Historicity of Jesus

>>2580690
there's no actual evidence

but most people believe someone like him existed.

>>2580693
I read on here about at least one Roman scholar who had a first hand account of Jesus. Was that bunk or is there some truth to it? If possible, do you have any book recommendations that go over the lack of evidence, or maybe disprove common false evidence? Looking for anything I can get my hands on to start looking at the objective history, no matter how it might conflict with my Christianity.

>>2580698
we don't have any contemporary sources for Jesus, though Josephus and Tacitus are close. They're pretty much it other than Celsus's polemic against christianity which includes what is most likely just a rumor that Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier.

>>2580716
Interesting. Do historians generally consider Josephus and Tacitus reliable sources?

>>2580758
I don't know much about the scholarly opinions on the sources in general, but I do know about what they think about the passages on Jesus that each of them wrote. Tacitus is considered reliable because the passage is very anti-christian so it probably isn't a forgery. Josephus's passage is an obvious forgery that calls Jesus the Messiah but most scholars think that it has a core that Josephus did actually write but was heavily edited by Christian scribes.

Bart Ehrman wrote a book called "Did Jesus Exist?", Mostly in response to the new atheists that claim Jesus didn't exist. (He himself is an agnostic),

but basically the majority view among historians is that the historical Jesus did exist

>fucking beautifully handsome magical jew man turning water into wine and coming back from the dead

You'd think he'd have gotten more press

>>2580819
Thanks, I'll definitely check it out. Anything about the historiosity of the Bible/events of the Bible? I'm aware that the old testament Jewish migration and such is quite hotly debated and would greatly appreciate anything objective and historical on the subject, as well as the other events and claims of the bible.

>>2580833

Yeah but the argument isn't between "the gospels are completely true" and "Jesus isn't real".

Most serious (not crazy Christian evangelical) scholars think there was so kind of historical Jesus, a revolutionary or a preacher. That's not the same thing as all the stories that later got made up about him being true.

>>2580839
For the OT/Tanakh:

Two books from the 70s which called the historicity of the Pentateuch into question: John van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition and Thomas Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives.

Mario Liverani's Israel's History And the History of Israel. Liverani is a historian of the ancient Near East rather than a biblical scholar, so he places Israel in the archaeological and political context of the Near East.

David Carr's The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. Because the textual history of the Tanakh is as important as its historicity.

>>2580758
One of the mayor problems is time and scarcity of sources. There aren't more than a few lines of ancient writers about the historic figur of Jesus. So any conclusion you make is based on just a few lines, always in combination with jesus' legacy and the general picture of ancient society as a whole.

That being said, there is not only debate on did jesus really exist or not, there is (or at least was) some debate if certain pieces of text where indeed written by Tacitus, a student of his or a totally other person.

Lets remember we are talking about events that took 2000 years ago. It is a interesting question and certainly worth persuing. But it is also a question that never can be answered and that frustrates people.

Personally, I do belief that the historic figure existed. But I think the holy scriptures tried to give him a spin-off, quit succesfully so.

>>2580758
Some scholars think the bits in Josephus which discuss Jesus were later additions from Christian monks. Others do not. Some point out that Jesus was a pretty common name in 1st century Judea, and given the abundance of prophets at the time maybe it's coincidence.

>>2580868
He didn't existed and that's that, you inbred fucking cuck

shut the fuck and GTFO

>>2580833
>>2581306

It was Roman Iudea, stories about magical preachers, messiahs and other assorted nutcases came from there daily so no one cared. It just so happened Jesus managed to gain a following that peaked a few years after he carked it.

Also, most historians accept that a preacher named Jesus did exist in the area at the time, this isn't really a debate.

>>2580690
Bitch, untill the 1960's there wasn't even concrete historical evidence that Pontius Pilate existed.

>>2580716
>Jesus wad the bastard son of a Roman soldier
This explains a lot.

Jesus Christ was Julius Caesar

>>2580690
Just read the original sources yourself and make up your mind.

The fact that you can get through them in under 5 minutes should tell you enough tho.

You can't really make a historiographical argument for his non-existence. No academic takes the idea seriously.

File: jesuspas.jpg (437KB, 2048x1353px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 2048x1353px

>>2580690
Everything you want to know:

>https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion

I am somewhat read on the topic so I can try to answer your questions but you should read Ehrman and other authors for a thorough analysis.

>Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][33][34][35] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[36][37] However, there is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[38]

Jesus certainly existed. The Old Testament however is a lot more of a mixed bag. There isn't really a strong consensus on the historicity.

>>2580690
Jesus was real, he was just over exaggerated

>>2580690
There's just as little evidence for the existence of Socrates.

>>2580908
This is great, I'm making a shopping list and heading to the bookstore this weekend. Do you, or others, happen to know of accounts on the historicity of the New Testament? I'm looking for a wealth of information to submerge myself in, so if it is a little anti-christian that's fine, though I would prefer purely empirical writing.

>>2582422
Prinary sources:
>Socrates 3
>Jesus 0

>>2582019

There aren't any primary sources for Jesus' life.

>>2580690

The bible is not be fact, but it is definitely an historical source.

File: jjesus.jpg (18KB, 258x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 258x300px

How dare you, OP! Shame on you!

Jesus lives among us!

>>2580716
So, the greatest of the Roman historians wrote of Jesus.

Gee, I wonder if that's good enough for some autist on 4chan.

>>2583552
Yes, and the secondary sources aren't even enough to read when taking a shit, that is the point.

>>2580819
“Despite the enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea”

--Bart Ehrman (the autistic godless hack writer and shit textual critic)

>>2583552
Yeah, except for most of the bible, the most historically accurate book known to mankind.

Does it get tiring having to sharpen all that edge?

>>2580690
Yes, I know several. Unfortunately they're in Swedish and they suck.

>>2583572
>not fact
>still a source
A source for what?!?

>>2580819
"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"

--Bart Ehrman

It's like you don't know what your own source cites.

>>2583638

How do you even function?

>>2583647

You didn't read his post correctly, he wasn't saying there was no historical Jesus.

In fact virtually no one has said that in this thread.

>>2583638
The NT is not a primary source.

>>2580690
Hmmmm, let's see just who has written about this Jesus fellow over the past 2000 years.

Thallus (52AD)
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Phlegon (80-140AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Celsus (175AD)
Josephus (37-101AD)
Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)
Julius Africanus (c. 160 - c. 240)
Origen (c. 185 - c. 254)
Hadrian, emperor of Rome, 117-138 C.E
Maimonides 13th century

>>2583661
It's much easier to function when you don't have to continually keep your edges sharpened.

>>2583680
What year did Jesus die?

>>2583675
Matthew, apostle of Jesus, lived with him for 3 1/2 years.
Peter, apostle of Jesus, lived with him for 3 1/2 years.
John, apostle of Jesus, lived with him for 3 1/2 years.
Paul, apostle of Jesus, lived with him for up to 3 years.

First hand, eyewitness accounts.

Every single book in the New Testament is an eyewitness account of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but for Luke who said he made an orderly compilation of what other men wrote, and who also wrote the Acts of the Apostles after the resurrection.

James, half-brother of Jesus, wrote one book.
Jude, half-brother of Jesus, wrote one book.

In fact, you might be quite insane to stand for the proposition that none of the NT books are primary sources.

Quite insane indeed.

>>2583665
He did not put down his source's views. I did.

>>2583688
33AD if I remember correctly. Which means that according to that chart nobody wrote about him until 19 years had passed. Good evidence for his existence guys

>>2583683

That doesn't even make sense.

>>2583688
32 AD

Do historians write about the past, or the future?

Is it a shock to you to find out that historians write about the past?

File: vitruvianman.jpg (11KB, 216x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 216x300px

>>2580690

What's the question you're really asking? If I had to deduce the fundamental truth you're asking yourself I would say this:

"Iesus Christi" is literally God. The only question is if the historical personage of Jesus was God incarnate, the third part of the Holy Trinity. He probably was. The only thing is- in an age of scientific materialism- you can't prove it.

Regardless, I would hypothesize that God does indeed walk the earth, and may have had many incarnations as per the Hindu "Avatar mythos".

It would also not surprise me if Earth were the Center of the Universe.

>>2583704

He said...

>basically the majority view among historians is that the historical Jesus did exist

...learn how to read.

>>2583695
He meant that those aren't valid sources and everyone agrees to that. They're heavily biased

>>2583707
Relax. Take a break from the internet for a while. There's nothing that says you have to understand everything.

>>2583720
Differences were that the very real Jesus was fully human, while mythical Hindu avatars were not.

>>2583695

Even evangelical scholars don't back the claims you just made.

>>2583722
Learn some reading comprehension. I put down what Bart Ehrman's views were.

Not "among historians", you twit.

>>2583723
Oh, yes, let's find some unbiased historians to tell us about the most famous man who ever walked the earth.

Oh, shit, there are none.

What do?

>>2583736
Then they are either very immature Christians or educated but godless fools.

>>2583695
>book of Matthew
Not written by Matthew

>book of Mark
Not written by Mark

And so on.....

>>2583725

t. Ahmed

>>2583716
>Is it a shock to you to find out that historians write about the past?
No. But it is a shock that >>2583680 thinks he listed any primary sources.

>>2583739

Except the point Bart Ehrman made in his book was that the majority of scholars accept the historicity of Jesus.

And you attacked the poster for claiming Bart Ehrman said Jesus didn't exist, when the poster you attacked said the opposite, you blithering illiterate fruitcake.

>>2583751
Matthew. Written by Matthew.
Mark. Written by John Mark, from what Peter told him.

And so on.

>>2583755
Why would someone named Ahmed be claiming the Bible is the most historically accurate book in human history

>>2583765
The gospels are primary sources.

The bible is not being put up for peer review.

It is the Word of God. Deal with it on its terms, or not at all.

>>2583779

Islamo-Christians come out with all kinds of shit.

>>2583770
Reread the posts in question, and come to the opposite conclusion. Then slink away.

Relying on Bart Ehrman for any information on Jesus is a dubious proposition at best. May as well rely on Dan Brown.

>>2583786
Or you're just an idiotic asshole.

I vote that.

>>2583786
>Islamo-Christians
what

Islam and Christianity are two different religions. Why would a Muslim be defending the Bible

>>2583765
A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts

Matthew. Eyewitness. Wrote the gospel according to Matthew.

John Mark. Eyewitness. Was the little naked boy in the Gethsemene story. Wrote what Peter told him to write.

John. Eyewitness to the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, and also to the Second Coming as related in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul, converted on the Road to Damascus, spent years with Jesus in Arabia being taught the New Covenant. Another eyewitness to the risen Christ Jesus.

James, brother of Jesus, eyewitness.

Jude, brother of Jesus, eyewitness.

All.

Primary.

Sources.

File: 1484794956792.jpg (66KB, 628x617px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 628x617px

>>2583730

One can use advanced technology to do things that are beyond the comprehension of bronze aged peoples, while still being fully human. The questions would be: what really existed in human prehistory (Atlantis etc) that led to the formation of those "myths"; what is the truth behind the "stories". We know the "Great Flood" actually occured; whether advanced technology, or "magics" also existed in prehistory is another question entirely. Regardless of whether Jesus/avatars actually performed miracles is irrelevant to the fundamental question of the Christian Faith.... which is given the character of who "God" is; in a given circumstance "What would Jesus do"?

>>2583794
>>2583801

How are two different sects from the same branch of Judaism "different religions"?

>>2583791

You're an idiot, the poster you randomly attacked because you can't read properly was defending the historicity of Jesus and recommending a book on the subject.

Now shuffle off.

>>2583805

This is one of the most retarded things I have ever read on the internet.

>>2583821
One cannot create the universe, being fully human, no.

Jesus was as much man as though he were not God, but he is also as much God as though he were not man.

He did not start life conceived in his mother's womb like you and I.

He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the almighty, and creator of the universe.

The 330,000,000 Hindu gods are merely demons.

>>2583822
Both Islam and Judaism reject Jesus as God; so in that, they're very similar.

The quran actually affirms the bible as the Word of God, and expects the people of the book to follow it.

However, when pressed, the muslim will say that over time the bible was corrupted and can no longer be trusted to say what it used to say.

In that way Islam directly contradicts the heart of Christianity, the death and resurrection of the Son of God, Christ Jesus.

It is therefore another gospel about a different Jesus told to a man by an angel, and thus accursed.

>>2583774
Matthew
>Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.

Mark
>Most scholars also reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative

Luke
>The most probable date for its composition is around 80–100 AD, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.

John
>The Gospel of John is anonymous. Traditionally, Christians have identified the author as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned in John 21:24,[15] who is understood to be John son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. These identifications, however, are rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars.[1][16][Notes 5] Nevertheless, the author of the fourth Gospel is sometimes called John the Evangelist, often out of convenience since the true name of the author remains unknown.

Your bible may be Holy. It may be True. But it is, by definition, NOT a primary source.

>>2583848
Zero percent chance this is not a lie.

>>2583864
>Both Islam and Judaism reject Jesus as God

So do some branches of Christianity,

Orthodox Jews reject Jesus as God but both of the sects of Judaism termed Islamo-Christianity recognise Jesus as the Messiah.

>>2583866
Get your information from inspired sources. The Christian church for thousands of years has said that Matthew is the tax collector, who wrote about Jesus as the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the Lion, in Hebrew to the Hebrews. Hence a genealogy from Jesus' parents to King David, sidestepping the Jeconiah curse, to prove Jesus' claim to the throne is valid.

John Mark wrote Mark, next, not first, and depicted Jesus as the Ox, the Suffering Servant, from Peter's recollections and to the Romans. No genealogy, no birth, no death; nobody cares about those things with regard to servants.

Luke wrote of Jesus the Son of Man, giving a genealogy from Jesus all the way back to Adam, to the Greeks.

And John wrote of the Eagle, the Son of God, to the world.

All.

Primary.

Sources.

More and more early dating evidence puts the gospels in the 30's and 40's.

Your tired old wiki info is based on the gospels not mentioning the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and their attempt to distance the writing of the gospels as far away from the events as possible.

Because that's what godless people do.

>>2583885
Ignore that cunt with the RPG prose you replied to.

Islam fundamentally denies the current Bible's authenticity. Therefore, it would be contradictory to find a devout Muslim defending the current Bible as the most historically accurate book in man's history.

Similarly, you can find some Protestants who think the Bible was messed up by the Catholics--it would be just as ludicrous for someone to hold that claim yet tout the Bible as the unaltered word of God, or a practicing Jew to do the same.

>>2583885
Then it isn't a branch of Christianity, but only claims to be.

Look, neither the Jews nor Muslims admit that they have no God. They both think they worship the one true God.

Neither one in fact does.

If you have the Son, Jesus, you have the Father as well. If you do not have the Son, neither do you have the Father.

For Jews and Muslims to be saved, they must confess that Jesus is Lord, believing in their hearts God raised him from the dead, like anybody else.

and then they're no longer Jews and Muslims, which is a huge problem for both groups.

>>2583906
>inspired sources
Is this code for 'sources that meet my confirmation bias'

>>2583909
Papist bullshit spotted. Hellbound whore worshiper noted and discarded.

Bye papist. See you never!

Why the hell hasn't our proddieposter been banned? Don't we have rules against shitposting?

>>2583923
No, it's code for "godless people have zero chance of understanding the things of God".

It's like we found a race of Martians, and instead of asking a Martian about their culture, you asked an Australian about Martian culture.

>>2583929
Didn't you just answer your own question?

>>2583917
>Thou shalt not have any gods before Me.
>Except my son, who is also me at the same time. And my spirit or something. But they're all still me, because some old Latin fellas decided this was the right version of Christianity. And if this doesn't make sense to you, I will burn you in hellfire for all eternity.

File: 4chanposter.jpg (8KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x168px

>>2583866

I mean what do you expect? A signed letter to future generations?

>"Hey guys, I'm Jesus Christ, totally God and the Son of God. "

>Signed, IC

>>2583805
>In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.
Write for me an account of something you personally experienced a few years ago: not a primary source.

>>2583943
The "me" is Jesus.

>>2583947
Two years ago, I wrote to a godless shit head that his knowledge of the gospels was absolute and utter trash.

Oh, wait, that was today.

>>2583925
I'm not religious, just going off what I hear from Christians in Texas.

Also
>whore worshipper
What did you mean by this?

>>2583917
>Then it isn't a branch of Christianity, but only claims to be.

Opinion discarded. There are multiple branches of Christianity and no one has the authority, let alone some nobody on a Korean messaging forum, to decide which ones "aren't Christianity".

>>2583909

The bible isn't single book, it is an enormous collection of writings and Islam backs most of it but says there has been some corruption.

>>2583948
Then who did he spend his time praying to? Also why did he talk about himself in the third person constantly?

>>2583948
Patripassian heretic! BURN IN HELL!

>>2583960
The RCC is the Whore of Babylon, and they worship the Queen of Heaven.

Nobody but papists call Christians "Protestants".

>>2583961
Actually, I do.

>>2583906
Even if Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke, etc. That is still all AFTER THE FACT and therefor NOT a primary source.

Learn2definition

>>2583965
The trinity is relational even within himself. The Son prayed to the Father, and the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father.

>>2583968
Learned a new word today! Woot! This is just Sebellianism (sp) by another name.

Not modes, persons. At the baptism of Jesus, the Son of God was baptized; the Father spoke from heaven; the Holy Spirit lit on the Son like a dove.

All at the same time.

>>2583961
>Islam backs most of it
It really doesn't. The pecking order is as follows:

Quran > Sunnah > Bible

The rule of thumb is, so long as it doesn't contradict the former two things, its fine to practice it but it is not considered a protected book, much like the Sunnah

>>2583976
I posted the definition above. It includes eyewitness accounts.

A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. Primary sources include historical and legal documents...

File: 1477802536501.jpg (804KB, 1200x1528px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 1200x1528px

>>2583981

>The human who's "higher self" is the apex of the pyramid.

>>2583944
>I mean what do you expect? A signed letter to future generations?
No. Any document from the lifetime of Jesus would do.

>>2583988
>Implying I'm going to listen to a filthy heretic.
>Implying that there is no difference between Patripassianism and Sabellianism.
>Implying you're not going to hell for your grave heresy.

Repent or roast. It's all the same to me. But in an what I am sure is a futile effort to save your soul, consider the ramifications of your statements. If the "Me" that spoke to the Hebrews is Jesus, the Son, than equally so, it's God the Father who was crucified. If you believe this twaddle, you're on a one way trip to the lake of fire.

>>2583995
>It includes eyewitness accounts.
Only when written at the time. Not a decade later.

>>2583992
>It really doesn't. The pecking order is as follows:
>Quran > Sunnah > Bible
>The rule of thumb is, so long as it doesn't contradict the former two things, its fine to practice it but it is not considered a protected book, much like the Sunnah

Even ignoring the vast number of different schools of scholarship in Islam that doesn't even dispute the point I made that you greentexted "Islam backs most of it".

File: 1478165654833.png (303KB, 600x521px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 600x521px

>>2584003

I don't think the message of Jesus centered around his personal documentation of it anon.

>>2583981
So then it's no more monotheistic than Hinduism
>nah brah Krishna and Vishnu are the same God, just different aspects xxd

>>2584026
I'm speaking generally about scholars. And it absolutely refutes your point; simply because Islam is neutral doesn't mean it backs it. That's like saying Islam backs fuckin Jamba Juice because it isn't against Islamic law to go there.

>>2580690
i'm gonna make a chart on this eventually OP so keep on the lookout

>>2584043

Islam backs Jesus as the Messiah, Moses is backed. Adam and Eve are backed.

>>2584003
kek

No it wouldn't. You'd bullshit that away too, which is your prerogative.

>>2584009
The Son was crucified because the Father could not be.

You know some very big words, but have a very small god.

>>2584011
>All eyewitnesses throughout history have been taking dictation.

>>2584088
>The Son was crucified because the Father could not be.

Good, you've managed to get one thing right today. And if you're acknowledging the seperation of the Son and Father on the Cross, why can't you do it at Sinai? I realize that heresy rots the brain, but try to shake loose of it. It's quite important.

>>2584029
Some Hinduism is monotheistic. It's a right mess.

The trinity is God. One God.
Father is God.
Son is God.
Spirit is God.
One God.

>>2584070
Islam does not put any weight into the word "messiah" other than "leader".

And Islam denies the divinity of Jesus Christ while worshiping the devil himself.

>>2584094
Any separation you think there is, is in your mind.

>>2584070
Yes all of them were mentioned directly in the Quran. Most biblical prophets were mentioned in either the Quran or Hadith, most times with hugely different stories. Ergo, the modern bible is not taken seriously in Islamic scholarship. Yes, both religions accept Lot as a prophet, but Islam rejects that his daughters got him drunk and raped him, as an example.

>>2584099
Nope, I'm just guided well enough to avoid heresies that are literally millenia old. I'm sorry that your pastor isn't up to the task.

>>2584098

It means "messenger" not "leader" and Islam has Jesus as the most significant part of its eschatology.

>>2584098
Messiah has the same meaning in arabic as in English or Hebrew. Isn't lying a capital sin in Christianity?

With that said, your pagan idolatry is detested in your own books. 'Judge not lest ye be Judged,' and all that

>>2584118
Well, twice you've accused me of believing things I do not believe, and twice you have not understood the rationale behind your own false accusations.

So play with all the words you want; when you stand before God, be prepared to answer for them.

>>2584095
>1+1+1=1
Truly sets the neurons ablaze

>>2584122
"Messiah" in Hebrew means "Anointed One".

You, being a muslim, have no concept of what that entails.

Angel means messenger.

Islam has fanfic where Jesus comes back from heaven to fight the bad guy with the islamic good guy.

Turns out the bad guy is islamic.

Have you not noticed that even in your fanfic, the countries that Jesus and the al Mahdi fight against are ISLAMIC countries?

>>2584139

1 x 1 x 1 = 1

I can do this all day.

>>2584129
>Well, twice you've accused me of believing things I do not believe,

So you're a liar? Because you quite clearly said that the Decalogue was done by the Son.>>2583948 Therefore, you believe in at the very best a very fuzzy level of distinction between Father and Son, which means that yes, you are a Patriapassianist, and therefore a heretic, and therefore will burn in the lake of fire.

>>2584140
You're an idiot.

Masih (مسيح) means the same thing in Arabic as Messiah. Anointed one, Christ, so on.

Angels are called by several names (ruh, mala'ika, messenger in certain scenarios)

Also I hate to break this to you but your entire religion is a fanfic of Judaism and Roman paganism.

>>2584146
The Father is in the Son; the Son is in the Father; they are bound by the Holy Spirit.

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

Your inability to understand my answers about the one true God reflect on you, not me.

There's not an old guy and a young guy and a dove in heaven; there's Jesus.

>>2584163
I hate to break this to you, but Paul predicted your antichrist leader and accursed religion:

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Hmmmm, even if an "angel from heaven" were to teach it....it is still accursed.

Say, wasn't it an angel who taught Mohammad a different gospel about a different Jesus, who is not God, did not die on a cross, and did not rise from the dead?

>>2583630
Of course it's not. It's not even good enough for most historians, for several reasons.

>>2584165
>The Father is in the Son; the Son is in the Father

Confirmed Heretic. Enjoy burning.

>>2584144
Touché

Still, the trinity is a meme propagated by later scholars, and has no root in the Old Testament

>>2584175
Paul is not a prophet. His is not the word of God. Enjoy hellfire, as you would say.

>>2584179
Best of the Roman Historians, ousted by an asshole on 4chan.

kek

>>2584180
Heretic, for believing what the bible says.....what Jesus says....

kek

John 14
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?

The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

You were saying, o lost one?

File: Aishwarya_Rai.jpg (59KB, 431x604px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 431x604px

>>2584140
>>2584116

Look guys. You are just going to have to put your feet in someone else's shoes for once and stop thinking your tiny little trivial arguments between different sects make a difference.

Islam backs....

a) Adam and Eve
b) Moses
c) Abraham
d) Every other single prophet in Judaism / Islamo-Christianity
e) That Jesus is the Messiah
f) That the NT and the Tanakh / OT are holy books
g) That monotheism is correct and that Yahweh / Allah is the one true god.

Islam doesn't back (for example)...

1) that all religions are bullshit
2) Hinduism
3 ) Buddhism
4 ) That the Greco-Roman pantheon are gods

...etc etc etc etc etc, I could give non-stop examples.

Face it. Islamo-Christianity is a renegade sect of Judaism. You're just going to need to live with that fact and stop pretending these teeny-tiny trivial nothings should actually mean something to the rest of us.

>>2584183
John 1:1 says that the Word (Jesus) was with God and was God.
In John 10:30 Jesus said that He and the Father are one.
In John 14:9 He said that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father.
In Colossians 1:15 Paul wrote that Jesus is the (visible) image of the invisible God.
In Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is called the exact representation of God’s glory
In Hebrews 1:8 God Himself called Jesus God.
God’s Spirit is presumed to be one and the same with God just as your spirit is presumed to be one and the same with you. So if God and Jesus are one and the same, and God and His Spirit are one and the Same, then the three are one.

There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5-6). Yet there are three persons presented as deity in Scripture: the Father (John 6:27; Colossians 1:3), the Son (John 1:1-3, 14; 8:24; 20:28-29; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12) and the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Samuel 23:2-3; 2 Corinthians 3:18). Lastly, these three are presented as distinct persons (John 8:16-18; Luke 11:1; 3:21-22; Galatians 4:6). Thus from Scripture we learn that although there is one God, there are three distinct persons who are deity. So the Trinity is the biblical position to hold to once one examines what Scripture teaches.

>>2584199
Got worse news for you. Not only was Mohammad not a prophet, but he's an antichrist son of the devil himself.

You'd think that noting that he was a psychotic murderous raping pedophile with zero prophecies would tip you off.

>>2584253
There are only two elements to Christianity.

1. The divinity of Jesus Christ; and
2. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Islam directly contradicts both. They don't get brownie points for knowing about Adam and Eve.

>>2584252
>Heretic,

Yes, you are. Repent or burn. The Father wasn't on the Cross. The Son wasn't at Sinai. It's that simple.

>>2584269

Even some Hindus recognise the divinity of Jesus.

Shittiest definition I ever heard and just another trivial non-point.

>>2584275
kek

Read John 14 again, polytheist.

>>2584292
I don't really care what Hindus du or du not du.

If they want to be saved, they have to leave their 330,000,000 demon gods, confess out loud that Jesus is Lord, and believe in their hearts God raised him from the dead. Then they'll be Christians, and not Hindus.

>>2584275
>>The Father is in the Son; the Son is in the Father
>Confirmed Heretic. Enjoy burning.

John 14

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?

>>2584275

Is John the beloved apostle and Revelator an heretic, o wise one and user of fifty cent words?

>>2584308
>I don't really care what Hindus du or du not du.

Yes my point exactly, you aren't able to think outside of your tiny little Islamist bubble and imagine teeny-tiny little differences in your Islamo-Christianity make a difference to everyone else.

>>2584302
>>2584315
>>2584319

Defensive, aren't we heretic? 3 posts in 3 minutes. Yes, you're a heretic. The Father is distinct from the Son. I'm sorry that you're going to burn, but you can be saved, if you only have the humility to realize you've been led astray.

Also, you might want to read John a bit more closely. Maybe even in Greek, it might help. Saying that the route to the Father is through the Son is not saying the Father IS the Son.

>>2584253
Way to completely side step my points cunt

>>2584263
Someone hasn't read the Old Testament
Far worse shit there bud

>>2583508
Socrates didn't leave any writings, though. We only have secondhand accounts from his followers, just like with Jesus.

>>2584335

Don't cry about the fact I completely destroyed you by focusing on what is significant rather than your trivial nothings.

At least save some minor amount of dignity for yourself.

>>2584308
>confess out loud that Jesus is Lord
Why do you tards think you need to say "I accept Jesus" out loud to be saved? Why can't I think it? It's not a magic spell. Jesus isn't a talisman deity like Abraxas.

>>2584322
I have nothing but contempt for Islam.

>>2584332
So John the beloved apostle and Revelator was wrong, Jesus was wrong, and you are right.

kek

>>2584344
Not done by anyone considered a "holy man" or "the perfect man".

>>2584470
Nope. John is right. YOU are wrong, in large part because you clearly don't understand John.

>>2584388
You couldn't even reproduce it properly in writing. You even quoted me, then changed it to "I accept Jesus".

You're dealing with supernatural things, and they are beyond you. People can only be saved by asking for God's assistance, which he readily and speedily gives.

In other words, a non-believer cannot confess with his mouth, that is to say out loud, that Jesus is Lord, and believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead.

Cannot do it. Supernaturally impossible.

>>2584464

Please tell me more about how much you hate Jesus and God.

>>2584478
>John 14
>Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?

Gee, that seems like exactly what I said. And what John wrote. And what Jesus said.

What was it you believed was wrong about that again?

>>2584493
Love Jesus, who is God; hate allah/satan.

>>2584501

That doesn't even make sense, how can you claim God is Satan and that you love and hate him at the same time?

>>2584513
God is God.

satan is satan. Many people call satan "allah". they don't get a vote. he's still satan.

>>2584513
God is Love.

satan is the greatest of the deceivers.
allah is the greatest of the deceivers.

Gee, I sure hope that clears things up for you, you little truth seeking muslim you.

>>2584519

Unless your next post actually refutes any of this >>2584253 without pretending tiny differences in Islamo-Christian dogma are significant or referencing a single credible Arabic-English dictionary that translates the Arabic word for God i.e. Allah as "Satan" in English then I am done with you, kid.

No more "yous" for butthurt, rekt, nonsense posters.

>>2584544
You'd make a better post, sport, by finding out that the papists invented Islam to retake Jerusalem.

Because I already gave you the two, and only two, pillars of Christianity, both of which Islam violates.

That's a 100% violation. You cannot violate anything more than 100%.

kek

>>2583680
>Thallus
Your earliest source doesn't mention JC at all.

>>2584582

He was the Bart Ehrman of his day. Still wrote about Jesus.

Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD quotes Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

(Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

See, solar eclipses don't tend to cause earthquakes, or Roman centurions realizing they had crucified the Son of God.

Mark 15:39 So when the centurion, who stood opposite Him, saw that He cried out like this and breathed His last, he said, “Truly this Man was the Son of God!”

>>2584582
>Your logical fallacy we call "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." See? You learned something today!

>>2584619
That's an eclipse. Not Jesus. Nowhere is Jesus mentioned.

Wait a minute, if you're lying about this one, what about the oth...

>>2584628
There are loads of classical authors who didn't write about the flying spaghetti monster as well,.

>>2584634
That's what Thallus tried to say it was.

Julius Africanus obviously disagreed.

Both men wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Are you this obtuse on non-religious matters as well?

>>2584637
With very good reason. Some people actually enjoy growing up.

>>2584654
Listen, thickee god botherer:

We only have the 9th-century Christian chronologer George Syncellus citing Sextus Julius Africans referencing a historical eclipse, which he attributes to Thallus.

If you think this counts as a primary source mentioning JC, you're a dullard.

>>2584660
You're the one that needs a magical sky daddy to give his life some meaning, dickhead. You grow up.

>>2584494

>Gee, that seems like exactly what I said

Nnnnope. Because what you said is that Jesus IS the Father and the Father IS Jesus. >>2584165

Which is not, of course, what John 14 says, that the two can be found within one another. It's not secret that within the Trinity, there is relation. So tell me, why are you falling for heresies that are literally millennia old? It really is a shame. You've collapsed right at the finishing line, but you'll burn all the same as the worst pagan idolater.

>>2584223
>But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

This is literally the only thing Tacitus says on Christ. And again, even Christian scholars have a hard time counting this as any kind of definitive proof on the historicity of Christ.

>>2584743
>The Father is in the Son; the Son is in the Father; they are bound by the Holy Spirit.

Fucking liar.

>>2584787
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

In this account, Tacitus confirms several historical elements of the Biblical narrative: Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.

Fucking liar.

>>2584799
>Is in= IS

A baby is her mother! Your gleaner bacteria are you! An office cubicle is a building! A passenger is an airplane! Sarcasm aside, you are a heretic, and will burn eternally unless you can crawl away from your false teachings and embrace the Lord.

>>2584803
No. Apart from confirming Nero's persecution of Christians after 64AD (when Tacitus was a young boy, probably living in northern Italy), it only confirms that Tacitus knew the story the "hideous and shameful" early Christians promulgated and saw no particular reason to doubt the basic outline. He's obviously hazy about the whole thing, though, since he gets Pilate's rank wrong.

So, while this passage is evidence of a historical Jesus, it is neither a primary source nor absolute proof.

>>2584865
Further, Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus by name. This is more evidence that he is repeating stuff he knows about abominable Christians, their origins, and their beliefs, rather than stuff he knows to be historical fact.

Excuse me if this is a stupid question, but if Jesus didn't exist then how did Christianity manage to survive its early stages? There were plenty of Jewish apocalyptic preachers in the region at the time yet only the followers of Jesus seem to have made a serious impact. If he didn't exist (whether he was the Son of God is another matter) surely Christianity would have had a hard time gaining followers and would've died out pretty quickly instead of becoming the world's largest religion. It sounds so stupidly simple when I put it like that but I'm genuinely interested in some responses to this. I mean, was it really that easy just to make up some bullshit and spread it around?

>>2585162
It was likely a jewish mystery cult that opened it's doors to the goyim.

Of course, Roman slaves latched onto the idea of eternal life in return for faith, so christianity spread.

>>2585162
And they wouldn't go on to make a serious impact for decades after the original founding of Christianity, whether by Jesus or by someone else. And remember, Christianity was never that big among Judaism itself. Even in their own scriptures, Acts says there were about 120 families holding to the faith after years of preaching and about a yearish post Jesus's death. That's pretty much nothing.

Christianity only got big when you had Paul and his preaching to the gentiles.

>>2585162
I think this is probably correct, anon, and I lean towards Jesus having been a real person. The self righteous prick with his dodgy sources posing as hard proof triggered me, though, and I felt compelled to point out their equivocal nature.

I think there's another piece of evidence that indicates Jesus was real (as you say, son of god and all that aside) and it's in the Bible.

The author of the Gospel of Luke uses the census of Quririnius (6AD).as a way to get Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5). But Herod the Great (quite a big part of the story) died 10 years earlier than that census was taken (4 BC).

Also, there's only very tenuous support for the idea of a census requiring people to travel to complete it. What would be the point? Lots of disruption while everyone ups sticks and toddles off to their ancestral home for what? Couldn't that information be more easily collected by adding a 'where do you originally come from' question? No, usually, when someone decides to conduct a census it is because they want to know how things are in the present for earthly purposes.

So, the writer of Luke is involved in a very insistent and difficult fudge designed to get Jesus of Nazareth born in the city of David. My question is, why bother? If Jesus is a made up person, why not just make him up as being from Bethlehem? No, I think they were shoehorning a real preacher into messianic sandals.