So this is all it takes to destroy your religion?

File: Jesus.jpg (146KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 720x479px

>>136504791
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

>>136504791
Logic destroys religion.
Fags only disgust.

File: pope fags admit it.png (160KB, 424x451px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 424x451px

>>136504791
Actually even though you're a shill OP, that's a damn good question.

If everyone turned a little bisexual (as it seems to be going) would that destroy Christianity?

My guess is that it wouldn't. Christians would accept it and rework their interpretations of the bible. Jesus was gay as fuck anyways:
>sarcastic
>self involved
>hated pussy
>had one close girlfriend who was a whore
>hung out with men all day and bathed naked with them.
>Daddy obsession
>rejected his mom
>said he was the rebirth, living water, blood...
womb analogies
>was a diva ("Are you saying you're king of Judah you poor baster, I just want to let you go?" -- NO! I'm the king of kings!")
>scared of fighting for his country but willing to put bitches in check

The only thing not gay about Jesus was the temple beating he gay to his fellow Jews. Although it was a cat of nine tales (rrrrar~)

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


HEY CHRISTIAN SHILLS WHO HATE /pol/ BUT ARE TRYING TO CONVERT US --- WOULD YOU BE OK WITH GAY IF ALL CHRISTIANS WERE?

File: Pic.jpg (348KB, 957x1024px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 957x1024px

>>136504791

File: 1422634264375.jpg (362KB, 898x634px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 898x634px

>>136505122
I got 54 seconds in before I was close to puking and yelled out loud once.

File: alt right more gay.png (335KB, 606x700px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 606x700px

>>136506818
The fact that you're trying to turn /pol/ gay makes me not want to have fun with this thread.

I wont Deep State for you Alt-Kikes. Thanks for ruining another perfectly good thread.

The most important development of monotheistic religions was the outlawing of all sexuality outside of marriage. This created and sustained western civilization. This channeled sexual energy into developing prosperity, military strength, societal cohesion, innovation, and exploration. The purpose of religion in a civilizational sense is patriarchy. All else is frills and whistles.

>>136504791
You're the one that will be destroyed, sodomite

>>136505209
Congratulations, you hold that belief in contradiction to all available historical documents, manuscripts, traditions, and testimonies.

Fedoras are so fucking stupid

File: shreiber.jpg (393KB, 1660x960px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1660x960px

sick fucks

File: never existed.jpg (2MB, 1600x2498px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x2498px

>>136507373
>you hold that belief in contradiction to all available historical documents, manuscripts, traditions, and testimonies.

""""testimonies""""

You mean medieval forgeries.

>>136508877
>who is Tacitus
>who is Josephus
>who is Julius Africanus
>who is Pliny the Younger
>who is Lucian of Samosata

And atheists are supposed to be the rational ones? LOL.

>>136509119

They are the silent historians mentioned in the pic I posted. Stop spreading bullshit that there is proof that Jesus was a historical figure.

>>136508877
>>136509119
>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically

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

>>136509299
That picture is full of lies though. Tacitus absolutely did write about Jesus in the early 2nd century. This is not debatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)

Pliny the Younger wrote around the same time about early Christians.

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

>>136509539

Written ca. AD 116.

Holy fuck, anon. You can't be that deluded to consider this a proof.

>>136509749
So you're admitting you were wrong then, because you previously claimed that it's all just medieval forgeries.

Nice shifting of goalposts there.

I suppose you're also going to deny the existence of just about every ancient king, prince, tribe because even less documentation exists of so many of them.

>>136509901
>So you're admitting you were wrong then, because you previously claimed that it's all just medieval forgeries.

No, your testimonies are medieval forgeries.

>>136510135
>No, your testimonies are medieval forgeries.

That's bullshit though.

>>136510198

Look, if Tacitus (ad 116) is the best thing you got to prove that Jesus existed, then kill yourself.

History books of Jesus' time mention all types of people, e.g. John the baptist, but not Jesus.

>>136510445
Nigga I've cited more than just Tacitus.

and here's something else. You're saying that Jesus didn't exist. It logically follows from that you think his apostles didn't exist either.

So please explain how the supposedly nonexistent apostle Thomas traveled to India in the middle of the 1st century and established a community of Christians there.

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

>>136510718
Nobody is saying the religion didn't exist, just that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist.

>>136510889
I already showed that that is not an argument though.

So please, explain how:

You're saying that Jesus didn't exist. It logically follows from that you think his apostles didn't exist either.

So please explain how the supposedly nonexistent apostle Thomas traveled to India in the middle of the 1st century and established a community of Christians there.

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

>>136510982
Chemicals in the water

>>136510982
Where is the non-Christian historical evidence this this guy actually existed?

I'm not saying there were not evangelical religious movements in the 1st Century AD but that they were not founded by a mythical Jesus of Nazareth.

>>136510718
>You're saying that Jesus didn't exist.

No, I didn't. But YOU have the burden of proof that a supposedly historical figure could raise zombies from the dead ("and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.") but there's absolutely no mention of this in any historical book.

>It logically follows from that you think his apostles didn't exist either.

No, it doesn't.

File: image.jpg (139KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 500x281px

Teehee memes :3

>>136511068
>Where is the non-Christian historical evidence this this guy actually existed?

I already listed some here >>136509119

>they were not founded by a mythical Jesus of Nazareth.
So you're saying that a lot of dudes got together and decided that they were going to fabricate something. They then traveled across the world converting people AT THE THREAT OF DEATH, to the point where nearly all of them died horrible deaths (crucifixion, burning, stoning) for something they didn't actually believe, and NONE of them recanted?

What a joke you are.
>>136511100
>No, I didn't.

You literally did. That's why we're arguing right now.

you said:
> Stop spreading bullshit that there is proof that Jesus was a historical figure.

I can only assume that this is bait.

>>136511575
>You literally did.

No, I didn't. Stop spreading bullshit that there is proof of Jesus' historicity.

>>136511575
>a group of dudebros get together to pull a prank that will last millenia
Yes
Maturity is fleeting, it is not an absolute
>get. Crucified but it's okay because the epic prank

>>136511704
I know how you snakes operate.

>Stop spreading bullshit that there is proof that Jesus was a historical figure.
>your testimonies are medieval forgeries
>History books of Jesus' time mention all types of people, e.g. John the baptist, but not Jesus.
>You mean medieval forgeries.

You said all of that. You are lying and you know it.

>>136512232

I said all of this and I stand by it. If you have historical accounts from Jesus' times then show them. There are none, hence that pic >>136508877

>>136512596
I already demonstrated that the picture is full of lies though.

You stand by lies.

>>136512677
What lies exactly? Josephus's account of Christ was clearly added later.

>>136512772
You're wrong though.

>odern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity

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

further, even if Josephus' account was fabricated, there are still numerous other accounts that are not. >>136509119

>>136512983
Wat years were those other accounts written? What exactly do they claim about Jesus?

>>136504791
"Bad things happen in 3's"

Look at how degenerate this thread is. This is a public forum. Filth.

>>136513922
A mixture of years. Pliny lived in the 1st century, coinciding with the lifetimes of the Apostles. Other accounts were written in the early to mid 2nd century.

>What exactly do they claim about Jesus?
That's not the point. The fact that they mention Jesus is enough to conclude that He existed as a historical figure.

>>136514260
What they claimed definitely matters because some details were added by later writers trying to create contemporary forgeries of non-Christian accounts of Jesus once he had already been mythologized.

>>136504791
No, that's what it takes to destroy the west.

>>136515431
>What they claimed definitely matters
So I can assume you're at the point where you acknowledge Jesus' existence.

But moving on, here's what Josephus had to say about Jesus:

>Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

Tacitus wrote in Annals:
>“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 Judaea, 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.”

Of both of those examples, some supernatural element is mentioned.

>>136504791
It doesnt. I want this thread deleted

>>136515935
No I do not acknowledge his existence lol.

Josephus did not write like that. He was an Orthodox Jew. His mentions of Jesus were not recorded until the 4th Century.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:

1. Jesus's existence 2. his 'more than human' status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophecy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.

In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything – now that is a miracle!
BUT WAIT A MINUTE ...

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

>>136516196
As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians. 'Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews.

"Their effects to dissemble their Jewish origins were detected by the decisive test of circumcision; nor were the Roman magistrates at leisure to enquire into the difference of their religious tenets."

– Edward Gibbon (Decline and Fall)

One consequence of the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD was a capitation tax levied on the Jews and it was the Jews – throughout the empire – who were required to pay for the city’s rebuilding – a factor which helped to radicalise many Jews in the late 60s AD.

>>136516309
Not for the first time would Christian scribes expropriated the real suffering of a whole people to create an heroic 'origins' fable...

No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.

His dastardly story of Nero was embellished during the Renaissance into a fantastic fable with Nero 'fiddling while Rome burned'. Nero took advantage of the destruction to build his 'Golden House' though no serious scholar believes anymore that he started the fire (we now know Nero was in his hometown of Antium – Anzio – when the blaze started.) Indeed, Nero opened his palace garden for temporary shelter to those made homeless.

In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.

>>136516196
I will reiterate:
>Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity

>>136516329
>the passage in Tacitus is a fraud
That stands in contradiction to scholarship, which shows that

>Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[

>>136516329
>>136516924
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

>>136516924
>appeal to authority

>modern scholarship

who exactly?

read jesusneverexisted.com

true redpill

sounds like a silly name but all of its references are historical and well cited

>>136504791
>So this is all it takes to destroy your religion?

That's hilarious. Are you saying that Judeo Christianity hasn't dealt with sodomites before?

LEL

>>136516956
How can you just ignore this information:

No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.

?

>>136516309
>the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero

Wrong again. The word Christian can be found in the New Testament, in uncontested Josephus writings, in Pliny the Younger's writings, and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian#Etymology

>>136517143
The citations are provided on the page. Why should I trust your rabidly biased website over a neutral source, especially when your website contradicts all available evidence?

>>136517336
>No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus

That doesn't debunk the passage of Tacitus. All that says is that nobody quotes Tacitus.

Isn't the amount of gay people only around 1 or 2% of the population? I've only met a couple of gay people in real life, so I don't see how they're a threat to religion or society or whatever. I get that people are worried about everyone turning gay en masse and no one having kids, but I'm simply not seeing that happen. I think that gay people will always be a small minority.

File: 1501375944030.jpg (518KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1920x1080px

>>136504791
>being forced to publicly acknowledge blasphemous fake marriages in your business with its deep ties to religious ceremonies destroys your religion

Yes. It objectively does. Imagine if you had a Muslim ramadan eatery that only opens after dark, and somebody forced them to stock and sell ground pork because their sexuality involves slathering bacon grease on their dicks and getting dogs to lick it off. That's the equivalent.

Do not fucking tell me it is ridiculous, the idea of allowing men to marry is as ridiculous or more, "marriage" literally means a union, a one-making, when you screw a nut onto a bolt, THAT is a fucking marriage, you cannot BY DEFINITION marry two bolts together. There is no such thing as "gay marriage," there is an atrocity, an unthinking play-acting nonsense that we CALL gay marriage because our society is so sick that it thinks you can smash two lightbulbs into each other and call it a lamp.

I will never understand, nor do I ever DESIRE to understand, the stupidity that allows people to think like this. Set aside all religious precepts, set aside all conception of supernatural punishment--gay marriage is still not real. It doesn't exist. I will never acknowledge it and I will never humor the idea, and if you do it is because you are rejecting the concept of marriage altogether, which is what this was really always about.

Cheapen something beautiful until it is indistinguishable by filth. That is all Leftists desire, because in a world without beauty their disgusting revolutionary ideas might seem appealing as a final desperate vine to grasp at in the pool of pitch-black quicksand rapidly enveloping the world.

And do not tell me "but it's just X," it is NOT just that, it is EVERYTHING. From the concept of ownership to the idea of value, to the idea of hard work, to the idea of nation, race, religion, beauty, gender, sex, truth, justice, EVERYTHING is under attack and this is just one more piece of it, why is ANY of it ok?

>>136518275
> you cannot BY DEFINITION marry two bolts together
> our society is so sick that it thinks you can smash two lightbulbs into each other and call it a lamp.

Did you by any chance see this Dutch airline company's tweet today?

https://twitter.com/KLM/status/893754468268998656

It's the same concept, they literally debunked the notion of gay marriage without even realizing it

File: 1501012102904.jpg (40KB, 680x544px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 680x544px

>>136518527
Insanity. It's literally insanity. We are a society of crazy people. Fucking kill me.

File: cf.png (197KB, 674x619px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 674x619px

>>136518838
yeah. We live in age of moral inversion. you should check out Common Filth

>>136504791
My religion is faith in man, and haha holy shit yes that's more than enough. You filth.

>>136518966
> faith in man,

prepare to be let down every single time then.

>>136517336
GET OUT! If I dropped a kike detector into yellowstone your shitposting would destroy America

>>136518966
>My religion is faith in man
Great, keep having faith in the decency of your immigrant friends, do all you can to help them out.

>>136504791
>So this is all it takes to destroy your religion?
Naw, just a desecration of the tradition of marriage. It's not the destruction of marriage so much as a symptom of the decay of society as a whole.

>>136506082
>Logic destroys religion.
Faith in logic.
t. somebody who doesn't know about Godel's incompleteness thereom
Thanks for the high school ignorance mislabeled as knowledge

>>136510982
>You're saying that Jesus didn't exist. It logically follows from that you think his apostles didn't exist either.
Yeah, and if Zeus didn't exist, then his worshipers and priests didn't exist either, basic logic!

File: ordainedbychrist.jpg (19KB, 250x177px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 250x177px

>>136504791
i think it's the only subject u can actually debate with Christians... but u know with Islamists, there is no debate @ all... oh well!

Love(Man<3ngAnotherMan(in this case)) =/= Sin: <= that fucks with Christian's heads enormously; however, if they said they cant marry, i'd agree; gays can have a civil union, but a marriage is strictly known for being between a man & a woman since it has been written in the bible -- u can call it whatever u want & have the same rights as a married couple, but u cant call it marriage

>>136520361
false equivalence. There is no historical Zeus and there was never claimed to be one.

>>136520415
There is nothing loving about sodomizing your fellow man

>>136521517
And there is no historical Jesus either. Christians forged a bunch of shit from 150-500 to make it seem like historians knew a Christ. Nazareth didn't even exist as a town. There were lots of people named Joshua and lots of competing Christian-esque movements as the Jews lost battle after battle to the Romans from 50-135 and from those ashes Christianity emerged but there is zero contemporary evidence of a person named Joshua from Nazareth who lived around 0.

>>136521866
>And there is no historical Jesus either.

you claim, in spite of piles of evidence to the contrary.

But what else can I expect from a sodomite? Given how easy the anus tears, you probably have fecal matter floating through your bloodstream, and therefore your brain.

>>136521866
>Nazareth didn't even exist as a town

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Extrabiblical_references

>>136522876
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Extrabiblical_references

You need better citations than wikipedia please.

>>136522921
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Extrabiblical_references
Also, lol:

The first non-Christian reference to Nazareth is an inscription on a marble fragment from a synagogue found in Caesarea Maritima in 1962.

>>136522978
So still no evidence Nazareth was a town at the time Jesus is supposed to have lived.

>>136522921
Wikipedia cites its own sources bud
>>136522978
found in 1962, not made in 1962
>>136523024
Even though there is. Are you also going to doubt the existence of other towns that have much less evidence of existence than Nazareth? Why do you expect a small town to have such an extreme amount of evidence?

>>136522978
>The inscription dates to c. AD 300 and chronicles the assignment of priests that took place at some time after the Bar Kokhba revolt, AD 132-35.[
>An 8th-century AD Hebrew inscription, which was the earliest known Hebrew reference to Nazareth prior to the discovery of the inscription above, uses the same form.

Guess what dumbass. If those inscriptions were even the only evidence of Nazareth, it would be enough evidence in any reasonable mind.

Why don't you go find evidence of where your distant ancestors lived? You probably can't

>>136523024
Trying to eliminate the credibility of Jesus to destroy the one true source of right and wrong so that you can live your sinful fantasy. Stop being a puppet for the devil and embrace freedom. You need it, because you won't stop being tormented until you do.