It Is Now Legitimate To Question Jesus's Historicity

[clara17]

If you own a subject let's first discuss holy man.

Isn't holy man the saved healthy human spiritual living life?

Yes.

Just a man?

Yes.

So a man not living owns no words to use against us?

Yes

So first a non speaking man communed in a duality with all things not named?

Yes. So you used a human spoken word against all things not named existing?

Yes.

So a spiritual man should not talk?

Yes.

As words were used against us.

Not talking wins against a word user?

No.

If you don't speak we cannot stop him.

Okay

So rationally by name you are not a human a man or name user of any type?

Yes.

Communing in a duality with anything else

The self.

So you cannot theory maths without words?

Yes.

So you had to be living in a duality being with anything else to apply science thesis?

Yes.

Is your answer about not discussing Jesus

Why did men a being discuss Jesus?

Life got man being sacrificed.

So all blood cell bone bodies was sacrificed meaning any type?

Yes.

Stone like human bone into sink holes!

Blood like type In beast animal.and human!

Cells like in water in humans in animals in garden nature!

Yes it all left in the flood.

Who told the flood? Jewish humans did versus pyramid technology.

Humans.

Don't you have to live to be notified of flooding?

Yes

What about life's sacrifice?
Yes.

Who and why taught the next story?

Sacrificed human life. Again.

Why don't you reiterate the story today?

Because it is the same story. Science is sacrificing life again. Let's not tell the public.

Is this a third time story?

Yes.

You mean a human conscious thinker theist prediction of a man,?

Yes

So three times he will sacrifice life?

Yes.

A prediction known.

no one knows wtf youre talking about...

 

[Windwalker]

Or who are happy to believe anyone would "love to be" crucified, without any objective evidence.

What was it you said about misquoting someone? What I said was "willing to be crucified". You changed my word willing to "love"? Why is that? Strawman, anyone?

Especially a deity made flesh, by itself after adopting a ghostly form, and impregnating a female of one species of evolved ape, in order to allow it's son / self, to be tortured to death as blood sacrifice to sate it's own anger, and atone for a slight over some eaten fruit, that it specifically forbade the ape's ancestors to touch, but inexplicably placed directly in their path and harms way. Despite being omniscient and knowing what the outcome would be, it became enraged and cursed these apes, and all their descendants. Thus requiring forgiveness, and to demonstrate the uniqueness of the sacrifice, chose the means of crucifixion, one of the ruling Romans most common methods of execution at that time, used to set an example by its grizzly lasting suffering.

 

[clara17]

Actually it's been political actors using Christianity that has allowed it to spread. A lot of Christian spread came at the cost of indigenous cultures and people. Not exactly a moral duty.

Are you confusing Christians with the Roman Empire/Church?

 

[clara17]

So following that logic, if there is a speed limit sign that says 50,
and someone flies past it going 150, the sign is the problem?

 

[lukethethird]

That doesn't really alter the situation ─ there's no decisive datum for or against an historical Jesus, no clincher either way.

True, I agree.

Even people who do believe ignore God. I was in that camp for a while.

"Primitive man lived a life of superstitious bondage to religious fear. Modern, civilized men dread the thought of falling under the dominance of strong religious convictions. Thinking man has always feared to be held by a religion. When a strong and moving religion threatens to dominate him, he invariably tries to rationalize, traditionalize, and institutionalize it, thereby hoping to gain control of it. By such procedure, even a revealed religion becomes man-made and man-dominated. Modern men and women of intelligence evade the religion of Jesus because of their fears of what it will do to them—and with them. And all such fears are well founded. The religion of Jesus does, indeed, dominate and transform its believers, demanding that men dedicate their lives to seeking for a knowledge of the will of the Father in heaven and requiring that the energies of living be consecrated to the unselfish service of the brotherhood of man." UB 1955

I don't take my religion seriously, the drama of it all is a bit much.

 

[lukethethird]

Um, no it isnt. Where did you hear that?

John 20:29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”…

 

[Colt]

True, and I

I don't take religion seriously, the drama of it all is a bit much.

Not every acorn becomes a tree.

 

[lukethethird]

Christianity was never intended to be a 'religion'.

No one told that to Paul.

 

[lukethethird]

No God-fearing Christian ever tortured anyone to death for asking such questions.

On what planet?

 

[clara17]

John 20:29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”…

You said it is considered a virtue to believe these stories on faith alone. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who believes on faith alone. Most people came to believe after seeing things proven to be true by everything taking place around them. If it were only blind faith, you would not find many believers.
There is a saying that goes something like, "everything I have seen has taught me to trust God about anything I have not seen."

 

[clara17]

No one told that to Paul.

Paul didnt set up any religion. People who wanted to re-establish the political power that Jesus took from them, did.

And if the things written in the Bible are true, many of them took place before men made up any of the religions.

 

[clara17]

On what planet?

This one. A lot of people may have claimed they were Christians to co-opt a movement
they couldnt control, and then tortured and killed Christians for 1500 years, but that doesnt
make them Christians. You have to actually read the scripture, not just the propaganda written about it
by its opposition

 

[lukethethird]

.

This one. A lot of people may have claimed they were Christians to co-opt a movement
they couldnt control, and then tortured and killed Christians for 1500 years, but that doesnt
make them Christians. You have to actually read the scripture, not just the propaganda written about it
by its opposition

The no true Scotsman fallacy, because of course no true Scotsman would ever do that.

 

[clara17]

.

The no true Scotsman fallacy, because of course no true Scotsman would ever do that.

Not quite. Youre confusing the belief of certain people in certain things which are only good,
with the actions of others who claim to be those people.
A tree can only produce fruit of its kind.

 

[PureX]

No one told that to Paul.

Paul was a zealot both before and after his conversion. Zealots don't think, or listen, they just flail and shout. And when no one wants to hear it, they get nasty.

 

[F1fan]

Are you confusing Christians with the Roman Empire/Church?

Are you suggesting Catholics, and perhaps the Eastern Orthodox Church, are not Christian?

 

[clara17]

Are you suggesting Catholics, and perhaps the Eastern Orthodox Church, are not Christian?

Depends on what you mean by Catholics.
Do you mean the Church, as in the polictical organization that operated as an early form of world government, tortured and slaughtered millions of people, conquered territories, installed puppet governments, trafficked children, amassed incalculable wealth and banned possession of Bibles?

Or do you mean the millions of people who follow that organization and subscribe to it as their religion?

 

[F1fan]

Depends on what you mean by Catholics.
Do you mean the Church, as in the polictical organization that operated as an early form of world government, tortured and slaughtered millions of people, conquered territories, installed puppet governments, trafficked children, amassed incalculable wealth and banned possession of Bibles?

Or do you mean the millions of people who follow that organization and subscribe to it as their religion?

I don't see how you can divide out the hierarchy from the average Catholic. The hierarchy keeps going because the average Catholic gives them money.

 

[clara17]

I don't see how you can divide out the hierarchy from the average Catholic. The hierarchy keeps going because the average Catholic gives them money.

Pretty easily.
Do you think the people support all the things the church did and still does?
Do you think democrat or republican voters support many/most of the things the parties do?
Do you think Jacksonville fans support the things the Jaguars organization does?

I think most of the people who follow that church mean well, and are generally good people who are
just under a deception.
You know a tree by its fruit. The fruit produced by the people is very different
from what is produced by the organization.

But the real question was, are they Christians.
The Church itself, the organization: 100% no. They are the antithesis of Christianity in nearly every way.

The people who follow it, some maybe and some not.
I have a good friend who is Catholic and a wonderful caring person. She said
she has never read the Bible, and that most Catholics dont. I found that shocking at the time.
They also dont do baptism. Instead they flick water drops on infants too young to understand
or receive baptism.
This is done deliberately by the church so that they never receive baptism.
Mark 16:16: whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.
So if you dont read the scriptures and are never baptized I would say no,
you are not a Christian.
So some Catholic people are and some arent.

 

[lukethethird]

Not quite. Youre confusing the belief of certain people in certain things which are only good,
with the actions of others who claim to be those people.
A tree can only produce fruit of its kind.

It appears that you are doubling down on the no true Scotsman fallacy.