Daily reminder that /pol/ is a Christian board and no amount

File: bad-myth-jesus-never-existed-and-cant-return.jpg (128KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 720x479px

Daily reminder that /jesus/ wasn't even a real person.

Even St Paul didn't believe it.

File: image.jpg (78KB, 630x458px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 630x458px

>Buddhists kill Muslims in Myanmar
>Hindus kill Muslims in India
>Atheist Slobodan Milošević BTFOs Muslims the hardest in recent European history
>Christians bomb his country into oblivion to save them
>Christians get on their knees and kiss Muslim feet
How do Templarps even compete?

>>135985840
ok, now you are just making an ass out of yourself.
Even if you do not believe in any miracles of Jesus or that he was the Son of God.
Jesus did exist and he did go around preaching and was executed on a torture stake. We have many different non-biblical sources for this

>>135986060
>We have many different non-biblical sources for this

Yeah, but unfortunately they were all written in the mid-to-late 2nd century, long after the Gospels.

I keep seeing this painting, anyone know the name? The painter?

>>135986140
so?

File: image.png (586KB, 1195x979px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 1195x979px

>>135985716
AMEN!

PRAISE THE SON AND ALL GLORY BE TO OUR CREATOR IN HEAVEN!

>>135986248
>so?

So they're just copying what the gospels say, aren't they?

YHWHist monotheism is literally Jewish trash. Rid yourself of these Semitic nonsenses.

>>135985716
also this:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/did-jesus-exist/

Read up on the quoted article from "Jesus and Archaeology" and "Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition"

>>135986377
A heathen author would rather disembowel themselves than copy from those filthy atheist christians. (speaking from the point of view of a non-christian at the time)

>>135986263
I want Christ chan to give me a bare bottom spanking over her knee

File: Vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg (32KB, 220x425px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 220x425px

>>135986430
Can you please stop calling Christianity Jewish trash?


Jesus was a jew but he wasn't from the synagogue of satan that we see to day in the elite jews. He called those jews and they hated him for it so much they killed him.

We need society to start being more accepting of Christian morals - even if you don't believe in God.

File: Accolade_by_Edmund_Blair_Leighton.jpg (2MB, 2329x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2329x4000px

>>135986224
hyperrealism of knights and stuff: Prime suspect is always Edmund Leighton

>>135985840
It's still ridiculous to me that people think this is true.

>>135986499

>Do Scholars Believe That Jesus Existed?

We don't know because 90% of them are contractually obliged to "believe" that Jesus existed.

>Read up on the quoted article from "Jesus and Archaeology" and "Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition"

The research has improved a little since 2002, my friend.

>>135986787
>We don't know because 90% of them are contractually obliged to "believe" that Jesus existed.

Could you show us these contracts or are you just bullfighting now?

>>135986780

>It's still ridiculous to me that people think this is true.

You believe in a talking snake. Your standard or what justifies ridicule is pretty low.

>>135986787
Look, the world is not american. Most of the "western" world is deeply atheistic.
They are under no such obligation, and even for the USA this is deep within conspiracy theory territory.

>The research has improved a little since 2002, my friend.
Archeology and History? Certainly not. 15 years are absolutely nothing in this field.

And of course: [Citation needed]

>If you don't engage my circular reasoning sophistry then you r dum XDD

Provide empirical evidence for your claim you sperg. Quit constructing silly strawmen about evil atheist plebbit liberals to fuel your victim complexes.

>>135986870
>bullfighting

dammit autocorrect. Meant "bullshitting".

>>135986870
>Could you show us these contracts
We'd like to see them, but the Christian colleges refuse to show them.

It's bad PR to admit that you're tyrannical.

>>135986711
Is there a sect of christianity that really loves the jews? I know someone who says their christian and is ridiculously brainwashed when it comes to the jews. Basically sees themselves as lesser to the "chosen people" and must serve them.
I really wish I was joking and it makes me nervous about the religion in general could it just be their specific church that is comprised?

>>135986894
>And of course: [Citation needed]

Citation provided. A serious reader ought to have read Randal Helms, too.

File: scale.jpg (148KB, 943x613px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 943x613px

Recently discovered Cicero's De Oficiis. This was considered the second most important moral text behind only the bible for a great deal of Christendom.
Its rediscovery by the Jesuits sparked the Italian renaissance.
It was the second book published by the Gutenberg Press after the Bible.

It remained the central text of educational theory until the humanists got rid of rhetoric and logic (which their ideology can't withstand).

It's a great read and incredibly red-pilled.

>>135986877
?
But I don't. Nor does my church teach it. Mate, 4chan Christians are largely Catholic/Orthodox. You really need to get on the ball before you start assuming what others believe.

File: historicity.jpg (33KB, 372x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 372x400px

>>135987093
Oops forgot pic

Pic related

File: cease.jpg (20KB, 326x322px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 326x322px

>>135986518

>>135986430
28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

File: 1-Gethsemane-and-the-mountain.jpg (129KB, 903x600px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 903x600px

>>135986937
So you're bullshitting without any known evidence about the state of 90% of scholars?

Who
Would
Have
Thought.

File: Yaqui-Flag-pascua yaqui.png (111KB, 312x202px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 312x202px

>>135985954
That's not a Pope. It just thinks it's a Pope. Catholic weekly giving has fallen to an all-time low in rebellion against this popelette. This popelette speaks contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church in his casual speech: makes poorly catechized Catholics think they should agree with him, or not good Catholics. Not true.
He is entitled his own globalist musdick sucking opinion, but it's not Ex-Cathedra nor Encyclical. Catholics are fully entitled to tell him to shove his Merkel-sucking opinion up his arsey.

>>135987204
19 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.

2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.

4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!

6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;

9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Jesus is so gay he had extra holes added just to get those extra cocks through him.

>>135987119
If you don't believe in the Genesis creation story, then you presumably believe there was no original sin

If you don't believe in original sin, then you presumably don't believe that Jesus died to atone for our sins

That's a pretty strange kind of Christian belief, friend.

>>135987267
12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.

20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

File: Jesusjew.jpg (116KB, 930x657px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 930x657px

>>135985716
Ok, I dont care sandnigger Christcuck

>>135986937
>muh nonexistence of proof is a proof

Now you are just being silly.

>>135987093
>>135987125
a whole book is not a source. Thats just chaff you dump in front of me to keep me busy, hoping to delay me calling out your BS.

Give precise source.

>>135987018
usually some protestant groups, but even they do not fulfill all those characteristics.
This is another consequence of not studying the bible correctly, otherwise they would realize that it clearly says that the Jews stopped being Gods people when they killed Jesus, and officially when the Romans destroyed the temple.

It does not advocate antisemitism either however.

>>135987274
this.
Without Genesis the whole Bible is just a bunch of fables.
"The whole bible is inspired by God and useful for the teaching, for correcting..." (source: I forgot, something by Paul Im sure)

>>135985716
>people still reply to this copypasta

>>135987272
mohammed was a false prophet
muslims should be fed into tree mulchers
Christianity is superior and The True Faith
Islam stole everything from the Jews

File: mything.jpg (20KB, 231x346px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 231x346px

>>135987216
Evidence was published in pic related. So you can stop taking that line of argument, now.

File: potash-ponds-utah-5.jpg (176KB, 450x800px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 450x800px

>>135987274
>If you don't believe in the Genesis creation story, then you presumably believe there was no original sin

When in the world did I say I denied the Genesis creation story? Holy shit man do as I said and stop assuming what I or my church thinks. You don't know what any Christians believe besides Evangelical Protestants, it looks like. Stop assuming.

And please don't try to peddle a literal/metaphorical dichotomy wherein trying to understand texts here either, like you're implying.

File: 1501622257772.gif (938KB, 500x288px) Image search: [Google]

938KB, 500x288px

>>135987018
The catholic church is likely compromised, I have no idea about Orthodox.

As for the Protestant branch - yes - many churches are corrupted but they tend to have medium to small sized churches.

For example the baptists, in one town the baptists may accept homosexuals - while if you travel 15 minutes north to the next town, the baptists pray that homosexuals go to hell.

I'm a non-denominational, non-trinitarian but I lean Protestant as I don't believe in praying to statues or saints or anything like that.

I just read my bible, pray and try to lead the best life I can free from sin.

>Revelation 3
"“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.

I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

>>135987566
again: whole books are not a source.
They are, at best, a distraction.
Give an exact source.

>>135987459
>Give precise source.

Give a precise source for what? I'm sitting in my library right now. I can give you the sources for anything you want.

File: 55ba6c451400002e002e16e9.jpg (77KB, 630x630px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 630x630px

>>135987566
>Some book says my argument and gives the evidence so it's valid, I promise

You're bullshitting. No need to hide it.

File: White Evangelican Couple Adopts African Triplets.jpg (127KB, 634x634px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 634x634px

>>135985716
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3I3B6yGLU
Christianity is a cult of death. Sending your daughters to be raped, dividing the family brother against sister, and slaying nonbelievers at the sword are all statutes I am very happy to be uninvolved with.
I hope you never blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, because that is the only foul thing you can do which can't be forgiven. I wonder why so many shitskin rapists and murders in prison claim to be Christian? Heh. I suppose the Bible has something for everyone--even degenerates.
>"Shut up faggot! Us Christians need to unite Europa and flush the negroes out of our lands!"
Africa wouldn't be so populated if it weren't for all the Christian boomers who ceaselessly lent them food and money. But you're probably on good terms with them.

>>135987776
page number, chapter, line, sentence.

Im not going to dump the bible in front of you either when you demand evidence for God and Jesus, even though there is plenty inside.
Thats because I do not demand from anyone to read through 1600 pages.

>>135987997
>page number, chapter, line, sentence.

I mean, source for what claim? It's not clear to me, what you're asking to see.

File: iBqZlboGH5M.jpg (64KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x376px

>>135985716
It's not my fault I don't believe. It's hard to make a non-believer believe by saying "The bible says so" or appealing to ignorance. Even harder if you only use fedora memes.

>>135988156
Of the claims that you made in your original post here:

>>135986787
>Do Scholars Believe That Jesus Existed?

>We don't know because 90% of them are contractually obliged to "believe" that Jesus existed.

>Read up on the quoted article from "Jesus and Archaeology" and "Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition"

>The research has improved a little since 2002, my friend.

Certainly this book was to show that they are more than just crackpotty conspiracy theories

File: the baseball man.jpg (12KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x250px

>>135985716
Christians are simply to cucked to admit that philosophy and science are superior to superstition.
>Inb4 book proves x is correct
>mfw Christians can only respond to criticism by citing their book or how nice European churches looked after the tribal barbarians and Vikings died
>Inb4 I'm just pigeon holing and all of you in fact actually respect European tradition and rational conclusions and blah blah blah

>>135988674
>>The research has improved a little since 2002, my friend.

You want me to show evidence that the field of history has progressed since 2002? I don't even know how to answer that one, other than by pointing you to your local academic bookshop and inviting you to read anything published since 2003.

>>135989144

Wait, so those books you posted here were just for fun, not actually related to the discussion at all?

>>135985716
Your god is a liar. Creator he may be, he is created, and is the last in line to claim your soul. His teachings are corrupt, parroted and paraphrased from the truth, and further twisted by man, a devilish, impure creature created in his DARK SPIRIT, not image.

For all intents and purposes, your god is more likely to raise your soul to be devoured, rather than to raise your soul to ascend and be his peer.

>>135989264
>Wait, so those books you posted here were just for fun, not actually related to the discussion at all?

Oh, for a moment there, I thought you were being serious. Blimey!

I can help you with the archeology, though. There isn't diddly squat, never has been. This applies to most of the Old Testament, too.

>>135989401
>Your god is a liar. Creator he may be, he is created, and is the last in line to claim your soul.

You know that heavy metal songs aren't literal statements of truth... right?

>>135989522
Im just going to file you under T for Trolls then as apparently none of your posts had anything to do with the topic at hand wether or not Jesus existed. Yet you caused me to respond to you.
Well rused my friend, have an upvote.

>>135989401
well thanks to the dead sea scrolls we know that his words have not been twisted in the last 2100 years at least.

>>135989803
>none of your posts had anything to do with the topic at hand wether or not Jesus existed.

Even if he existed, no accounts of his life have survived.

Worse still, the only surviving Christian writings from the 1st century that might have commented on his life (the authentic Pauline epistles) don't mention it even once. Even worse than that, Paul explicitly denies any knowledge of Jesus other than by hallucination in Galations 1:12.

This argument is easily falsifiable. Just produce a contemporary document mentioning an earthly Jesus. (Protip, you can't.)

>Galatians 3:28

>There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus

Daily reminder that christians arent allowed to get mad if their daughter comes home with a christian Jamal

>>135990032
>Even if he existed, no accounts of his life have survived.
We call them the gospels.
Now of course no "original" account has survived because everyone back then wrote on super thin leather (pergament) or papyrus. None of which would survive 2000 years.
Let me give you an example of other things we do not have accounts of either:

Roman legionaires received 4 times a year a small receipt with their name, rankt payment received etc. from Rome. We estimate that over the course of the Roman emipre, at least 500 million of those strips have been issued.
Out of those 500 million, 3 have been recovered (3, not 3 million). Out of those 3 only 1 was fully readable.

Does that mean Roman Legions never existed?

>Worse still, the only surviving Christian writings from the 1st century that might have commented on his life (the authentic Pauline epistles) don't mention it even once. Even worse than that, Paul explicitly denies any knowledge of Jesus other than by hallucination in Galations 1:12.

That is blatantly false, please read the Greek part of the Bible at least once. This is what the text you quoted says:
Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. 11 For I want you to know, brothers, that the good news I declared to you is not of human origin;+ 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ.

It was about teaching and where the doctrine came from (not from men but from Jesus and God), not about if Jesus existed or not.

>This argument is easily falsifiable. Just produce a contemporary document mentioning an earthly Jesus. (Protip, you can't.)
See above

>>135990237
If Jamal behaves like a christian he stops being Jama, he is simply a christian with a different skin color.
You should discriminate based on behaviour not based on appearance

>>135987362

During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

>>135990454
>We call them the gospels.
Unfortunately (for you), Matthew, Luke and John are just annotated copies of Mark, and the author of Mark was EXPLICIT in saying that he wasn't writing a literal historical account. For example, Mark 4:11 "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables..." (and in several other passages)

>Does that mean Roman Legions never existed?
That's a really stupid argument. Books from the ancient world survive because scribes made copies of them, because they thought them worth preserving. No-one made copies of trinkets because they weren't worth preserving.

>That is blatantly false, please read the Greek part of the Bible at least once
You can argue over the Greek semantics, if you like (I don't read Greek so can't easily argue back), but the argument stands. Paul doesn't mention an earthly Jesus even once. Prove me wrong.

>>135990606
>Blah blah blah blah

Dude, Jesus wasn't even a real person, so whether he was Jewish or Uzbek or Japanese is of no concern

Argue over what ethnic group Paul, or Mark, came from. That would be much more instructive.

>>135985840
daily reminder that ARCHETYPES dont need to be real to teach people dumbass.

"hey every one, this religious books makes a horrible history book, also, I find it hard to hammer nails with a screwdriver, ergo the religious book and the screwdriver are stupid and i am smart!"

>>135990887
>Unfortunately (for you), Matthew, Luke and John are just annotated copies of Mark
No they are not.
Matthew was probably the first. We have fragments that are probably from this Gospel dating back to around 50ad.

>Mark 4:11
And again a misunderstanding or deliberate ripping out of context: This was about Jesus explaining the kingdom of God in parables to those that listened. Unfortunately most people liked only those nice stories and did not care about the actual message in them, only his disciples bothered to ask for an explanation afterwards.

>That's a really stupid argument. Books from the ancient world survive because scribes made copies of them, because they thought them worth preserving. No-one made copies of trinkets because they weren't worth preserving.
Exactly. So how much more trustworthy is the bible then.

>You can argue over the Greek semantics, if you like (I don't read Greek so can't easily argue back), but the argument stands. Paul doesn't mention an earthly Jesus even once. Prove me wrong.
No, not "read the Bible IN greek" but "read the greek part of the Bible" that is Everything from Matthew to Revelation, also wrongly called the New Testament.
That this part of the bible is called the greek-christian scripture is common knowledge actually. It makes me worry that I am just replying to someone who just repeats talking points he heard somewhere without actually having done his homework

>>135991319
The real persons came first, the archetypes later.

File: mfw.gif (562KB, 380x324px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 380x324px

>>135991443

>It makes me worry that I am just replying to someone who just repeats talking points he heard somewhere without actually having done his homework

>Matthew was probably the first. We have fragments that are probably from this Gospel dating back to around 50ad.

mfw

File: IMG_2819.jpg (134KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1024x819px

>>135991443

One of the many amazing prophecies of Jesus Christ from the Old Testament is that of verse 1 from Psalm 22:

>"O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me?"

Many people have said, "Jesus said God has forsaken him on the cross, how could he be the Messiah?"
Jesus was invoking Psalm 22 on the cross. The Psalm was wrote around 1,000 years before Christ was born.

This is significant because a few verses later in the same Psalm it says this:

>"They have pierced my hands and feet."

Some renderings have it;

>"they have torn holes in my hands and my feet"

Strange. It would appear that Jesus Christ invoked a Psalm wrote 1,000 years before He was born that seemed to tell of His very unique death, crucifixion; which did not even exist at the time Psalm 22 was wrote.

Psalm 22 goes on to say:

>"They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my vesture they cast lots."

This is another strange coincidence. It is known that the Roman soldiers gambled, or "cast lots" on Christ's garments as He was being crucified. If Christ was utterly out of His depths and defeated; why does this Psalm--that was invoked as He was in unimaginable pain--foretell of exact circumstances of the very death He was experiencing? Circumstances that no one could have known?

Not only this, Psalm 22 ends by foretelling the great rise of Christendom, which was achieved based on the very death that Christ Himself was experiencing, that the Psalm undeniably addresses:

>"All the ends of the earth shall remember, and shall be converted to the Lord: And all the kindreds of the Gentiles shall adore in his sight."

Remember, at the time of Christ, only one tribe was expecting a Messiah. This Psalm called forth by Christ on the cross predicts His death to an exactitude, and it just happens to predict the unprecedented worldwide conversion based on this death.

How do atheists explain this away?

>>135991443
>Exactly. So how much more trustworthy is the bible then.

Christian scribes preserved what they thought worth preserving. If you're trying to say that the original documents are more trustworthy historical accounts because religious zealots who woke up at 4am and masturbated into each others' soup bowls to prove their holiness wanted to copy them, then I'm going to have to post another mfw

>>135992111
>How do atheists explain this away?

Gospel authors tailored their accounts to match the prophesies from the Old Testament.

Hilariously, they were using a really bad translation, so the prophecies Jesus supposedly 'fulfilled' are not the actual prophecies that were supposedly prophesised centuries earlier.

Checkmate, theists!

>>135992111
this exactly.
There are over 100 prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus

>>135992129
Do you think the non-christian people at that time were unbiased, objective Vulcans?

If we assume that what non christian writers wrote counts as historical documents, then how much more must we assume that of the christian ones.

>>135992331
all 4 Writers who wrote their accounts over 50 years?
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

The "bad translation" they used is called the septuagint, of which several different versions existed. That does not make the prophecies in the original hebrew text invalid.

>>135992331

They all died horrible deaths, what would the point of that be?

>>135992455
>There are over 100 prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus

How do you know that? If there were any accounts of his life and teachings, they have not survived.

>>135992487
The Gospel authors all died horrible deaths? That seems statistically likely, given how hard life was in the ancient world, but you don't even know who wrote the Gospels.

>>135992604

The historical evidence for the resurrection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM


Proof for the resurrection of Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tyVdnIU9A
The first 30 minutes is what's important from this one, the rest is questions and answers.


Ex-atheist scientist tells his story of becoming Christian after realizing that the story of creation in Genesis actually makes the most sense and gets a lot of things right compared to other religious books:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs


Cold case detective, former atheist analyzed the gospels using his skills and came to the conclusion that Christianity is the true religion and what is written in the New Testament is real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQmodO2quW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiYQzOypD9o
The videos are long, but they basically come down to this:
1. The chain of custody is sound, the story doesn't change over time.
2. There was stuff in the Bible that was later confirmed by archeology(places, people, etc.)
3. There are even non-believers' accounts of some stuff Jesus did, just from them you can know a lot about Jesus if you piece it all together.
4. The differences between gospels aren't a bad sign, because witnesses rarely agree on stuff. If every eyewitness would say the same thing, it would be very fishy and would mean they probably talked to each other at one point.
5. The apostles died without getting rich, getting a girlfriend or getting power, they all died horribly. There was no point in spreading Christianity if they didn't believe in it. Why would they risk their life if it wasn't true? Why would they risk their life if it was all forged? Why would Paul try to join this new small church?
Also the only accounts of Romans getting Christians to change their faith was after the 1st century. No account of eyewitnesses ever changing their story.

>>135992604
yes they have.

Honestly I am tempted to apply Jesus command about pearls and swines to you.

>>135992673
We know actually. But you would not care anyway.

Or if you actually do, you could check out those answers:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/

>>135992688
>The historical evidence for the resurrection:
There isn't any

>Proof for the resurrection of Jesus
There isn't any

>Ex-atheist scientist tells his story of becoming Christian
YouTube's servers are full, no more room for any new videos, for example videos of the millions of scientists who used to be Christians but aren't any more. This one video is the only one you'll get to see!

> The chain of custody is sound, the story doesn't change over time.
The four gospels merrily contradict each other on just about every major detail. They can't even agree on what day Jesus was crucified or what his last words were

>There was stuff in the Bible that was later confirmed by archeology(places, people, etc.)
Codswallop

>The differences between gospels aren't a bad sign, because witnesses rarely agree on stuff
None of the gospels even claim to be eye-witness accounts

> There are even non-believers' accounts of some stuff Jesus did
They all date to the late second century, or later

> Why would Paul try to join this new small church?
Paul heard voices in his heard. We can't assume that his life choices were rational ones.

>The apostles died without getting rich
Nothing is known of how the apostles died

>>135992781

>>If there were any accounts of his life and teachings, they have not survived.
>yes they have.

Great! Please produce them. I've just cancelled all my appointments for the week, so I can read these exciting new documents in full.

>>135993216
see above posts and sources

>>135992781
>We know [who wrote the Gospels] actually. But you would not care anyway.
Nonsense. The scholars have been debating this question since ancient times and they still aren't close to providing an answer.

(Of course we can say roughly where they lived, and in which relgious communities they lived. But that's a different kind of question.)

>>135993251
>see above posts and sources
You haven't posted any sources yet.

atheists are all 12 year olds. No adult is that simple minded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o81A31hlgEA

Orthodox Christianity is best Christianity. Just putting it out there.

Blessing from Elder Dobri to all of ya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobri_Dobrev

>>135985716
You have two options okay.

Jesus was just a wise man who was crucified, his followers believed that they saw him alive after his death, and died for believing this.

or

The New Testament is true.

The problem with the first option is the fact that group hallucinations are extremely rare, but for a group hallucination of this magnitude to occur, it would be the single rarest event in history, to never be recreated.

>What if they were lying?

If they were lying then wouldn't one of His followers admit that the resurrection was a hoax, to prevent themself from dying?

>What if they just made up the resurrection with the gospel?

>And that He was seen of Cephas, then of then of the twelve: After that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

This Creed was created within 2 months of the death of Jesus.

The Book of James, was written in 46 A.D, and is the oldest book in the New Testament. Meaning that the oldest book in the New Testament was created 16 years after the Creed.

Jesus loves you all.

>>135993415
yes.
But considering your reading and comprehension skills...

>>135993386
We are certain about John and Luke and reasonably certain about Matthew and Mark.

Today those "scholars" are nothing but atheists trying to find "faults" in the bible. Its really funny to read the stuff they publish, particularly when they use old, biased and outright wrong documents (like some genealogy of Babylonian Kings were some are missing and others never were kings) to disprove the infallible word of God himself.

>>135993655
>We are certain about John and Luke and reasonably certain about Matthew and Mark.

You're "certain", eh?

I can understand your confusion about Luke, who claims to have an eyewitness. But there is no reason to believe him, since he actually copied all the details of Jesus' life from Matthew.

>>135993984
compare Luke and Matthew and you will notice a few differences.

Luke was a physician and it shows, he adds much more details. We assume that he got many of the informations from Peter.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002790
and:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002791

>>135994305
>Luke was a physician and it shows,

Luke never said he was a physician and never wrote anything that only a physician would be able to write.

Prove me wrong.

>>135994305

Mark 1:30
Now Simon’s mother-in-law was lying down sick with a fever, and they at once told him about her.

Matthew 8:14
And Jesus, on coming into Peter’s house, saw his mother-in-law lying down and sick with fever.

Luke 4:38
After leaving the synagogue, he entered into Simon’s home. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering with a high fever, and they asked him to help her.

...so, the best evidence that Luke was a physician, is that he changed "fever" to "high fever"?

Son, I am disappoint.

>>135994884
Col 4:14:
>Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and so does Deʹmas

>>135995229
thats one of many. Read the links I provided.

>>135995300
>Col 4:14:
Colossians is a forgery.

>thats one of many. Read the links I provided.
I did read them. They don't contain anything convincing.

(((jesus)))

File: spencergif2.gif (1MB, 302x170px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 302x170px

>>135996191

>>135995725
>Colossians is a forgery.
Pearls before swines my fried, pearls before swines...

>I did read them.
evidently not

>>135996585
>>I did read them.
>evidently not

Evidently so. I copied the first one into this post
>>135995229

>Pearls before swines my fried, pearls before swines...
The funny thing about Colossians, of course, is that the forger tried to model his language on Ephesians, not realising that Ephesians was ALSO a forgery.

>>135996813
1. Proof of forgery please
2. He did not "model" his language he used the same language in both because they were written by the same guy: Paul

I need a /pol/ approved book on The Protestant Reformation. Thanks.

>>135997095
alternatively you could of course think for yourself and do your own research.

>>135996969
>1. Proof of forgery please

"...The differences between this letter and Paul's writings are striking and compelling. Just to give you a taste:

"How often the letter uses adversative conjunctions: Galations 84 times, Philippians 52, 1 Thessalonians 29, Colossians 8

"How often the letter uses causal conjunctions: Galatians 45 times, Philippians 20, 1 Thessalonisn 11, Colossians, 9

"How often the letter uses a conjunction to introduce a statement: Galatians 20 times, Philippians 19, Thessalonians 11, Colossians only 3.

"The lists go on for many pages, looking at all sorts of information, with innumerable considerations all pointing int eh same direction: this is someone with a different writing style from Paul's..."

Bart Ehrmann, "Forged" p113

I'm using something written by someone who believes in a historical Jesus so you can't accuse me of quote-mining.

>>135997173
>>135997173
>alternatively you could of course think for yourself and do your own research.

Quick! Send him to the JW website so he can learn to, errr, "think for himself"!

>>135997285
wait, that guy seriously uses grammar and nothing but grammar to identify a "forgery"??

Does this not strike you as a bit odd?
If I used this method on other writings, how many "forgeries" would I find. What do you think?

Do you always write your letters/emails in exact the same style? Those to your boss and those to your girlfriend? Those to your kids and those to your gardener?

Now imagine if Paul had written in Colossians: "There is a God and his name is Moloch" now this would be a blatant contradiction to everything else. But a mere change of grammar is not at all evidence of any forgeries.

>>135997548
It's not just the grammar, though. The theology is strikingly different. As far as I know, Paul didn't advocate the worship of angels...

>>135997686
in neither book does he advocate worship of angels

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

I don't see how anyone can believe in "prophecies", "miracles" or other nonsense of that kind after having read this.
Any flaws in Hume's arguments?

Religious people are so limited.

>trying to learn basic prayers in Latin
>the words feel heavy and I feel like I am out of breath

Also for Wolf, what are your thoughts on VCII? Heretical?

>>135997865
>in neither book does he advocate worship of angels
Ephesians 3:9-13 is often read that way. Don't blame me, I don't believe any of that stuff.

>>135997919
Criticism:
>Some writers, such as R.F. Holland, have argued that Hume's definition of "miracle" need not be accepted, and that an event need not violate a natural law in order to be accounted miraculous.[9] It has been claimed by critics such as the Presbyterian minister, George Campbell, that Hume's argument is circular. That is, he rests his case against belief in miracles upon the claim that laws of nature are supported by exceptionless testimony, but testimony can only be accounted exceptionless if we discount the occurrence of miracles.[10] The philosopher John Earman has recently argued that Hume's argument is "largely unoriginal and chiefly without merit where it is original",[11] citing Hume's lack of understanding of the probability calculus as a major source of error. J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig agree with Earman's basic assessment and have critiqued Hume's argument against being able to identify miracles by stating that Hume's theory "fails to take into account all the probabilities involved" and "he incorrectly assumes that miracles are intrinsically highly improbable" [12]

TL;DR the text is hugely biased even though it makes a few interesting points. But from the set up already the author makes many unfounded assumptions without bothering to bring evidence for those.

>>135998244
this text reads:

To me, a man less than the least of all holy ones,+ this undeserved kindness was given,+ so that I should declare to the nations the good news about the unfathomable riches of the Christ 9 and should make everyone see the administration of the sacred secret+ that has been hidden through the ages in God, who created all things. 10 This was so that now, through the congregation,+ there might be made known to the governments and the authorities in the heavenly places the greatly diversified wisdom of God.+ 11 This is according to the eternal purpose that he formed in connection with the Christ,+ Jesus our Lord, 12 by means of whom we have this freeness of speech and free access+ with confidence through our faith in him. 13 So I ask you not to give up on account of my tribulations in your behalf, for these mean glory for you

Where exactly do people find ANY hint or even just connection to the worship of angels?

File: ss+(2015-06-07+at+06.57.37).jpg (73KB, 498x506px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 498x506px

>>135998362
Missing the point, pretty sure you didn't digest Hume's argument to even understand the criticism.
"Biased" makes no sense in this context.
Are you really this much of a coward who fears sincere investigation?

Hume is basically saying there is no such thing as causality in the world, only a massive network of correlations that can be understood empirically through the sense, if 9 out of 10 times touching fire will hurt you but that one time it doesn't, you will believe fire has a tendency to hurt you.

Now let's say this has occurred millions of times for millions of people, it seems to be -almost- a natural law that fire hurts people, now when one person tells you that he isn't hurt by fire, clearly now we must assume he is lying for lies have been observed a billion times already, but a man who isn't hurt by fire hasn't been seen yet.

Hume isn't saying we OUGHT to think like this, he's saying our brains are hard-wired to think like this, it's psychological DESCRIPTION not PRESCRIPTION.

Extrapolating from this, in the case of "miracles" or other oddities reported by whoever, if we were to be rational people, meaning people who don't betray that same part of their mind that makes them recoil from fire, we would assume that the testimonies given that report of miracles and such are simply false or confused.

Kant picked this line of thinking up. The criticism you cited does not resolve around this, it resolves around Hume's definition of miracles, which cannot exist as they break natural laws, and natural laws can by definition not be broken.
It's an analytical problem, it can safely be disregarded for Hume's empiricist argument to stand.

>>135998406
>Where exactly do people find ANY hint or even just connection to the worship of angels?

You need to choose a better translation. As I said, I don't read Greek, but I'm pretty certain the original doesn't say anything about "governments".

I'm pretty certain it actually says "angelic rulers" or something like that. But feel free to correct me.

>>135998985
Just checked the Byington, KJV, and American Standard version on top of the New World translation I quoted. NONE have anything to do with angel worship.
Not even the Interlinear version and that one is as close to the original as it gets.

>>135998896
This is all intellectual masturbation, nothing more.

>Hume is basically saying there is no such thing as causality in the world
Which is false as science tells us

>Now let's say this has occurred millions of times for millions of people, it seems to be -almost- a natural law that fire hurts people, now when one person tells you that he isn't hurt by fire, clearly now we must assume he is lying for lies have been observed a billion times already, but a man who isn't hurt by fire hasn't been seen yet
Error by oversimplification. Not hurting is different from not being physically consumed by the fire. Feelings may be unreliable but no feeling can stop your flesh from being cremated

>and natural laws can by definition not be broken.
This ignores that those laws are only our human way of approximating reality. An omnipotent being who created reality certainly knows them so good that he needs not break them.
Even if to us humans it appears so.

In the end however this changes nothing: The inductive reasoning of one philosopher cannot undo reality.

Example: I visit primitives in the jungle with my helicopter. They see it as a miracle. By that guys argument my visit would not have occured.
Who is right now? My helicopter or that guys argument?

Daily reminder that christianity makes a white man behave like a jew, with lots of lies and even pilpul.

>>135999640
Man, you are refusing to stay rational here.
Obviously there are causal events in the world, but STRICTLY speaking we cannot observe causality, but only correlation.
We are stuck with correlation, we can never with certainty say from A follows B, but merely that when A occurred, B occurred aswell, empirical sciences understand this, which is why empirical science cannot verify theories but merely falsify them.

Scientist understand that they are limited to correlation. You're ignorant.

>Error by oversimplification. Not hurting is different from not being physically consumed by the fire. Feelings may be unreliable but no feeling can stop your flesh from being cremated
It's an abstract argument, we can revise the argument so even you can follow it:

Let's say a person claims he is a thousand years old, everything that has been said previously will force us to assume he's lying, if we remain rational.

The point isn't that Hume claims God is in no position to break natural laws, or that God has made a mistake in putting them up so he had to break them.
Hume is saying, when we, as you said yourself, approximate reality through empirical data, but there appears to be a contradiction NOT directly observed but so that there can be given another explanation, as it is in the case of testimonies, we cannot believe that testimony and remain rational.

Here's an example where a contradiction of supposed empirical canon gets contradicted, and we can believe it:

We observe a million white swans, and we are tempted to say there are only white swans, the moment a black swan has been observed this theorem falls apart.

Now imagine we observe over and over again that dead people remain dead, now imagine we hear of testimonies from distant people that claim a man has been resurrected from death, clearly we can't throw away our theorem of "dead people remain dead" as it is MUCH more likely, empirically even, that these testimonies are false.

>>135999640
>and natural laws can by definition not be broken.
This ignores that those laws are only our human way of approximating reality. An omnipotent being who created reality certainly knows them so good that he needs not break them.
Even if to us humans it appears so.

Exactly. Most of the times we find out a new phenomena it is usually not compatible with previous laws of physics. For exemple when experiment told us that classical mechanics isn't compatible with electronagnetism. According to Newton a particle's speed can be infinite, but once we found out that time is dilated and the mass of a body increases with its speed our new theory to explain that said that the max speed for everything is the speed of light, breaking the laws of Newtonian mechanics where the mass doesn't not depend of time.

>>135985716
Daily reminder pol is a kekromantic board.
Kekromancers have been forced into hiding by cringy normies but the faith is still alive and well

Praise Kek

The claim: A jewish war god had a son who resurrected.
The proving key: the son of the jewish war god said his followers would do miracles in his name like moving mountains and resisting poison.
The reality: They cannot do miracles.

Therefore the claim is false.

>>135999640
>NONE have anything to do with angel worship.

What does "principalities and powers in the heavenly places" mean, if not angels?

Gnomes?

Pixies?

Leprechauns?

>>135987098
will read

>>136000501
this!

>>136000340
the limits of correlation apply only in the microscopic realm where the size of an object and its de-Broglie wavelength are of similar order.
Having studied Physics and Math I know a thing or two about this kind of things, thank you very much.

>It's an abstract argument, we can revise the argument so even you can follow it
This abstraction is what introduces an error. If you abstract away the differences between a horse and a cow you might be dissapointed by reality.

>but there appears to be a contradiction NOT directly observed but so that there can be given another explanation, as it is in the case of testimonies, we cannot believe that testimony and remain rational.
two problems with that:
1. You never EVER observe anything directly. You trust your brain to interpret the signals from your eyes, trust them to interpret the photons correctly, trust your scientific instruments, trust the peer review of papers trust...

2. there can always be given another explanation: Maybe I threw the stone, maybe the wind threw it around. But if 500 people testify that it was me, than in all likelyhood it really was me.
That after 2000 years all those people are dead does not change that I picked up the stone and threw it.

>Now imagine we observe over and over again that dead people remain dead, now imagine we hear of testimonies from distant people that claim a man has been resurrected from death, clearly we can't throw away our theorem of "dead people remain dead" as it is MUCH more likely, empirically even, that these testimonies are false.
Nobody wants you to throw away your theorem. It is still very much true. Even the bible makes no secret that dead people stay dead.
This however changes not that on very rare occasions (9 in total) dead people have been resurrected, 8 temporarily and 1 permanently (Jesus).
Miracles do not become laws of nature. Moses parting the Red Sea did not cause it to part again.

>>136000840
And the worship is where?

>>136000676
Kys fag.
That meme is dead already.

>>136001356
No you obviously don't, you don't understand what I'm even talking about.
There is no way to prove any form of causation exists, it's an a priori idea that gets mapped onto a word of CORRELATIONS, there is no such thing as causality that isn't correlation + leap of intuition.
I don't know how else to explain this, STEM undergrads all know exactly what I'm talking about so I'm calling bullshit on you having studied Maths and Physics.

>This abstraction is what introduces an error. If you abstract away the differences between a horse and a cow you might be dissapointed by reality.
This makes zero sense, I'm trying to explain to you how according to 18th century philosopher David Hume our psyche works when dealing with probability and empiricism.
It doesn't matter if I pick a counterfactual example, it's a goddamn thought experiment that is supposed to show you how it's much more likely that a man is lying or confused when he would for example make the claim he has seen a tiger flying through the sky, as it violates everything we have observed previously, assuming he lies however does not violate anything because liars are plenty.
I can't believe you're struggling with this much of a simple concept, you have zero abstract thinking abilities.

>1. You never EVER observe anything directly. You trust your brain to interpret the signals from your eyes, trust them to interpret the photons correctly, trust your scientific instruments, trust the peer review of papers trust...
This is entirely correct, empirical skepticism is a problem that no one has solved yet, we can meme even further and ask ourselves if we are awake or stuck in a dream-like state, yes, but let's assume we are not getting tricked by our brains and humanity isn't massively confused about the reality of the world, then it's still VERY likely testimonies of that kind are false.

1/2

>>136001929
>People arguing the complexisties of existence to prove a fucking christian wrong.

>>136001929
But let's say we cannot trust our brains, then even in this case we can't believe testimonies as we can't even believe our eyes or ears in the most clear-cut cases.
This is not a retort.

>2. there can always be given another explanation: Maybe I threw the stone, maybe the wind threw it around. But if 500 people testify that it was me, than in all likelyhood it really was me.
>That after 2000 years all those people are dead does not change that I picked up the stone and threw it.
Exactly, empirical observation is inherently fallible, we can only trust a priori deductions to be free of error, that's correct.
But again, that is David Hume's point, we have no guidelines in this world of senses EXCEPT for that of probability and data, and following this line you cannot possibly justify believing in testimonies of miracles.

If you can, you will have to admit it can be justified to jump into a volcano even though all of our knowledge makes it very probable that you will die.

>This however changes not that on very rare occasions (9 in total) dead people have been resurrected, 8 temporarily and 1 permanently (Jesus).
>Miracles do not become laws of nature. Moses parting the Red Sea did not cause it to part again.

I don't know what your point here is, in conclusion, it's impossible to believe people have been resurrected unless you are confused/stupid/emotion driven.
Those miracles are justified through testimonies.
People lie all the time.
We only seldom hear of people getting resurrected, and when we hear of it, it's from non-verifiable sources.

You are not a rational person.
And definitely not someone who has studied abstract sciences such as Maths and Physics.

>>136002344
Germany, you are retarded, to prove a christian wrong you play in his field, the field of faith.

I myself believe in God, so naturally I want to be close to God.
Therefore the christian offer could be of my interest, so I look at the facts.

Here is their claim: Jesus will resurrect us and give us eternal life.
Here is what their scripture says about it: Whosoever believes in him, will do miracles, heal the sick and resist poison.
If I believe in him, I'm not able to do miracles, heal the sick, and I'm not retarded to expose myself to poison after jesus having lied to me twice, so the claim is false.

All from faith.

Blimey, it's been hours since anyone mentioned the fact that Jesus didn't even exist.

Nice distraction strategy!

>>136001929
causation exists for all intends and purposes.
As long as you do not wander into the field of subatomics or of medecine (lel) and the experiment studies very simple things you have causation.

You sound like some marxist philosopher that preaches constructivism.

> it's a goddamn thought experiment
Yes, my problem exactly.
Just because your thought experiment makes sense does not mean reality will now conform to it. Think about the idea of the Dirac sea: Interesting and logical, but reality disagreed.

> you have zero abstract thinking abilities.
On the contrary but I am also very much aware of the dangers of building castles in the sky. Such as what Hume did.

>But again, that is David Hume's point, we have no guidelines in this world of senses EXCEPT for that of probability and data, and following this line you cannot possibly justify believing in testimonies of miracles.
This is the biased garbage Im talking about.
Reality is not a monte carlo simulation.

>If you can, you will have to admit it can be justified to jump into a volcano even though all of our knowledge makes it very probable that you will die.
And this ignores how miracles work. They too are not some random occurence were some moron jumped into the fire accidentally and by random chance came out unhurt.
They have intend and purposes because they are caused by intelligence.
This is were Hume and your error come from I think.

>We only seldom hear of people getting resurrected, and when we hear of it, it's from non-verifiable sources.
None is verifiyable because they are all dead by now.

>in conclusion, it's impossible to believe people have been resurrected unless you are confused/stupid/emotion driven.
Again: bias on your part, unfounded in reality.

>You are not a rational person.
Well you certainly are not. You sound like a hardcore philosophical materialist.

>>135985716
Amen.

>>136002862
If you have faith you can deny jesus with ease
>>136002633

>>136003548
>If you have faith you can deny jesus with ease

Saint Paul had faith, very strong faith, and he denied Jesus, so I suppose you're right.

File: loadOfGuy.jpg (146KB, 496x496px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 496x496px

>>136004289
>denying jesus
that was peter.

>>136004289
>>136004469

St. Paul also denied him in a sense. He persecuted the apostles before he was saved.

>>136002960
>> it's a goddamn thought experiment
>Yes, my problem exactly.
>Just because your thought experiment makes sense does not mean reality will now conform to it.

In other words : only because he doesnt realize hes dumb, doesnt make him right.

>>136004639
yeah ok, i you put it that way...
But no actually. It was Saul not Paul who did that.
Lel, namechange after life change

>>136004681
hes probably not dumb, he just follows a fallacious chain of arguments

>>136004948

Heh yeah I get your point and I agree.

File: 1499093194766.png (704KB, 545x509px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 545x509px

>>135985954

Current pope not even a real pope. The pope vote was rigged by soros.

>>136005262
you dont get to decide who the real pope is anon, you signed your rights away when you accepted catholicism in place of Christianity

File: christchan.jpg (1MB, 1250x1976px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1250x1976px

>>135985716

We have hundreds of testimonies from people who have encoutered Jesus and being witness of his divinity.

Even some filthy mudslimes/ISIS fighters (the most brainwashed and close-minded 'people' on earth) have converted after seeing the Truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oNEOVXiCxk

We also have a almost unanimous theory amongst victims of paranormal/demonic encouters, saying that uttering the very name of Christ made them break free from alien/fallen angels contacts/sleep paralysis etc....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZsYzwgW0Vs

all the evidence points to Jesus being the only son of God

>>136006768
It just so happens that my case of demonic posession is angelic posession and thus the posessing spirit laughs at jesus but because he is happy of hearing the blessed name, not because it does nothing.

>>136007073

>my case of demonic posession is angelic posession

I know demons used to be angels, but I don't get what are you trying to say here m8. You've been possesed by a bad angel? Or a good one?

Good guy angel isn't supposed to come and fuck with humans from what I've heard

>>136007404
Demons are supposed to be affected by jesus, this one isn't. The doctor agrees that I shouldn't be on meds, btw.

File: Deus+vult+_ddbfc317a84f10352ee9d438aec13788.jpg (52KB, 515x582px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 515x582px

>>135985716
Deus Vult!

>>136007491

okay that story is genuinely weird. Don't know what to make of that sorry

>>136008040
Simply put: your religion is false.

>>135985716
http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/the-present-with-religion/

File: babylonian tolerant talmud.jpg (606KB, 664x645px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 664x645px

>>136009326

Since I've based my faith on evidence, witnessed facts and rationality, (I know it sounds like an oxymoron fight me) I'm not goint to throw it away because an amigo who obviously doesn't put his trust in Christ had a bad experience with an interdimensional entity.
He probably laughed it away cause you had no faith in Jesus, who knows.

Oh, another argument pro christianity; Jews hate Jesus with the passion of a thousand shoahs. They crucified him+tell he was a donkey fucking magician currently burning in boiling semen and feces in hell. That's the biggest hint of all.

I could and want to heem every post-2011 newfag Christian runt.

File: images (1).jpg (10KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 225x225px

>>136009326
simply put, you are a heretical retard

>>135985716
>Sons of crusaders
More like distant relatives, they all died in the middle east.

>>136010156
its hilarious when you consider that Hell as a place of torment was not even in the Hebrew part of the bible.
Those jews got cucked by the pagans.

>>136007491
The bible contains no account of angels possessing humans and never suggest anything like that, on the contrary everything God demands is based on voluntaryty in start contrast to the devil and his demons who take what is not theirs.

Story either 100% fake or the demon is just pretending to be an angel.