Hey, Nobody Said It WASN'T True

[The Grand Nudger]

I love it when I can get you guys to say that, it puts christian disingenuity on full display.  What's that about some "christ" that the majority of historians agree on? You must mean "jesus"..a hypothetical deaded nutball.  Which "jesus" do they agree on, again....?

Why?

Jesus as a historical figure who started a movement called Christianity.

Which "jesus" is the historical jesus?

[Drich]

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. 

Give me an example where a third party source that confirms the telling of Christ is not considered "scripture/religious in nature."

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.

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.

[DeistPaladin]

Give me an example where a third party source that confirms the telling of Christ is not considered "scripture/religious in nature."

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.

When you understand your skepticism with the scriptures of other religions, you understand my skepticism with yours. 

Reference material please.

The Bible. Here's the entire passage for context:

1John 4:1-3

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 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.

and also

2John 1:7

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Two epistles that condemn the Docetic Christians, indicating the controversy was quite active during the time of those who would have known the flesh-and-blood Jesus.

[Amarok]

glob.. You are seriouly just going to drop a personal insult to wipe away a proclaimed historical fact? Do you reall think your 'nut-huh' carries that much weight? maybe to your light minded members but serious thinker do you think attacking me changes what I said?

that (meaning the converted)  my short sighted/unfamiliar with logistics friend is called a base or often referred to as a foundation. Without a deep strong foundation or base Christianity AND Judaism would have failed long before now.

So despite what your little mind likes to hear, and despite what minnie says to himself. Christianity had to start out like gang busters/a wild fire in order to sustain the numbers during the persecution of the church and the destruction of the temple in 70AD by Rome.. without Christianity's strong base and ties to judaism the jews would have been lost to time as well, (Ever hear of the septuagint? ever wonder why it is in Greek and not Hebrew) Because as all their texts books of law genealogies ritual items were lost to rome and fire in 70AD. (ALL the sadducees died which where the majority ruling class) It was Christianity who reset the jews even during their own persecution, which means members floated or went both ways for a while. which also points to a very large and strong religious foundation, which again points back to massive member base... Which also explains why Jews today believe in an after life as the were reset pharicacial jews and not a sadducee. (because Christians believe in an after life.)

So then if members were not being won over in the early days when in your little mind did Christianity begin to take off? after the Christians were labeled enemies of the states and were hunted down not only by the jews but by rome as well? No. you have to go back before when so many saw Christ and so many were healed by him and first hand accounts were all over the place and strong, not to mention having 11 eye witnesses claiming the same thing who were again focused on jewish conversion.

Keep smoking the apologist crack

[The Grand Nudger]

It's really too bad that the docetics and gnostics lost out in the christ wars all those years ago.  They did alot to advance the corpus of christian belief and thought, to have that work stolen and it's authors declared heretics. We can see, in the NT, a sort of stepwise chronology of competing proto-christianities eliminating competitors in the literary tradition as they actually eliminated them irl.

[Angrboda]

You are seriouly just going to drop a personal insult to wipe away a proclaimed historical fact?

What "historical fact" is that, moron?

Now, now, he said it was a "proclaimed historical fact." Anybody can proclaim a historical fact. Whether or not it's true is another story.

[Drich]

It's really too bad that the docetics and gnostics lost out in the christ wars all those years ago.  They did alot to advance the corpus of christian belief and thought, to have that work stolen and it's authors declared heretics.  We can see, in the NT, a sort of stepwise chronology of competing proto-christianities eliminating competitors in the literary tradition as they actually eliminated them irl.

I see you got your answer concerning secular proof of Jesus, and not you are red herring to gnostics... noice.

I guess 1 you didn't know the proof was out there in secular form or two you did and just have No clue as how to answer someone when your BS line of no historical Jesus is called.

How about this.. how about be a human being that is respectable enough to admit when he has been found absolutely no going back wrong and eat some crow. Then stop using the no historical jesus as a trump card to every argument you want the last word in.

You want to have a gnostic conversation start a new thread, and conceded this one!

[The Grand Nudger]

So...which historical "jesus" would that be, then?