/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (393.92 KB 557x409 adamgreen1.png)
Adam Green / Know More News Anonymous 09/21/2022 (Wed) 17:06:31 ID: beb696 No.18287
There's this guy named Adam Green who makes a lot of anti-Christian content on Odysee and Bitchute. He's only really a big deal in the dissident right with around 27,000 followers. Recently he had a debate with an orthobro on The Crucible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_wUIrsAGQk His content is just your typical "Christianity = Da Jooz" stuff, but he brags a lot about how (supposedly) Christians can't answer him. He also talks a lot about Kabbalah and Talmud stuff where he tries to connect it to Christianity. Do you guys know about any major Christian response to him? I know he had debates with E. Michael Jones and with Myles Poland, but is there any other notable attempt at responding to him?
>>18287 Debate is pointless because it doesn't convince anyone of anything, each side just hears what reinforces their pre-existing positions.
Open file (88.10 KB 320x180 have_water.png)
>>18288 >Debate is pointless because it doesn't convince anyone of anything, each side just hears what reinforces their pre-existing positions. That's definitely not true. I was convinced by a couple persistent anons on sleepyb about christianity a little while ago. One of those anons was pretty nice to me despite all my bullshit. Now, I haven't fully accepted christianity just yet but I'm trying. I've even decided I'm going to church this Sunday. I think the problem lies in how you go about convincing nonchristians to become christians. Instead of trying to convince them of the resurrection of Jesus Christ right off the bat, or saying that they'll go to hell if they don't repent, how about try to convince them of the little truths first and build from there?
>>18289 I don't think they were debating you in that kind of situation but performing evangelization. I don't see broadcast debates being very valuable at all.
>>18287 Was always suspicious of him. Funny to see now he has taken such a strong anti-Christian angle, especially with classic "Christianity = Da Jooz" argument. I don't even waste my time with these people, unsubscribed from him two and a half years ago. Nothing of value was lost.
>>18288 Yes and no, debate does work it just depends on the person you're debating and what brought about the conversation. You also have to be able to somewhat or completely prove what you're saying either through sources or logic or a mix of the two. I don't remember the verse that says this but it goes something along the lines of: "A soft word turns away wrath but a harsh word stirs up anger"
>>18287 >His content is just your typical "Christianity = Da Jooz" I mean is he wrong? even the most antisemetic Christians believe jews are redeemable, that their racial character don't matter since the moment jews convert they are no longer jews.
>>18304 >even the most antisemetic Christians believe jews are redeemable So does Adam. He just wishes they would assimilate into Gentile societies (at least if he hasn't changed his mind since the Myles Poland debate).
He looks like a Jew in my opinion. Maybe that's the reason he hates Jesus and Christianity so much.
>>18287 I never understood that silly theory of Christianity being a jew ploy. Euros became Christian which made them conquer the world and surpass all civilizations that ever existed, then Euros abandoned Christianity and everything went south. This just shows we just have to embrace Christ again. If EMJ debated him he surely got destroyed.
>>18378 I don't think so at all, to be quite honest. He definitely looks white. He also seems pretty fearful of both christianity and judaism. The guy he's arguing against is definitely shit at arguing.
Just expose him as a larper.
>>18385 >He definitely looks white (((Green))) is a name often atributed to them He looks barely white, look at his nose and ears. Suspect everyone who doesn't call (((them))) out and has a suspect name
>>18426 >Suspect everyone who doesn't call (((them))) out He literally believes Christianity is a Jewish plot.
>>18432 The "Christianity being a Jewish plot" theory is itself an actual Jewish plot: https://archive.ph/o/6cGqt/https://anon.cafe/christian/res/11294.html
.>>18439 Yeah it was concocted by some buck nutty rabbi or something like that. There was a thread about it on here at one point. Anyways point still stands
Bobby Fisher was the Jew that says the Christianity is a Jewish plot.
>>18464 okay, and? Is some chess player supposed to have religious authority? Am I going to get my religious scholarship from number one Fortnite player Ninja?
>>18468 The point is that the Jews are also saying that Christianity is a Jewish trick, to /pol/yards the Jews are an untrustworthy hivemind against them. For them, it's good to do the opposite of what the Jews say.
Open file (188.31 KB 474x272 ClipboardImage.png)
>>18468 >comparing Chess to fartn*te
It cracks me up that, once again, Pagans and Christians are clashing. The new battleground? Rhetorical internet slap fights. What a gay time to be alive.
Open file (239.69 KB 822x822 1579686764444.jpg)
>>18439 What's your point? Are we supposed to believe that whenever a jew openly brags about owning the world that that is a jewish plot too? How ironic would it be that modern society preaches most of the same things as the New Testament? >Pacifism Check. >You shall not kill Check. >You shall not steal Check. >Universal human Rights Check. >Abolishment of slavery Check. >Destruction of the female Check. >Destruction of monuments Check. >Do not resist the authorities/evil Check, >Races don't exist Check. >Divisiveness Check. >State enforced public "education" Check. >Subversive tendencies Check. Not saying modern society is the exact same thing as state enforced christianity, but I'm just saying they are awfully similar. Christianity is just old world modernism (judaism), with a flavor of the hatred of homosexuals mixed in.
>>18501 >>Pacifism >>Universal human Rights >>Abolishment of slavery >>Destruction of the female >>Destruction of monuments >>Do not resist the authorities >>Races don't exist >>Divisiveness >>State enforced public "education" >>Subversive tendencies Absolutely none of this is in the bible >Christianity is just old world modernism (judaism) This is incoherent babble >hatred of homosexuals Ah, it all comes clear now.
>>18502 >Absolutely none of this is in the bible All of it is in the bible or enforced by christianity lol. >This is incoherent babble It's not. >Ah, it all comes clear now. Never said hating homosexuals was wrong.
>>18501 >old world modernism (judaism) Ancient Judaism and modern Judaism are not the same thing. Try again rabbi.
Open file (201.96 KB 900x907 damage.jpg)
>>18504 Jesus celebrated all the same holidays, he was circumcised (on the eighth day), and even wore a tallit. Yet we're supposed to believe that somehow Jesus was not a jew. Get a load of this cum guzzling philo semitic faggot.
Open file (181.68 KB 480x477 gitgut.jpg)
Jesus even admitted to being the king of the jews. To you christians we're all supposed to turn the other cheek, hate your own family, love foreigners, expected not to resist evil/t, etc. Which as it so happens is perfectly in line with everything the jews are pulling today. Modern society is very similar to christianity but without the faggot hating.
>>18501 >Are we suppose to believe that whenever a jew brags about owning the world it's a Jewish plot to? No, but /pol/ retards are suspicious of anything Jewish, so any association of a Jew leads to a conspiracy of all Jews even if the situation wasn't only run by Jews, like MKUltra. All your points are not necessarily Christian, modern society is completely at odds with Christianity and the western pozzed version of Christianity is against the Bible, the world is practicing satanism. If you seriously think that Christianity is close to modern society then you need to read the Bible more because the world hates us.
>>18507 >Jesus even admitted to being the king of the jews He never says that in the Bible lmao
>>18511 He says that Pilate said it, he isn't saying yes or no. this is literally one of the points that atheists use to say that Jesus never claimed to be God or the messiah
>>18511 And you are also illiterate and easily fooled because the verse it links to says something completely different from the commentary: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2027:11
Open file (376.67 KB 1681x2802 Codex.png)
>>18502 If anyone comes to Me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be My disciple - Luke 14:26 Honor your father and your mother,n so that you may live a long time in the land that Jehovah your God is giving you. - Exodus 20:12 Wow, so jews can love their own family while the nonjews should hate their own family. Really makes you think!
>>18514 >New International Version Fucking lol. He admitted it lol. That's like the only version that doesn't say so. Totally pozzed bible translation 11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.” 12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. 13 Then Pilate said to Him, “Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?” 14 But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly.
Open file (794.08 KB 968x1041 eri_a14_akire1.png)
>>18501 >>18506 >>18507 >>18511 >>18515 >>any other larpagans, either on this board or not They never take context into account! Their genetic disorders don't allow them to correctly comprehend Bible verses! They spend all their time posting smug-animu.bmp on obscure Mongolian cave painting forums! Their best arguments are silly catchphrases! Behold, the antisocial autists that will single-handedly ANNIHILATE Christianity, and make us all worship Marvel Funko Pops and roleplay as characters from Netflix viking series!! Kowa~i yo~
>>18507 >Jesus even admitted to being the king of the jews. Wow, how very based of him
>>18517 >given more rights than even christians >muh context LOL
>>18515 Never allow yourself to be led astray by false teachings and antiquated and useless fables. Nothing of any use can be got from them. If we are still living in the practice of Judaism, it is an admission that we have failed to receive the gift of grace. - Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians Chapter 8 And yet, Judaism was protected by law and Jews were given extra privileges. Sounds suspiciously a lot like what we have now
I'd really love christians explain the blunder that was Codex Theodosianus because it's obvious to anyone who has a brain that Christianity is Jewish slavery.
>>18522 >>18515 >Some christians made laws favoring Jews therefore Christianity itself is Jewish slavery
>>18516 Those words are in italics, those that you suspiciously removed, which means that they aren't in the Greek text. And the KJV agrees: >And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:11&version=AKJV The pozzed translations are the ones that insert their own words into the text, heathen-kun.
>>18524 Rome was more than just some christians. Ancient Rome never treated jews as a privileged class and even waged war against them
Open file (1.27 MB 824x796 christ.png)
>>18525 King James Version chads we cant stop winning Praise Jesus
>>18526 >Ancient Rome never treated jews as a privileged class and even waged war against them incorrect, roman emperors after the 1st century AD gave jews lots of privileges
the Roman church has always been a suspect one. Only during the Lombard (german) invasion was the Roman church any good (produced Pope Gregory the Great) and it took four more Germans (John Wycliffe, Martain Luther, John Calvin, and John Hus) to unfuck Christendom and remove the evil power of the Roman church
>>18526 Some Christian emperors in the Roman empire made laws favoring jew, that still doesn't mean Christianity itself is Jewish slavery. Paul was a mass murderer of Christians yet the Bible doesn't say to kill Christian. This notion of blaming all of Christianity for the wickedness of some christians is just a generalization by people who want to force the belief system to their politics, in this case it's everything to be a Jewish plot to fit into their simple Nazi world veiw. If we were talking to Twitter feminists it would be the witch trails or something.
Open file (27.29 KB 521x509 Jesus_loves_you_anon.jpg)
>>18527 He also says other sheep will come: >And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. John 10:16
Open file (73.10 KB 947x514 siete partidas.PNG)
Open file (15.15 KB 1197x133 fourth lateran.PNG)
>>18522 its very easy to find in medieval law codes theres something limiting the jews. you forget it was christian kingdoms who kicked the jews out of their countries over the course of 1000 years there were also pagan emperors who worked with jews against the christians like Nero or Julian the apostate
>>18531 >incorrect, roman emperors after the 1st century AD gave jews lots of privileges Prove it. What laws in ancient rome gave them privileges? Sure, you can point to some emperors who were bribed by jews (Julius Caesar being one of them). Still, that is much, much better than codifying privileges to jews and putting it into law. >>18535 John 4:22
>>18555 >What laws in ancient rome gave them privileges? Sure, you can point to some emperors who were bribed by jews Not him but pic related, since you're an illiterate spic.
>>18556 so, the only thing you can point to is laws put in place by christians? how come pagans never gave jews privileges in ancient rome? i know why, its because christians are philo semites and deserved every bit of persecution they got by pagan emperors.
>>18380 They did debate already, but it was pretty uninteresting. Basically, one says one thing and the other doesn't believe it, or interprets it in some other way, so in the end they remained in their positions without acknowledging anything else, as expected, I'd say.
>>18558 Really? That's not what I seen at all. All I seen was one side say nothing but: "you have to have a religion of your own so you can debate the bibles authenticity" which is no more than gaslighting Adam. And if he did have a religion of his own? He'd use it to deflect. Instead of defending christianity, he'd attack his opponents religion. David even admitted that the second coming will involve Christ being reincarnated as a Jew to rule the world. David is a slippery lying kike like all "christians"
>>18555 >John 4:22 John 4:23
Open file (124.35 KB 767x767 1628081183987.jpg)
>>18560 John 3:1There was a Jewish leader named Nicodemus, who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. 2 One night he went to Jesus and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher sent by God. No one could perform the miracles you are doing unless God were with him John 7:50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, Acts 23:6 Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.”
Open file (157.11 KB 1024x976 smug-cc.jpg)
>>18561 Literally none of that is bad, so you're conceding the point. It's time to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour in your heart anon.
Open file (179.20 KB 545x556 Soft Manga Question.png)
>>18562 And how isn't it? Modern judaism derives from pharisaism. It is obvious that Jesus was criticizing pharisees for merely saying and not doing. It had absolutely nothing to do with debasing them. Mathew 23 correlates everything of what I just said
>>18564 Pharisaism went full retard after Jerusalem was destroyed. The core of modern Judaism in the Talmud dates to no earlier than 200 AD. Neither the religious nor the political leadership nor the public saw the Pharisees as primary authorities in time of Jesus. After the temple was destroyed they rewrote Jewish history to make themselves the protagonists. They erased the national character of first century Jews and their interactions with the Mediterranean world which Christians ended up preserving in the secular works of the Greek Old Testament compilation, the Septuagint. Jewish identity has been so deformed that their celebrated holiday of Hanukkah isn't even in the Torah or the Tanakh, but comes from an incident that Christians kept the knowledge of in books of the Septuagint which 2nd century rabbis deliberately cut out. The Jews are not justified by their law because there is no satisfaction in it; in order to have a holiday that had anything close to the soul of Christmas, they had to take from Christians, and it is in this way that they have anything which they can lay claim to at all, including their very State of Israel. There is no future for Jews except the termination of the Jewish religion, through its conquest by the cross of Jesus Christ.
>>18522 >>18515 >>18556 I wonder if e-pagans actually know what the Codex Theodosianus (Theodosian Code) even was to begin with, because if they did, they would not make this argument. The Theodosian Code was literally just a collection of older Roman laws put into one place for convenience, with some new ones added in and repetitive ones taken out to make it clearer. That's right - the Codex was a collection of things that already existed. >On 26 March 429, Emperor Theodosius II announced to the Senate of Constantinople his intentions to form a committee to codify all of the laws (leges, singular lex) from the reign of Constantine up to Theodosius II and Valentinian III.[5] The laws in the code span from 312 to 438, so by 438 the "volume of imperial law had become unmanageable".[6] Twenty-two scholars, working in two teams, worked for nine years starting in 429 to assemble what was to become the Theodosian Code.[7] The chief overseer of the work was Antiochus Chuzon, a lawyer and a prefect and consul from Antioch.[8] >Their product was a collection of 16 books containing more than 2,500 constitutions issued between 313 and 437, while, at the same time, omitting obsolete provisions and superfluous phrases, and making additions, emendations and alterations.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Theodosianus#Development (1/2)
>>18570 (2/3) In fact, one thing e-pagans are unfamiliar with is how Pagan Rome did something very similar in regards to the Jews. While Christians were persecuted, Jews were told to continue their religion by Decius and Diocletian. In fact, Jews were exempt from the law that mandated sacrifice. >There is no direct evidence for the Jews, but if they had been required to sacrifice, we would expect some trace of this in the record; in fact, there is none whatsoever. This silence is so striking that we must assume an exemption. The only explicit mention of Jews in any of the sources is in the Passio Pionii, which depicts them as part of the anti-Christian mob (3.6; cf. 4.2); although this text has an obvious anti-Jewish tendency, it would hardly have depicted them as allies of the gentiles if they were actually in the same plight as the Christians. As a parallel, a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud suggests that the Jews of Caesarea were specifically exempted from the requirements of Diocletian's fourth edict: Abodah Zarah 5.4, 44d; cf. Lieberman, S., ‘The martyrs of Caesarea’, Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientates et Slaves 7 (1939–1944), 395–446Google Scholar, at 403–4. It is likely that both Diocletian and Decius followed the long established principle of making allowances for the ancestral traditions of the Jews. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-studies/article/abs/decree-of-decius-and-the-religion-of-empire/CBAD383D53A66A01EB67E75022C373E2 >Julius Caesar had formulated a policy of allowing Jews to follow their traditional religious practices, a policy which was followed, and extended, by Augustus. This gave Judaism the status of a religio licita (permitted religion) throughout the Empire.[4] Roman authorities respected tradition in religion and the Jews were following the beliefs and practices of their ancestors. It was well understood that Jews would not perform sacrifices to the Roman gods or burn incense before an image of the Emperor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decian_persecution#Exemption_of_the_Jews
>>18571 (3/3) Lastly, it ignores a later compilation of Roman law made by a Christian emperor, that shows that Christian Rome wanted to righten it's grip of the Jews. I'm talking, of course, about the Codex Justinianus (Code of Justinian). >Justinian's famous Corpus Juris Civilis and his novellae (imperial instructions on specific subjects) included legislation on the Jews which confirmed or amended that of *Theodosius II (408–450) and virtually fixed the status of the Jew in Byzantine society for the next 700 years (see *Byzantine Empire). Adding to the restrictions and disabilities imposed by Theodosius, Justinian declared that Jews could not retain heretical and pagan slaves who converted to Orthodox Christianity, and that they could give evidence only for (not against) Orthodox Christians, while they could testify either for or against heretics. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/justinian-i-x00b0 Laws from the Codex Justinianus relating to the Jews C.J, 1.3.54, no date or address. No Jew to possess Christian slaves, or slaves desiring to become Christian. C.J., 1.10.2, no date or address. No Jew to own a Christian slave. C.J., 1.9.2, no date, (?) addressed to the Jews. Sabbath not to be disturbed. C.J., 1.5.21, to Johannes, P.P., 28.vii.531 Jews may not give evidence against orthodox, but may do so against each other. They may witness documents. Nov. 37, to Salomon, Governor of Africa, I.viii.535. Jews not to be allowed to attend church services; or to own Christian slaves. Their synagogues are to be turned into churches. Nov. 45, to Johannes, P.P., I.ix.537. Jews are to perform decurionate without its honours; may, in a suit involving orthodox persons, only give evidence for them or for the state. Nov. 131, to Peter, P.P., 545. Jews may not lease orthodox property; they may not build new synagogues. Nov. 146, to Areobindus, P.P., 8.ii.553. (Owing to its importance the text is given in full below) Laws of Leo the Isaurian, r. 717-741 Ecloga, App. 4.6. Jews to hold no public office. Ecloga, App. 4.7. Either Jewish parent may desire the children to be educated as Christians. Ecloga, App. 4.13. Samaritan synagogues to be destroyed. Ecloga, App. 4.16. Apostasy to Judaism to be punished. Ecloga, App. 4.24. Proselytising to Judaism to be punished. Ecloga, App. 6.26. Jews neither to possess nor circumcise Christian slaves. Ecloga, App. 6.27. No Jew to possess Christian slave. Ecloga, App. 6.28. Slave of Jew desiring to become Christian to be freed. Ecloga, App. 6.30. Circumcision of Christian to be punished. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/300-800-laws-jews.asp
Open file (968.93 KB 1732x1412 hate father and mother.png)
>>18515 >If anyone comes to Me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be My disciple - Luke 14:26 >Wow, so jews can love their own family while the nonjews should hate their own family. Really makes you think! Yeah, try using a point that hasn't been answered over and over again (pic related). Also, why ignore verses in the NT where gentile Christians are commanded to honour their families? Mark 10.19 >Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. Ephesians 6.1-4 >Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 1 Timothy 5.8 >But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
>>18567 >Neither the religious nor the political leadership nor the public saw the Pharisees as primary authorities in time of Jesus That's not what Matthew 23 indicates. 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, >The core of modern Judaism in the Talmud dates to no earlier than 200 AD. Yes anon, the written talmud dates to no earlier than 200 AD. Going by what is written, non pharisaic judaism can date to no earlier than 300 BC, completely contradicting what the bible says. >>18571 >>18570 >>18572 >As a parallel, a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud Oh, so the talmud is only a big book of propaganda when ever you want it to be, gotcha. >Julius Caesar had formulated a policy of allowing Jews to follow their traditional religious practices, a policy which was followed, and extended, by Augustus. This gave Judaism the status of a religio licita (permitted religion) throughout the Empire.[4] Roman authorities respected tradition in religion and the Jews were following the beliefs and practices of their ancestors. I already know about Julius Caesar and his relationship with the jews. There is as it stands, absolutely nothing that gave them extra privileges over pagans in rome. >On 26 March 429, Emperor Theodosius II announced to the Senate of Constantinople his intentions to form a committee to codify all of the laws (leges, singular lex) from the reign of Constantine up to Theodosius II and Valentinian III.[5] The laws in the code span from 312 to 438, so by 438 the "volume of imperial law had become unmanageable". Constantine became a christian, so I don't know what you're point is. You proved nothing except what I already knew: propping up jews with extra privileges (in Rome) is entirely christian derived. >Lastly, it ignores a later compilation of Roman law made by a Christian emperor, that shows that Christian Rome wanted to righten it's grip of the Jews. Ah yes, Jewish "persecution" by the Christians. Easily one of the most hilarious myths ever. The worst Christian emperors have ever done is kick them out of the country, after the populace had been robbed blind by them, which has done nothing but protect them from angry mob rule. The best example you can give is persecution by peasants, because they were so fed up with jews that they started killing them and "baptizing" them just so they can continue practicing judaism after they stopped persecuting them.
According to Codex Theodasianus, Pagans were executed for publicly assembling. Point to me even one law under christian rulers calling for the execution of jews. As it stands, pagans were BY AND FAR more heavily persecuted than jews ever were under "christian" emperors. All the persecution of jews ever did was consolidate the jews, while doing almost nothing against them besides """converting""" them and """kicking them out""" for all their heinous crimes just so they can go back to judaism and so they can be invited back into the country just 5 years later
If christians were actually serious about the persecution of jews, they would have done the same exact things to jews as they did the 'pagans'. But they didn't. If they were actually serious about the persecution of jews they would have enslaved them, executed them, or imprisoned them on mass. The enslavement of Jews by ancient babylon is what real persecution looks like
>>18574 >That's not what Matthew 23 indicates. >2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat >6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, To sit in Moses' seat meant that they illegitimately usurped Moses' seat anon. How convenient it is for you to ignore the rest of the text that slams them and everything they do. Don't believe me? Read Jesus' discourse on the wedding feast: >So He told a parable to those who were invited, when He noted how they chose the best places, saying to them: “When you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the best place, lest one more honorable than you be invited by him; and he who invited you and him come and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then you begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when he who invited you comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, go up higher.’ Then you will have glory in the presence of those who sit at the table with you. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 14:7-11 The Pharisees were taking the uppermost rooms at feasts unjustly, and Jesus as the Christ, and the host of the wedding feast reconciling humanity and God, stood to demote them for their vanity. Man cannot give himself the honors of God for it is God's prerogative as to who to promote. The Pharisees were just one of many Jewish schools at the time, there also existed the Sadducees that argued for temple primacy and the invalidity of the oral Torah (and consequentially what would be rabbinical Judaism), the ascetic Essenes, the revolutionary Zealots, and the Hellenized Greek-speaking Jews which were prominent in the political leadership and the core of the Diaspora. All these jostled to be recognized as authorities, yet none prevailed. But Jesus was different; he didn't make appeals to authority, he and John were publicly recognized as authoritative on their own terms, as the Old Testament prophets were: >And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Matthew 7:28-29, Mark 1:22 Jesus came for the nation of Israel, to all of these groups, as a new Moses who was to bring into effect a new covenant between God and themselves. His mission wasn't to make contrived legal arguments, he was set as one prescribing law, in being the legitimate claimant of Moses' seat. >Yes anon, the written talmud dates to no earlier than 200 AD. Going by what is written, non pharisaic judaism can date to no earlier than 300 BC, completely contradicting what the bible says. Moving the goalposts, we're not arguing about the inerrancy of scripture. Pharisaic Judaism deviated from non-Pharisaic Judaism regardless, which was the original religion. The word synagogue isn't even Jewish but Greek, because synagogues did not exist until the first century. Mosaic, First Temple and Second Temple Judaism was centered around the Tabernacle and then the First and Second Temples, which were held to have the authority to perform sacrifices for the atonement of the people. The building and the institution of the Temple was then destroyed because it has been replaced by the new temple of the Body of Christ. Despite their attempts to do so, the Jews cannot dedicate a new Temple because with Christ revealed, God's will is for the reconciliation of the world exclusively through Christ and none else.
>>18586 >To sit in Moses' seat meant that they illegitimately usurped Moses' seat anon. Untrue. Matthew 23:3 specifically rebukes that claim. >3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. >How convenient it is for you to ignore the rest of the text Except I'm not ignoring it, I'm taking in the entire passage. Jesus pointed out the Pharisees hypocrisy, while doing all the little things correctly while omitting or not doing the more important things, and that's essentially it. >Luke 14:7-11 You proved nothing except Jesus wanting Pharisees to be more humble. >Jesus came for the nation of Israel, to all of these groups, as a new Moses who was to bring into effect a new covenant between God and themselves. His mission wasn't to make contrived legal arguments, he was set as one prescribing law, in being the legitimate claimant of Moses' seat. >he was set as one prescribing law, in being the legitimate claimant of Moses' seat. Where does it explicitly say that the Pharisees claim to Moses's seat was illegitimate? >Jesus came for the nation of Israel, to all of these groups, as a new Moses who was to bring into effect a new covenant between God and themselves. No, he came for "the lost sheep of Israel", in other words, not the goyim. Mark 7:24–27 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is miserably possessed by a demon.” 23 But Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” >Moving the goalposts I'm not moving the goalposts. Your absurd claim was that Modern Judaism comes from 200 AD. >Pharisaic Judaism deviated from non-Pharisaic Judaism regardless, While true, it still all derives from interpretations of the Old Testament. A jew is a jew, it doesn't matter if he's an ancient one or a modern one
>>18587 Not to mention, that the Pharisees were the only people who even believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and even tried to have Paul killed. 6 Now when[b] Paul realized that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he shouted out in the Sanhedrin, “Men and brothers! I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees! I am being judged concerning the hope and the resurrection of the dead!” 7 And when[c] he said this, a dispute developed between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection or angel or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) 9 And there was loud shouting, and some of the scribes from the party of the Pharisees stood up and[d] contended sharply, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man! But what if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” 10 And when[e] the dispute became severe, the military tribune, fearing lest Paul be torn apart by them, ordered the detachment to go down, take him away from their midst, and bring him[f] into the barracks.[g] 11 And the next night the Lord stood by him and[h] said, “Have courage, for as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.” 12 And when it[i] was day, the Jews made a conspiracy and[j] bound themselves under a curse, saying they would[k] neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. 13 Now there were more than forty who had made this conspiracy, 14 who went to the chief priests and the elders and[l] said, “We have bound ourselves under a curse to partake of nothing until we have killed Paul. 15 Therefore, now you along with the Sanhedrin explain to the military tribune that he should bring him down to you, as if you were going to determine more accurately the things concerning him. And we are ready to do away with him before he comes near.” It is blatantly obvious who the perpetuators of (((christianity))) are when the bible is actually taken into proper context
>>18588 >It is blatantly obvious who the perpetuators of (((christianity))) are when the bible is actually taken into proper context christians? why would jews kill Jesus if they want to perpetuate christianity
>>18588 This is what /pol/ does to your brain
>>18589 Jesus is a myth. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus besides the gospels. The whole point of Islam and Christianity is to consolidate the Jews and to push philo semitism on the gentiles. Philo semitism of which to weaken the gentiles with turn-the-other-cheek "morality". >>18590 This is what philo semitism does to the brain. The very fictional person who supposedly "condemned" the pharisees, is the very person to have his religion perpetuated by those very pharisees. The truth is staring you directly in the face and you are completely ignoring it.
>>18587 >3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Are you not aware of the temple tax incident? >When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” Peter said to Him, “From strangers.” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.” Matthew 17:24-27 Here you have an incident where Jesus is shown to have effective disdain for the obligations expected by the religious authorities. He does this on multiple occasions, including healing on the sabbath, flouting purification rituals, and publicly rebutting their entire doctrine on forgiveness of sins. He exhorts his followers to do as the Pharisees tell them out of courtesy ("lest we offend them"), not obligation. >Except I'm not ignoring it, I'm taking in the entire passage. Jesus pointed out the Pharisees hypocrisy, while doing all the little things correctly while omitting or not doing the more important things, and that's essentially it. You understand this and yet somehow are unable to realize that Christianity is the lifting of the virtues and ethics of the ancient Israelite nation independent of its slavish observation of petty rituals and customs, that renders any continuity of supposed Judaism past, present, or future useless. It does to so-called Judaism what it attempts to do to everyone else for their own spiritual poverty in denying Christ. This package of values went on to build nations, and empires, and to inspire mankind make its greatest historical achievements. >You proved nothing except Jesus wanting Pharisees to be more humble. And you show your ignorance of theology. The wedding feast is an apocalyptic oracle: >And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’ ” And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of God.”  Revelation 19:6-9 Jesus is marking the Pharisees for reckoning before God. >Where does it explicitly say that the Pharisees claim to Moses's seat was illegitimate? "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” Mark 7:3-8 Do you think Mark made multiple references to tradition incidentally? Or was he trying to point out that Jesus saw the traditions of the Pharisees to be in vain? >No, he came for "the lost sheep of Israel", in other words, not the goyim. Oh yeah, do the trick where you quote things out of order: >And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Matthew 22:1-13 Whoever trained you really hates everything good in the world, because he trained you so thoroughly in the art of being wrong. Unfortunately everything good is from God (James 1:17), and everything from God leads to his Son, Jesus Christ. >Your absurd claim was that Modern Judaism comes from 200 AD. And I'm right. There is no evidence for their traditions in early Judaism. Everything preserved from the first century and earlier depicts a completely different religion in practice from what modern Jews claim. Unless you want to make the absurd argument that rabbinical traditions were so essential to Jewish life that they failed to write anything down for 7 centuries nor erect a synagogue for 5. In fact, the earliest synagogues are Samaritan, an ethnic group hated by the Jewish people. So either the "observant" rabbinical Jews adopted a practice from a heretical sect everyone saw with disgust or they "independently" developed it in open defiance of the primacy of the Temple. For someone who apparently despises Judaism you seem perversely intent on defending the lies of the rabbis. >While true, it still all derives from interpretations of the Old Testament. A jew is a jew, it doesn't matter if he's an ancient one or a modern one And Christianity is of the Old Testament, but not of some tortured lawyerly reading of the Old Testament but the Old Testament as it was actually seen in the ancient Near East. The faith of the New Testament was the fulfilled hope of not only the first century Jews, but recognized as divinely manifested by the Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Persians, and Romans who encountered it and converted. And just so Christianity continued its conquest of the world world, converting the Germans, the Celts, and the Slavs. The cross travelled across oceans, and across deserts, across mountains and wastes, through forests and jungles, to the furthest reaches of every corner of the Earth in fulfillment of Jesus' Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), because the Evangelium is unstoppable. Modern "Jewishness" is a composite identity of Jewish ethnicity and Jewish religion. Christianity is fundamentally premised on anti-Judaism. The modern Jews know this, and that is why they consider an ethnic Jew who converts to Christianity to be a race traitor. The Jews have their state again: in due time they will realize that their bondage in remaining under the law is a curse and not a blessing, and that Jewish identity need not be connected to and is not served by its minding of rabbinical chicanery. Whatever they convert to, whether it be Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism, will be just as "Jewish" as their "Judaism" is, for the only express quality of "Judaism" was that was the religious practice of the ethnic Jewish people, and it is now at their discretion to turn to whatsoever gods they want. Yahweh is and has been retired, as they argue "the Torah is not in heaven," he has no place as guarantor. The law's purpose was to establish a Jewish state, and they have a Jewish state, that has a new constitution and a new legal tradition. The ancient law's purpose has been concluded on their own terms, and it is no longer productive for them to reference. It is inevitable that the infamously "eternal" Jew will die, and he will delight. >>18591 >Jesus is a myth "Rabbinical Judaism" is the myth rabbi. Jesus is the one who destroys that myth by showing how useless it is. >Philo semitism of which to weaken the gentiles with turn-the-other-cheek "morality". Turn the other cheek doesn't mean what you think it means. Step aside larpagan and Nietszchean kiddos: the adults need the room.
>>18591 You're too warped by years of autistic conspiracy theories to understand that individual groups of people within a group can hold different beliefs. The Pharisees weren't some hivemind, they were Jewish religious teachers, they thought and they learned just like any good religious leader does and this created nuance amongst the group.
>>18593 >Are you not aware of the temple tax incident? What does that have to do with Jesus telling his followers to do what the pharisees say as far as religious practice is concerned? Also, to say that Christ advocated for fair distribution of wealth and doesn't embolden extortion is a ridiculous statement. Matthew 25:14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’ 21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ 22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’ 23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ 24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. Master, he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you. 26 “His master replied, You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. 28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ >You understand this and yet somehow are unable to realize that Christianity is the lifting of the virtues and ethics of the ancient Israelite nation independent of its slavish observation of petty rituals and customs, that renders any continuity of supposed Judaism past, present, or future useless. Except it's really not. Circumcision according to the old testament was supposed to be an everlasting covenant between ""god"" and his ""chosen"" race of people. That is arguably the most major contradiction between the New Testament and Old Testament. And that contradiction is on purpose. The sole purpose is to enable and galvanize the jews to doctrines that are obviously wrong. >Jesus is marking the Pharisees for reckoning before God. How does that quote link to the reckoning of god exactly? >"For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” Except it's not just a tradition of men, it's a tradition coming directly from the Old Testament: Leviticus 17:15-16 And every person who eats what dies of itself or what is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or a sojourner, shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean. But if he does not wash them or bathe his flesh, he shall bear his iniquity.” >Oh yeah, do the trick where you quote things out of order: How is it out of order? How does that quote disprove what I said? >And I'm right. There is no evidence for their traditions in early Judaism. There is tons and tons of evidence yet you are just choosing not to believe it. >but not of some tortured lawyerly reading of the Old Testament but the Old Testament as it was actually seen in the ancient Near East. Christians have been have done nothing except contribute to those lawyerly readings which lead to the fracturing of any semblance of unity within it. Which I say is completely on purpose. Christianity was never meant to be a unified movement. It was meant to divide the masses and convert them to philo semitism while destroying all genuine heritage that they took pride in >The faith of the New Testament was the fulfilled hope of not only the first century Jews, but recognized as divinely manifested by the Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Persians, and Romans who encountered it and converted. And just so Christianity continued its conquest of the world world, converting the Germans, the Celts, and the Slavs. Yeah, while conveniently not converting the jews. >The cross travelled across oceans, and across deserts, across mountains and wastes, through forests and jungles, to the furthest reaches of every corner of the Earth in fulfillment of Jesus' Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) And you know what else traveled everywhere? The star of david. Your statement proves nothing. >"Rabbinical Judaism" is the myth rabbi. No, the (((bible))) and the talmud and there fables are all myths. >Turn the other cheek doesn't mean what you think it means. It means exactly what we think it means. If it didn't, the New Testament wouldn't also say to allow someone to steal in front of your own face and to even offer your own cloak to the very thief who is stealing all your shit. >The Pharisees weren't some hivemind, they were Jewish religious teachers, they thought and they learned just like any good religious leader does and this created nuance amongst the group. This is just ridiculous. You're just attributing your own opinion on the matter that is not evidenced by the scripture. The divide was large enough to cause an uproar. A divide of which that had enough magnitude to spring people to violence. Oh and by the way, the Essenes didn't believe the resurrection either.
Open file (740.90 KB 1242x2115 Papias.png)
>>18591 >Jesus is a myth. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus besides the gospels. Wrong, read Case for Christ and Evidence that demands a verdict.
>>18619 Papias of Hierapolis lived from 60 AD to 130 AD. There are no accounts of Yeshua during the time period of him supposedly being alive, according to the new testament, thousands of people supposedly witnessed all of Yeshua's miracles. The point still stands.
>>18621 >60 AD to 130 AD >not contemporary enough That's your opinion. The point doesn't stand because you didn't read the Christian literature on the subject with answers this question. There is also Irenaeus A.D. 180, and even if you disagree by saying that's not contemporary enough, you're still talking about an argument of silence.
>>18624 >and even if you disagree by saying that's not contemporary enough My argument is that neither account is contemporary at all. Those accounts did not happen when Jesus was alive, thus, are not contemporary. >you're still talking about an argument of silence. Except it's not fallacious when there is no evidence to begin with. Not only is there a lack of documentation of him even existing, there is no physical evidence of him existing either. Christians claim that Jesus Christ was real, so the burden of proof is on the Christians to prove that he actually existed.
>>18501 >>Pacifism Wrong >You shall not kill *Thou shalt not murder. Kill and murder are two different things. >You shall not steal This is only a problem for niggers. >Universal human Rights Wrong. >Abolishment of slavery Check >Destruction of the female Wrong >Destruction of monuments Wrong >Do not resist the authorities/evil Wrong >Races don't exist Wrong >Divisiveness Too nondescript to say >State enforced public "education" Wrong >Subversive tendencies Too nondescript to say
>>18515 Jews were barred from holding public office, barred from owning Christian slaves, barred from building synagogues, and barred from bearing witness against non-jews in court and you think this is a protected class?
Open file (363.21 KB 581x893 Untitlesd.png)
Open file (74.46 KB 1472x624 Jesus myth theory.png)
>>18631 >Except it's not fallacious when there is no evidence to begin with. You're ignoring it but there is still evidence for it, while there is no support for Jesus Myth theory. >Not only is there a lack of documentation of him even existing, there is no physical evidence of him existing either. Christians claim that Jesus Christ was real, so the burden of proof is on the Christians to prove that he actually existed. Eusebius 60-130 A.D. in which Papias reports sayings of “the Elder.” There is an ongoing dialogue between scholars about whether “the Elder” is a reference to the apostle John. The Elder used to say this also: “Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake writing down in this way some things as he [Peter] mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them.” (Eusebius, EH, III.39). Papias also comments about the gospel of Matthew: “Matthew recorded the oracles in the Hebrew (i.e., Aramaic) tongue.” (Eusebius, EH, III.39). Around AD 180 Irenaeus wrote: “So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavors to establish his own particular doctrine.” Clement of Rome First Clement 13 (c. AD 95) says, “We should especially remember the words the Lord Jesus spoke when teaching about gentleness and patience. For he said, ‘Show mercy, that you may be shown mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven you. As you do, so it will be done to you; as you give, so it will be given to you, as you judge, so you will be judged, as you show kindness so will kindness be shown to you; the amount you dispense will be the amount you receive.” Ignatius Ignatius served as bishop of Antioch from AD 70–110. Polycarp and Irenaeus both report that Ignatius died as a martyr for his faith (Polycarp, Philippians 10.13; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.28). According to Professor of Church History Hubertus R. Drobner, “Byzantine hagiography identified him [Ignatius] as the child whom Jesus displayed to the disciples as an example (Matt 18:2 par), whereas Jerome took him to be a disciple of the Apostle John. Both reports remain hypothetical, but there is no doubt that as far as his time and theology are concerned, Ignatius was close to the apostles.” (Drobner, FC, 50) Although some scholars question his eventual martyrdom, there is little doubt Ignatius believed the resurrection was a historical event (see Letter to the Magnesians 11) and was willing to die as a martyr so he could imitate Christ. According to Ignatius: “I am God’s wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure bread [of Christ].” (Ignatius, Romans 4:1). Ignatius gave credence to the Scripture by the way he based his faith on the accuracy of the Bible. He had ample material and witnesses to support the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. Polycarp Polycarp was a disciple of John and was martyred at eighty-six years of age for his relentless devotion to Christ and the Scriptures. Polycarp’s death demonstrated his trust in the accuracy of the Scripture. About 155, in the reign of Antoninus Pius, when a local persecution was taking place in Smyrna and several of his members had been martyred, he was singled out as the leader of the Church, and marked for martyrdom. When asked to recant and live, he is reputed to have said, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He hath done me no wrong. How can I speak evil of my King who saved me?” He was burned at the stake, dying a heroic martyr for his faith. (Moyer, WWWCH, 337) Tatian Tatian created the first “harmony of the Gospels,” the Diatessaron. His work indicates that the four gospels were both widely known and widespread by the mid- to late second century. Diatessaron means “a harmony of four parts.” The Greek words dia tessaron literally mean “through four.” (Bruce, BP, 195) This synthesis of the Gospels, which selectively omitted the genealogies and some duplicates of incidents, was used in Syrian congregational reading for two centuries. The manuscript pages that remain are very helpful in analyzing the specific wording of the gospel texts. They are often older and they draw upon even older gospel manuscripts. Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History IV.29, wrote: “Their former leader Tatian composed in some way a combination and collection of the Gospels, and gave this the name of THE DIATESSARON, and this is still extant in some places.” >Non-christian confirmation of the News Testament History Tacitus, The first-century Roman Tacitus is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world. He gives the account of the great fire of Rome, for which some blamed Emperor Nero: Suetonius Suetonius was chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian (who reigned from AD 117–138). He confirms the report in Acts 18:2 that Claudius commanded all Jews (among them Priscilla and Aquila) to leave Rome in AD 49. Two references are important. First, he writes, “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” (Suetonius, LC, 25.4) Then, speaking of the aftermath of the great fire at Rome, Suetonius reports, “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a body Josephus Josephus (c. AD 37–c. AD 100) was a Pharisee of the priestly line and a Jewish historian, though working under Roman authority and with some care so as not to offend the Romans. In addition to his autobiography he wrote two major works, Jewish Wars (AD 77–78) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. AD 94). He also wrote a minor work, “Against Apion.” He makes many statements that verify, either generally or in specific detail, the historical nature of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. James the Brother of Jesus Josephus refers to Jesus as the brother of James who was martyred. Referring to the high priest, Ananias, he writes: “He assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions], and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” (Josephus, AJ, 20.9.1) This passage, written in AD 93, confirms the New Testament reports that Jesus was a real person in the first century, that he was identified by others as the Christ, and that he had a brother named James who died a martyr’s death at the hands of the high priest, Albinus, and his Sanhedrin. John the Baptist Josephus also confirmed the existence and martyrdom of John the Baptist, the herald of Jesus. (Ant. XVIII. 5.2) Because of the manner in which this passage is written, there is no ground for suspecting Christian interpolation. Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, who was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. (Josephus, AJ, 18.5.2) The differences between Josephus’s account of John the Baptist’s baptism and that of the Gospels’ is that Josephus wrote that John’s baptism was not for the remission of sin, while the Bible (Mark 1:4) says it was; and that John was killed for political reasons and not for his denunciation of Herod’s marriage to Herodias. As Bruce points out, it is quite possible that Herod believed he could kill two birds with one stone by imprisoning John. In regard to the discrepancy over his baptism, Bruce says that the Gospels give a more probable account from the “religious-historical” point of view and that they are older than Josephus’s work and, therefore, more accurate. However, the real point is that the general outline of Josephus’s account confirms that of the Gospels. (Bruce, NTD, 107) of people addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition.” (Suetonius, LN, 16)
>>18638 Just thought I'd add Pliny The Lesser to your list. Pliny was a pagan historian who also confirmed Jesus Christ's existence.
Open file (72.63 KB 600x659 Josephus.jpg)
>>18638 >Eusebius Actually, he was born in 260 AD. So much for "contemporary" >Tacitus Out of all the people you promote, it's the forgery you promote as evidence. Debunking it is as easy as falling off a log. https://ia802801.us.archive.org/6/items/tacitusandbracci09098gut/7tcbr10.txt Nor would Tacitus have erred in using the anomalous expressions pointed out by Nicholas Aagard in his treatise about him, entitled "In C.C. Tacitum Disputatio." Tacitus would never have written, as in the Fourth Book of the Annals (56): "missa navali _copia_, non modo externa ad bella"; he would have used the plural instead of the singular; and, just as he would have used "copiis" instead of "copia", he would have used "ejus" for "sua" in this passage in the sixth book (6): "adeo facinora atque flagitia _sua_ ipsi quoque in supplicium verterant":--we know that he would not have constructed an adjective in the positive when it ought to be in the comparative, as: "_quanto_ quis audacia _promtus_" (An. I. 57); for we have almost just seen how in such a phrase he properly constructs _promtus_ in the comparative: "_tanto_ ad discordias_promtior_" (Hist. II. 99). >VIII.--He now and then forgets himself by using words that clearly never could have been known to Tacitus, because they were words that sprang up in an after age. Thus on one occasion he is led into this error from the desire to express a poetical idea by a poetical word: just as Statius writes "distinctus" in the sense that his predecessors of ages before had used "distinctio": >Josephus Pic related lol. >disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus Suetonius puts Chrestus (not Christus) in Rome (not Jerusalem or anywhere else in the Levant) during the reign of Claudius (not Tiberius) in a story that bears no resemblance to any story we have about Jesus. As far as the other "sources", I don't care about. I don't give a shit about what pharisees have to say
Open file (749.03 KB 968x1041 eri_a12_akuwarai2.png)
You're casting pearls before swine, Christbros. Leave those autistic niggers with Down syndrome alone, no good will ever come of spoonfeeding them with information proving a point that's common sense anyway. You'll just waste your time and emotional energy.
>>18643 You're right anon. Tacitus used a time machine that allowed him to learn of words that he never could have knew otherwise. Makes perfect sense.
I have sympathy for christians, but I have no sympathy for christianity. That's honestly the best I can do. The only contempt I have for christians are the early christians because I believe that they were all kikes pushing philo semitism on the gentiles as an act of revenge for razing Jerusalem to the ground

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?