(December 4, 2018 at 2:44 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:Give me an example where a third party source that confirms the telling of Christ is not considered "scripture/religious in nature."(December 4, 2018 at 12:48 pm)Drich Wrote: The Jews in that time where hemorrhaging members upto 5000 at a gathering!!! and all they had to do is simply produce a body and it would all be over. Remember 7/8 of the church was converted jews. because of all the reason Jesus blasted the leaders and the unfair practices. Paul's efforts were a small work off to the side which is why the apostles mostly let him do his own thing. they knew someone had to reachout to the gentiles, and Paul wanted the job so they let him have it.. The rest that followed Christ worked with primarily jewish people. that is 11 to 1 favoring apostoles converting jews to one converting gentiles, all of which again could have been stopped if the high console could produce a body. A fact Peter and john brought up at their trial in acts 4 that the pharisees had no answer for.
You're using folklore to prove your mythology.
Your very own scripture indicates that early Christianity wasn't so clear about who and what Jesus was.
That is the problem when speaking to closed minded people. when ever a document supports the bible or the telling of Christ the document becomes religious in nature. The problem with that is you can dismiss everything that supports the narrative. this is not an honest look at the evidence.
In truth The Author of Luke is as 3rd part non affiliated as one could get, yet you only see religious writings. Luke had nothing to do with anything he was sent as a documentarian for his wealthy master. he simply recorded what he was tld nd saw and sent back letters to his master theophilus which later became canonical.
Quote:1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
This is a reference to the Docetic Christians who thought Jesus was just a spirit. Now why would they think so in the very era when there were people who supposedly had seen the flesh-and-blood Jesus? And why does "John" condemn them with the words of faith, calling upon the reader to "believe" and "confess" that Jesus had come in the flesh instead of appealing to an obvious history?
[/quote]
Reference material please.
