the book of Acts being "fanfic" and I don't want to waste time arguing back and forth because this conversation is going nowhere. Some people agree with Acts being reliable and appearantly other people don't think so.

>>1860280
>The Quran is a good source about Muhammed
A book that wasn't started to be written until his death and wasn't even finished for few hundred years after his death is a reliable source on his life? Or do you really belive that he had a horse with human face that could travel in time?

>>1860285
I think the Quran is a good source of information about Muhammed.

I honestly don't care for Paul, or any of the apostles. All you need for the New Testament is the gospels and Revelation.

>>1860335
>I don't care about the first sources on Jesus. I prefer two fanfics and two more rewrites on the first one. And some unrelated jewish anti-roman propaganda of course.

>>1860335
I disagree and also agree with you. Anyone who wants to learn about Jesus should read a whole Gospel and it only takes about an hour give or take.

File: blasted be.jpg (1MB, 1394x832px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1394x832px

>>1860127
Not to mention the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9, which if you calculate it, brings you from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 457bc, plus 70 weeks of years (490 years), to the literal "end of the probationary period where the jews are God's people", in 33 ad.

So literally, once Jesus died, the Jews were no longer God's people, but it was opened up to everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Funny thing—the Jews know this. That's why there is a curse in the Babylonian Talmud for anyone who even tries to calculate the 70 weeks prophecy, because it plainly, clearly, and without any doubt points to Jesus as the messiah. Pic related.

File: IMG_0522.jpg (137KB, 900x674px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 900x674px

What did Jesus mean when he said "the kingdom of god"?

>>1860506
I bet you ridicule Muslims when they do this same psychologically unhealthy bullshit

You're lucky /his/ is such a hopelessly reactionary board. If you talked about searching this deep for prophecies and miracles anywhere else, you'd rightfully be labeled an autist

>>1859879

source?

>>1861501
what do you think He meant?

>>1859867
Not even Kevin MacDonald believes this

>>1860087
>the Pharisees and the Sadducees would have accepted Him with open arms.
but they did
jews were his first followers. thousands of the 1st christians were exclusively jews, not to mention ebonites, essenes, nestorians

>>1860087
>>1860113
>>1860506
jews have no clue about their own beliefs

have you ever encountered a Jew that preached Cyrus as the Messiah?

well, to their ignorance Cyrus was the original Messiah, and the Jews revered him as the Messiah

have you ever encountered a Jew that is aware of the destruction of the 3rd temple, built by Roman emperor Julian ?

why assume that they are fully competent of the ancient Israelite religion?

>>1859867
bitch you probably never even knew what a khazar was before you adopted this conspiracy theory to ease your christian-antisemitic cognitive dissonance

>>1859695
Jesus never existed
>>1859879
Liars for Jesus

>>1862600
Jesus most definitely did exist.

>>1862621
Based on what?

>>1862624
Based on two very weak secondary sources. If this were the evidence for Alexander we would dismiss him as a myth.

Jesus doesn't real.

>>1862624
In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[17] Richard A. Burridge states: "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".[18] Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[19] James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".[20] Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "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".[21] Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[22]

>>1862856
"But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mysticism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade then Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite)[61] … My point at present is that even if we proved proved the founder of Christianity was executed by Herod the Great (not even by Romans, much less Pilate, and a whole forty years before the Gospels claim), as long as his name or nickname (whether assigned before or after his death) really was Jesus and his execution is the very thing spoken of as leading him to the status of the divine Christ venerated in the Epistles, I think it would be fair to say the mythicists are then simply wrong. I would say this even if Jesus was never really executed but only believed to have been Because even then it's still the same historical man being spoken of and worshiped." - Richard Carrier

I can quote mine as well

Those people don't want to be wrong, but they are. Keep quote mining like it's a done issue, in ten years time we'll see where the hypothesis sits

>>1861523
Whatever man, Jews and Muslims are both wrong. If you want to presume things about me and what I know, that's fine, but I didn't come to my conclusions lightly. If you think inquiring into evidence of prophecies is autistic, that's your business. I disagree.

>>1862415
>jews were his first followers. thousands of the 1st christians were exclusively jews, not to mention ebonites, essenes, nestorians

Jews that accepted Christ were not Pharisees and Sadducees. What point are you trying to make? Matthew was a Jew. He was also not a Pharisee nor a Sadducee. Pharisees and Sadducees were Jewish elite and generally controlled temple rites and various social, political, and religious roles. They absolutely were not "commoner Jews", they were the elite, aristocratic Jews who demanded that Pontius Pilate sentence him to death.

>>1862884
>Those people don't want to be wrong, but they are.
>Projecting
That quote is strange. One non-canonical gospel somehow undermines all the authority of the rest, along with Tacitus and Josephus.

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

>>1859695
literally the king of the jews

>>1859695
Uhh yes? What else would this person have been?

>>1863099
The idea of that non-canonical gospel supports mythicism unless proven to be true, which I doubt.

Josephus' Testamonium Flavianum is a known interpolation, even if it isn't, it's using Luke as a source which isn't independent of the gospels so it's not an extrabiblical source and the James the brother of Jesus passage contradicts what Christians had to say about Jesus Christ's "brother" dying. Secondly, the James the Just passage is referring to Jesus ben Damneus. Thirdly, even if it was a reference to Jesus, it's an interpolation because why would Jews be angry about the stoning of a Christian when Jews thought them to be heathens?
It's likely Tacitus was parroting what he had heard from Pliny the Younger when he interrogated Christians, if that passage isn't interpolated.

>>1863247
>Jews be angry about the stoning of a Christian when Jews thought them to be heathens?
The "Jews" were not on consolidated group at this time. There were many sects as "Jew" is not a religious term but just a catch-all term for Judeans. There were Judeans that followed Christ and there were Judeans that didn't, who were mostly the powerful rich Judeans.

>>1859695
>believed in Jesus Christ, the Son of God
>Jewish
No

>>1862621
There is plenty of other non biblical references to Him as well, aside from Josephus and Tacitus, plenty more

>>1862856
This is also essential, because it is only recently people started saying He doesn't exist, with "evidence" that comes 2000 years later than the sources 2000 years ago saying He does exist.

Where is all this "non-existent" evidence of His "not-existing"?

>>1859867
Are you a Serb?

>>1861990
>>1864511
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3595026/

>>1863263
Jews that followed Christ were called Christians, you dolt. They were persecuted by Jews who were not Christians.

>>1864258
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" is a rebuttal to a sect that was saying Jesus was never on Earth. Just because no references to a celestial Jesus survived doesn't mean no one said it didn't happen.

>>1864258
Also none of those references to him are independent of the gospels.

File: Mongol DDDDD.jpg (139KB, 530x626px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 530x626px

>>1859867

File: koffir.jpg (25KB, 250x201px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 250x201px

He was of Turkic origin.

>>1866908
>"Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem" Matthew 2

They reference Herod, a real person, and Jesus who is born in Bethlehem, a real physical place on Earth.

There is a celestial Jesus, that is the Spirit of Resurrection of the Living God today. There is also physical Jesus, which around early AD is recorded in the Gospel and in early historians

>>1866915
Actually, many of them are independent of the Gospel. There is the Mara letter, the letter to the king, the alabaster box, I could keep going, but that will take the fun out of it for people who are sincere in looking for more.

Even if they used the Gospel it is cause they knew it to be historical in their times

>>1867411
There was never any historical Jesus, the celestial Jesus was historicized by a mystery cult text.

>Even if they used the Gospel it is cause they knew it to be historical in their times
The logic doesn't follow, they could have not known it was not historical

>>1859695
Pretty sure this is b8, but yes he was Jewish. Christianity is just a sect of Judaism, as is Islam.

>>1867432
There is a historical Jesus. Scholars for the most part agree, and there is plenty of evidence in the Gospel and outside of the Gospel confirming His actual existence.

Early historians, if they did or did not use the Gospel, all record Jesus and Christians as real and existence. Only today do you find people denying evidence, and it is very recent and without any proof or credit.

Trust sources from 2000 years ago confirming Jesus, rather than "sources" 2000 years LATER denying it

>>1867435
The "Judaism" of today is descended from the Pharisees.

So you're saying that Christianity came from Pharisaism?

>>1867457
Judaism today isn't all from Pharisee sects, there are plenty more sects of Judaism, many individual people with different ideas, it isn't confined.

>>1867457
I said Christianity is a sect of Judaism. That's all.

>>1867452
>Implying you can trust a religious text or religious people with an agenda
>Implying people didn't do so under the threat of the sword
Just because 'Scholars for the most part agree' doesn't fucking matter, they could be and are most likely wrong.

>Only today do you find people denying evidence
See:
>>1866908
Evidence for the origin of Christianity didn't even survive the Middle Ages.

There's evidence that Mark was writing a mystery cult text and not history, like the fact that the end of his Gospel had no whole resurrection appearance narrative, only the empty tomb narrative.

"And He told them, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside, everything is expressed in parables, 12so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.’”

Evidence that it's a mystery cult text of euhemerization

>>1862513
Jewish eschatology suggests there is a Messiah in every generation, but they are a 'dormant' or mundane Messiah rather than the Moshiach of the End Times. Cyrus was considered the Messiah of his generation, but why do you think he receives no further credit? Jews weren't praying to Cyrus as the actual Moshiach

>>1867496
Just stop, Jesus was a real person. Even people that have completely BTFOed Christianity like Bart Ehrman agree >>1862856

>>1867505
It doesn't fucking matter if they agree, you can plug your ears and LALAALALALALALALALALA all you want to, it won't make it go away.

>>1867496
>implying you cant trust religious text
>implying you cant trust scholars
>implying martyrdom was because people believed in a "fictitious" character
I don't agree with you. It is that simple. Plenty of evidence outside of the Bible and in the Bible, is more valid than these claims that deny every evidence without cause, which come 2000 years later.

>There's evidence that Mark was writing a mystery cult text and not history, like the fact that the end of his Gospel had no whole resurrection appearance narrative, only the empty tomb narrative.

Where is this "evidence"?, because every other source ITT, all claim a real person, named Jesus, actually existed. Historians, letters, objects, people existing the same time Jesus did, all are clearly more valid.

>"And He told them, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside, everything is expressed in parables, 12so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.’”
>Evidence that it's a mystery cult text of euhemerization
That is your heavily reinforced opinion. Jesus taught some very simple wisdom, there is nothing mystery cult about it, and I only know your bias by your use of the meme "mystery cult".

>>1867467
The Pharisees followed the Oral Torah, the "secret teachings" allegedly handed down to 70 elders at Mount Sinai and only later recorded as the Talmud, which is the central text in today's Judaism. Belief in the Oral Torah is what distinguished the Pharisee sect in ancient times. There were other influences on Judaism from the other sects such as the Sadducees and Christians (who firmly rejected the Oral Torah), as well as Hellenism, Gnosticism, etc. Classic Judaism wasn't really formed until almost the start of the Middle Ages with the synthesis of Kabbalism, Rabbinicalism, and written Talmudism. The common view that "Judaism" is older than Christianity or that Christianity somehow "comes from" Judaism is pretty much a lie that ignores the historical development of both religions.

>>1867469
The ancient Hebrew religion has very little in common with the Judaism of today. You're committing an anachronism.

>>1867505
I think they just don't want to accept it because it will stop them from the hidden agendas. Christ died and Paul died, and many Christians and Apostles all died, and Christianity was taken over and hijacked by very dark people. It is obvious they want us to stop believing in the Word of God for the sake of their "new philosophy" which is extremely recent and has zero evidence

>>1860291
>I think the Quran is a good source of information about Muhammed.
It is. He was a raping murdering lying asshole. He also worked no miracles. Islam is not a religion; it is a cult. If you doubt this, read the user's manual.

>>1867521
>The Pharisees followed the Oral Torah, the "secret teachings" allegedly handed down to 70 elders at Mount Sinai and only later recorded as the Talmud, which is the central text in today's Judaism. Belief in the Oral Torah is what distinguished the Pharisee sect in ancient times. There were other influences on Judaism from the other sects such as the Sadducees and Christians (who firmly rejected the Oral Torah), as well as Hellenism, Gnosticism, etc. Classic Judaism wasn't really formed until almost the start of the Middle Ages with the synthesis of Kabbalism, Rabbinicalism, and written Talmudism. The common view that "Judaism" is older than Christianity or that Christianity somehow "comes from" Judaism is pretty much a lie that ignores the historical development of both religions.

Once we get rid of the labels and look at the teachings objectively, we can keep learning. Christianity has elements of Judaism, but Christians and Jews, some agree, some disagree.

>>1867530
What a convenient time to reply to that post. You might disagree with Islam, and you might spout out nonsense that you learned from YouTube or the news;

>The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)
I keep looking for the word "rape" but I haven't found it anywhere.

>When Allah revealed the Verse: "Warn your nearest kinsmen," Allah's Apostle got up and said, "O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Bani Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah's Apostle! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammad! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 51, Number 16)

Even Muhammad was not sure of his salvation

>Or do they say, 'He has forged it'? Say: 'If I have forged it, you have no power to help me against Allah. He knows very well what you are pressing upon; He suffices as a witness between me and you; He is the All-forgiving, the All-compassionate.' Say: 'I am not an innovation among the Messengers, and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner.' S. 46:8-9 Meccan

>>1867520
There's no evidence that the original pillars of the faith were martyrdomed, Paul never says what happens to them and you can't trust Acts because it has an agenda.

>Where is this "evidence"?
In the earliest manuscript it says the women went away and told no one. That's evidence he was writing a mystery cult text as to say "Don't be silent like the women, preach the gospel to people"
>because every other source ITT, all claim a real person, named Jesus, actually existed
I just showed you evidence that not everyone agreed with the historical Jesus in history, the rest of the stuff may not have survived, but there's evidence that they disagreed with the historical Jesus.
>people existing the same time Jesus did, all are clearly more valid
Now you just gonna lie about them being 'eyewitnesses of his majesty' like 2 Peter?
>Jesus taught some very simple wisdom
That's not the point of the text.

You can harumph this all you want like the rest of them, but it's not going away

>>1867545
You can trust Acts. It is a very reliable source written around the time of the Apostles

>In the earliest manuscript it says the women went away and told no one. That's evidence he was writing a mystery cult text as to say "Don't be silent like the women, preach the gospel to people"
That is not evidence, that sounds like you opinion and interpretation.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (Tm);

>I just showed you evidence that not everyone agreed with the historical Jesus in history, the rest of the stuff may not have survived, but there's evidence that they disagreed with the historical Jesus
You didn't show me anything. I put up plenty of physical evidence on these threads, outside of the Gospel.

Here are some Gospel quotes talking about a Jesus person

- And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

- Jesus wept.

. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed

>>1867496
Ok thanks Richard.

>>1867558
Acts is fiction.

Timothy wasn't even written by Paul, you retard.

That doesn't prove that Mark didn't start as a euhemerized Mystery cult text.

>>1867570
Act's isn't fiction, though I respect your right to choose to believe that.

This is what Paul says:

>concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,

σάρkα means physical flesh, a body, bones, a human. σπέρματος is pronounced "spermatos", the σπέρματος of Δαυὶδ; or the SPERM of DAVID, which more appropriately is "seed" of David, but Paul says that the Son comes from the sperm of David

>>1867529
Sure, buddy, we just want to 'sin'

You sound fucking stupid, kill yourself

>>1867580
>So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

>>1867579
Why would Paul use 'ginomai' (become, be made, come; as in Romans 1:3 & Galatians 4:4) instead of 'gennao' (born)?

Ginomai is the same word Paul used to describe what god did to Adam.

>>1867712
I'm not sure, in romans he uses γενομένου (genomenou); meaning becoming, having come, from the "spermatos" of David.

In Galatians, it is γενόμενον ἐk,(genomenon ek) having come from γυναιkός(gynaikos) woman; γενόμενον(genomenon) having come ὑπὸ νόμον,(hypo nomon), under the law

the word born in English to Greek γεννημένος genniménos the word "become is γίνομαι (ginomai)

>>1867914
So γενομένου (genemenou) and γενόμενον ἐk (genomenon ek) would mean born γεννημένος genniménos

Ginomai γίνομαι is become, to say having come from Mary is to say having been born from Mary.

>>1867930
He says nothing about Mary, it was an allegorical woman

>>1868158
He means Mary, the mother of Jesus in the Gospel.

and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them. (Luke 2:7)

ἔτεkεν (to beget, bring forth, born, bear)

>>1868243
You're putting on Gospel goggles to interpret that. Paul's epistles came before the Gospels

>>1868256
Jesus is born before Paul's epistles. Paul is called Saul before he converts to Jesus. Saul persecuted Christians before he met Christ.

Jesus is a moslem, a prophet in Islam. He is neither God nor God's son. He is just a normal people, but God give him a several special abilities. His other name is Isa ibn Maryam (or Mary or Siti Maryam). He is still alive right, the one who got killed was the traitor, God made the traitor faces look like Jesus, but in fact, God moved him to the Sky, when people wanted to catch him. He will return, with Imam Mahdi, this is not tale or lie, This is Prophercy..

>>1868278
Jesus never actually existed, bro

Paul was talking about a pre-existent revelatory celestial being who was never on Earth, he doesn't place this celestial being on Earth at all.

>>1868278
>Saul
Acts? Pffft, please

>>1868292
There is plenty of historical evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible, the Mara letter, the king letter, the alabaster box, Tacitus, Josephus, and there is plenty more, many independent of the Gospel.

Paul could not have invented Jesus because he killed Christians before he met Jesus.

>>1868294
Acts is relevant. Very good, and 2000 years old, closer to the time of Jesus and the Apostles, as opposed to this "new evidence he didn't exist 'bro'- >>1868292"

>>1868306
>many independent of the Gospel
Is that why they're all after 70AD?

Why do you people bullshit so much. I already covered Tacitus and Josephus.

>Very good, and 2000 years old
Sure thing, bro, whatever you want to believe, that's what you have to believe to keep your faith.

>>1868333
There are plenty of instances in history where the dates of the said person and the dates of that person have a wide gap. Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Caesar, Muhammad, Aristotle, this list could go on and on

Plato was said to exist and write about 400 years B.C. The earliest copies of his alleged writings that anyone knows of anywhere in the world are dated to 900 A.D.

So how is this 400 year gap more valid than a 40 year gap? Why don't people just accept that people pass down teachings?

I would rather believe in all the existing evidence from 2000 years ago, than someone on the internet who gives no actual evidence. I used to be convinced to that Jesus didn't exist, and then I started to do a lot of research. I used to tell people He didn't exist for a very long time.

>>1868343
1300 year gap*** oops

>>1865603
>Jews that followed Christ were called Christians, you dolt. They were persecuted by Jews who were not Christians.

>He doesn't even know about Chrestians.
Also, what would you call an American who followed Mormonism, if you lived in China circa 1842?

You'd call him an American. You probably wouldn't give a shit about his beliefs. "Jews" is a political and cultural name, they wouldn't care about their personal God and call them as such. Also, "Christians" wasn't even a thing until way later. Chrestians was the first, and it means something entirely different.

>>1868343
The fact that they're late matters only BECAUSE they're after the Gospels, no one was saying Jesus existed as a human being in the 40s, 50s and 60s unless you reinterpret Paul as someone who supports the notion of a historical Jesus when the evidence is looking more and more like he doesn't due to his lack of reference to any Jesus being on Earth

>>1868351
Judaism still existed in that time as did Christianity

>>1868361
When you read the Gospels and Epistles in Greek it is very clear they are talking about an actual person.

>>1865603
What do you call Muslims, friend?

Do you call them Sunnis, Shias, or Kharijites? Do you even know the difference? Or do you just not give a shit and just call them all Muslims?

Welcome to Rome's opinion on "the Jews."

>>1868373
If you actually knew Greek, you would see how much Mystery religion language Paul uses

If you actually knew Greek, you would see the problems in the Pauline narrative and contexts.

>>1868374
I call Muslims 'Moose limbs'

>>1868385
Mark isn't a really mystery text, its actually very straightforward, using Isaiah's prophecy to show us that John baptizes Jesus. There were other sects of Judaism during this time awaiting for Jesus. This text shows us a living Jesus who taught, died, and was not in His tomb and rose from the dead, like He said He would

Paul clearly talk about a person, and a spirit, when you look at the words in Greek it is very consistent.

Though, you are allowed to believe what you want, I can respect that even though there is plenty of evidence of a physical Jesus inside and outside the, someone will deny Jesus, though I don't agree with you, you are your own person and allowed to choose what you believe.

>>1868411
The mystery wasn't in the text, the text was written to hide the actual 'truth' of the matter that Jesus was a celestial being and Christianity was a mystery religion.

>>1868419
If they wanted to hide the text, they wouldn't have spread the Gospel so passionately. The actual truth of the matter is that Jesus lived as a person and died. Especially with the overwhelming evidence. Christ is a celestial being now, because He is totally risen, and Christ lived as a person as well.

>No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man

The Son of God came down from Heaven to the Earth as the Son of Man; you can't have one without the other.

>>1868436
Is that why Paul abhorred the worship of the human image and creations (preferably humans and animals) because he was an actual person in Paul's eyes.

File: Jesus was a kike.png (1016B, 128x18px) Image search: [Google]

1016B, 128x18px

>>1859695
yes

>>1868454
Paul says:

>21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
>22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
>23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

>>1868469
I know, he was talking about Rome and their statues and gods

>>1868475
Just like Mark is talking about a real person who taught in synagogues and healed people. Why would Pharisees and Herodias plot against someone who "wasn't real", and why would Nero persecute Christians if they " didn't exist" was he schizophrenic I don't see a historian who says so

Don't answer these questions because I'm sort of being sarcastic.

>>1868480
It's just a story, senpai. What are you talking about? It's a myth, it didn't actually happen, there's evidence of it being myth.

>>1868480
Nero didn't persecute Christians, that's Christian revisionist history, he most likely persecuted the Chrestians

>>1868488
By "evidence" you mean trolling?

>>1868493
Don't let a small mis-literation fool you. They say Jesus a lot but where is the J in Hebrew or Greek?

>>1868502
Jesus' Bethesda miracle was the author's way of saying "Look, we have this healer in our stories, he's better than Asclepius"

The Majis following the morning star was to mark the birth of Jesus as King.

Jesus' trial is supposed mark him as a Yom Kippur sacrifice as the scapegoat.

Jesus being buried in a tomb where the stone could roll away is to mark him being buried as a King.

There's probably more but I don't care to go through them. It's most likely that it was written as an allegory for a celestial Jesus, not a person.

>>1868502
It says Christ, not Jesus

>>1868509
That is the thing, Jesus life also reflects many of the Jewish holy days because He is their Messiah, though the only thing about associating these dates with the events of Jesus is that they are just associations.

You could say the color red represents Jesus, or you could say Jesus is represented by the color blue. It is just that, a mere association.

Also, Jesus travels a lot throughout the Bible, a lot of places, people, references to real people and places. It is really simple to understand that Jesus is also a person historically.

I could sit here and make associations all day, but that's all they are

>"But who do you say I am?" Peter answered "You are the Christ"

>>1868520
It's evidence that the shit is a narrative, not that he was their messiah, you fucking idiot.

>>1868523
It is definitely paraphrased, but how else would you describe something that happened 40 years ago.

>>1868531
In an actual historical sense, like Josephus did when he was talking about things like John the Baptist.

Also, the logic doesn't follow that just because the story was placed in a historical or real setting that the main character is real, that's like saying The Iliad proves the historicity of Hercules.

If got created dinosaur fossils and the earth isn't actually as old as it seems, how do I know got didn't just write the bible ten years before I was born and the bible isn't actually as old as it seems to be?

>>1868544
Good logic

>>1868540
Josephus mentions John the Baptist who is Jesus' cousin.

The logic does follow, you might not think so, but again, you are entitled to your own beliefs based off of your own analysis.

>>1868555
Pfffft, Jesus' cousin, nigga has all these historical people around him yet didn't make a single bit of noise. James the Just was supposedly his brother, John the Baptist was his cousin. Who else, bruh?

Fuck outta here, the baptism of Jesus was:
1. To explain what baptism was and why they do it
2. To say: "Hey, look, our guy got the pass from one of the famous guys named John the Baptist."

To say any of this is history, you'd have to be delusional.

>>1868563
To say it is historical, you would have to analyze it for yourself and come to that conclusion after researching it for yourself

>>1868575
I know the gospel of Matthew starts with a made up genealogy.

>>1868579
I know the gospel of Matthew starts with an actual genealogy.

>>1868584
You think the Christians would have preserved evidence of this actual genealogy, but that doesn't happen. It's safe to say there was no evidence for this genealogy.

>>1868591
I think it's safe to say that your personal belief is your own, and you are allowed to have it.

https://gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html

>>1862415