Informational Deep Into Christianity

Its not him.. dont mistake what we wrote for his actions... I know many priests told me the Church added things... You need to know Jesus was Pure Love... Thats what should be preached apart from Christianity or the Church...
We don't seem to be getting it. Please enlighten us and explain how does condemning to hell those who would definitively espouse evil such as murder and slavery equate to espousing murder and slavery? Also, show us how is the Church's current (view and method of) Biblical interpretation inconsistently different from the earlier centuries and throughout the ages, as you are claiming, please show us how to arrive at such a conclusion in case we wanted to likewise enlighten others.
Deep into Atheism

Deep into Atheism

The scriptures speak loud and clear.
 
  • Advertisement
  • I submit to you the entire bible is a metaphor, including the rising from the dead and flying to heaven bit, aka the resurrection. The shifting interpretations of the bible became a paradigm of Christianity's survival in modern times. This is not a bad thing, the more flexible and open to interpretation a religion becomes, the less harmful and benign. Take Islam as an example, it's like the Church about 400 years ago, intolerant of free thinking and expression. But even Islam is going through a seismic shift due to zeitgeist of the information age. What was taken literal in the past, becomes absurd in succeeding generations and is quickly relegated to the figurative interpretation. Don't be surprised one day if you look up and find the bible categorized in the fictional category. It's already happening in some places and would have been far more prevalent if not for sensitivities of the religious community. You have to be careful with the cult of God, sort of like weaning a child off santa clause...
    What is NOT a methaphor though, is how Christ and his vicars on Earth treated Giordano Bruno, one of the brightest minds of the medieval word. Christ's vicars on earth killed Girodano Bruno and deterred the progress of science.
     
    I'll give you that Jesus wasn't an army general, but according to the bible he explicitly condemned non-believers (who did not believe he is the son of God) to an eternity of torment in hell. Due to this condemnation and other scripture in which he espouses slavery and the inequality of women, an unspeakable amount of violence were committed in his name throughout the history of Christendom.
    Yes, exactly, and it can be clearly seen here:
    Matthew 13:42: "They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "
     
    I'm not sure that merely quoting the Bible would be of any help here, just as is the case with any other quoted text religious or otherwise, I may be replied to that the verses are being taken out of context or that the quoting is leaving out other parts of an otherwise connected and encompassing text in order to drive a certain preheld point, etc (in which case it would deem invalid and your help useless)? If I got refuted as such, and their interpretation turns out to be valid and that the Bible does indeed condemn evil such as murder and slavery (slavery as in that of classical greece) in this life and ultimately to hell all those who would definitively espouse such evil, how would we then still be able to say that the Bible, in condemning evil as such, equates to espousing murder and slavery?

    @Ralph N , how do you know of Jesus who you often talk about, that Jesus is such and such and pure love and what not, if not from and via the Bible and from and via those who were entrusted with it? How can you know and I be sure that the Jesus you talk about is not just some figment of your own imagination especially that you do not rely essentially on the Bible for that knowledge, or even if you do rely on it, that you're not basing this Jesus on an invalid reading of it, and that the Jesus you proclaim is not some mere product of your feeble mind or the devil playing tricks on you? Whats the point of sticking to a 'corrupt' Bible and religion? Why do you not start a new religion or some awakening or enlightenment movement based on what you consider to be the real Jesus, a la Mohammed?
     
    Last edited:

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I submit to you the entire bible is a metaphor, including the rising from the dead and flying to heaven bit, aka the resurrection. The shifting interpretations of the bible became a paradigm of Christianity's survival in modern times. This is not a bad thing, the more flexible and open to interpretation a religion becomes, the less harmful and benign. Take Islam as an example, it's like the Church about 400 years ago, intolerant of free thinking and expression. But even Islam is going through a seismic shift due to zeitgeist of the information age. What was taken literal in the past, becomes absurd in succeeding generations and is quickly relegated to the figurative interpretation. Don't be surprised one day if you look up and find the bible categorized in the fictional category. It's already happening in some places and would have been far more prevalent if not for sensitivities of the religious community. You have to be careful with the cult of God, sort of like weaning a child off santa clause...
    Same way as Christianity evolved from its blood-soaked history. As in the Christian reformation, perpetual infighting weakens a religion by diminishing its centralization, which is exactly what's going on in Islam now. Unfortunately, there will be more suffering before things get better.
    unlike what you want to portray, our perception is not set in stone, and unlike the background from which you come, there is no stone plate in heaven upon which the true bible is written, Christ set the path for the spiritual evolution of mankind through the guidance of the Holy Spirit with very clear words. and yes our understanding for God grows with our intellect and as our capacity for the divine and other faculties evolve so does our understanding, and the result is that our faith today, is much deeper than it would have been a millennia ago :)

    and your argument about the difference in age between islam and Christianity is one of the most absurd and most laughable arguments in this thread. as if the cumulative knowledge of mankind plays no role, and that in the islamic world they have to reinvent the printing press from scratch and reprint the books in chronological order for them them to continue lagging by 600 years. an argument that indicates a complete ignorance to the human condition, let alone how knowledge is transferred and how societies progress overall.

    no my dear, the reason why islam is bloody is not because it is today where Christianity was 600 years ago, it is rather because the example that prophet muhammed set is one that entices people to commit violence in certain situations. as to your other claims about slavery, the inequity of women, and murder, every honest person regardless of whether he is an atheist or a Christian, knows how ridiculous your claims are.

    the only problem though is that you have no shame. you do not care if you come across as a neanderthal, as long as you get to regurgitate your already addressed claims over an over, without ever evolving a single bit. you claim that Christianity shifted its interpretations across history to become more benign :) you on the other hand are still today just as you were 5 years ago, not a single shred of improvement, as ignorant and arrogant as ever.
     
    Last edited:
    I'm not sure that merely quoting the Bible would be of any help here, just as is the case with any other quoted text religious or otherwise, I may be replied to that the verses are being taken out of context or that the quoting is leaving out other parts of an otherwise connected and encompassing text in order to drive a certain preheld point, etc (in which case it would deem invalid and your help useless)? If I got refuted as such, and their interpretation turns out to be valid and that the Bible does indeed condemn evil such as murder and slavery (slavery as in that of classical greece) in this life and ultimately to hell all those who would definitively espouse such evil, how would we then still be able to say that the Bible, in condemning evil as such, equates to espousing murder and slavery?

    @Ralph N , how do you know of Jesus who you often talk about, that Jesus is such and such and pure love and what not, if not from and via the Bible and from and via those who were entrusted with it? How can you know and I be sure that the Jesus you talk about is not just some figment of your own imagination especially that you do not rely essentially on the Bible for that knowledge, or even if you do rely on it, that you're not basing this Jesus on an invalid reading of it, and that the Jesus you proclaim is not some mere product of your feeble mind or the devil playing tricks on you? Whats the point of sticking to a 'corrupt' Bible and religion? Why do you not start a new religion or some awakening or enlightenment movement based on what you consider to be the real Jesus, a la Mohammed?
    These verses cannot be interpreted in any other way. If you read the whole passage still means the same thing.

    Ephesians 2:8-9
    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    Not of works, lest any man should boast.


    To your other point, hypocrisy and religion are synonyms, so it’s no surprise that the bible condemns evil while also espousing evil acts. History is full of such examples.
     
    These verses cannot be interpreted in any other way. If you read the whole passage still means the same thing.

    Ephesians 2:8-9
    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    Not of works, lest any man should boast.


    To your other point, hypocrisy and religion are synonyms, so it’s no surprise that the bible condemns evil while also espousing evil acts. History is full of such examples.
    What about this verse:
    Matthew 13:42: "They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "
     
    unlike what you want to portray, our perception is not set in stone, and unlike the background from which you come, there is no stone plate in heaven upon which the true bible is written, Christ set the path for the spiritual evolution of mankind through the guidance of the Holy Spirit with very clear words. and yes our understanding for God grows with our intellect and as our capacity for the divine and other faculties evolve so does our understanding, and the result is that our faith today, is much deeper than it would have been a millennia ago :)

    and your argument about the difference in age between islam and Christianity is one of the most absurd and most laughable arguments in this thread. as if the cumulative knowledge of mankind plays no role, and that in the islamic world they have to reinvent the printing press from scratch and reprint the books in chronological order for them them to continue lagging by 600 years. an argument that indicates a complete ignorance to the human condition, let alone how knowledge is transferred and how societies progress overall.

    no my dear, the reason why islam is bloody is not because it is today where Christianity was 600 years ago, it is rather because the example that prophet muhammed set is one that entices people to commit violence in certain situations. as to your other claims about slavery, the inequity of women, and murder, every honest person regardless of whether he is an atheist or a Christian, knows how ridiculous your claims are.

    the only problem though is that you have no shame. you do not care if you come across as a neanderthal, as long as you get to regurgitate your already addressed claims over an over, without ever evolving a single bit. you claim that Christianity shifted its interpretations across history to become more benign :) you on the other hand are still today just as you were 5 years ago, not a single shred of improvement, as ignorant and arrogant as ever.
    No point in evolving my position since the god of the bible is still a farce. But when you have an outdated set of beliefs, it's necessary to evolve...

    You mean Jesus changed his mind about burning people in hell? Everything you know about Jesus is from the bible, none of which was written by his contemporaries (if he actually existed). For various reasons, I’m one of those who's inclined to believe that there was a man in ancient Judea, of which a collection of books, later expanded and strung together, were loosely based on him. As such, the Christ of the bible is purely the imagination of a host of men who were either superstituous or frauds.

    As for Islam, the cumulative knowledge of mankind you have referred to is hastening Islam’s evolution. It’s already happening before our eyes, the last gasp of the radicals is a reaction to a dying order.
     

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    No point in evolving my position since the god of the bible is still a farce. But when you have an outdated set of beliefs, it's necessary to evolve...
    it is not your position that has not evolved. it is your perception, your arguments, and your ongoing stubbornness to address the Christian faith as you want it to be rather than as what it really is. you do realize you have not even once presented any of the verses you quote in their correct context and their correct meaning? :) which makes you more like annoying little kid, rather than someone who is capable of approaching the topic maturely.

    let alone your uncanny ability to ignore truth. how many times have people explained the Christian perspective of the points you have raised and showed you how far off you are from the truth? how do you react to that? you simply ignore them and go back to embracing your erroneous notions and insist on dealing them over and over. what does that say about you?

    this what i mean by you do not evolve. quite a sorry case if you ask me.

    You mean Jesus changed his mind about burning people in hell? Everything you know about Jesus is from the bible, none of which was written by his contemporaries (if he actually existed). For various reasons, I’m one of those who's inclined to believe that there was a man in ancient Judea, of which a collection of books, later expanded and strung together, were loosely based on him. As such, the Christ of the bible is purely the imagination of a host of men who were either superstituous or frauds.
    and the crushing majority of scholars and historians around the world, including non-Christians and historians, recognize that Christ is real. you once claimed you know more about Christianity than all the popes and priests combined, so do you also know more about history than all the scholars combined?

    not to mention your claims are also factually wrong. Pauline letters for instance were written less than 15 years following the Crucifixion. but you see what the real issue is, YOU KNOW THAT, and you have been told that a countless amount of times. and yet like a broken record, you will come back again to make the same claim. there is no truth in you my friend.

    As for Islam, the cumulative knowledge of mankind you have referred to is hastening Islam’s evolution. It’s already happening before our eyes, the last gasp of the radicals is a reaction to a dying order.
    if islam is on the brink of extinction because philosophically it is more like a house of cards riddled with incoherence and misunderstandings, relying only on blind faith and ideological brute force. the problem with islam is that most muslems have to be just like you to adhere to the faith. intolerant, close minded, oblivious to meaning and understanding. etc....

    so here you are, the mature grown up that you are, of all this forum this the only thread that you are active in, and of all the possible topics you could be addressing, you restrict your interactions to attacking Christ and Christianity. you surely seem to be spending so much time hating someone you claim does not exist. to bystanders, this may appear to be laughable or ironic, to me this is rather indicative to what festers within you. allah yeshfik.
     
    No point in evolving my position since the god of the bible is still a farce. But when you have an outdated set of beliefs, it's necessary to evolve...

    You mean Jesus changed his mind about burning people in hell? Everything you know about Jesus is from the bible, none of which was written by his contemporaries (if he actually existed). For various reasons, I’m one of those who's inclined to believe that there was a man in ancient Judea, of which a collection of books, later expanded and strung together, were loosely based on him. As such, the Christ of the bible is purely the imagination of a host of men who were either superstituous or frauds.

    As for Islam, the cumulative knowledge of mankind you have referred to is hastening Islam’s evolution. It’s already happening before our eyes, the last gasp of the radicals is a reaction to a dying order.
    How do you think those superstitious bunch were able to trick Giordano Bruno into believing in a Jewish preacher, despite his intellect? That will be a nice dissertation for you to write: How a man that probably did not exist was absorbed by the most prominent scientist of our time.
     
    it is not your position that has not evolved. it is your perception, your arguments, and your ongoing stubbornness to address the Christian faith as you want it to be rather than as what it really is. you do realize you have not even once presented any of the verses you quote in their correct context and their correct meaning? :) which makes you more like annoying little kid, rather than someone who is capable of approaching the topic maturely.

    let alone your uncanny ability to ignore truth. how many times have people explained the Christian perspective of the points you have raised and showed you how far off you are from the truth? how do you react to that? you simply ignore them and go back to embracing your erroneous notions and insist on dealing them over and over. what does that say about you?

    this what i mean by you do not evolve. quite a sorry case if you ask me.


    and the crushing majority of scholars and historians around the world, including non-Christians and historians, recognize that Christ is real. you once claimed you know more about Christianity than all the popes and priests combined, so do you also know more about history than all the scholars combined?

    not to mention your claims are also factually wrong. Pauline letters for instance were written less than 15 years following the Crucifixion. but you see what the real issue is, YOU KNOW THAT, and you have been told that a countless amount of times. and yet like a broken record, you will come back again to make the same claim. there is no truth in you my friend.


    if islam is on the brink of extinction because philosophically it is more like a house of cards riddled with incoherence and misunderstandings, relying only on blind faith and ideological brute force. the problem with islam is that most muslems have to be just like you to adhere to the faith. intolerant, close minded, oblivious to meaning and understanding. etc....

    so here you are, the mature grown up that you are, of all this forum this the only thread that you are active in, and of all the possible topics you could be addressing, you restrict your interactions to attacking Christ and Christianity. you surely seem to be spending so much time hating someone you claim does not exist. to bystanders, this may appear to be laughable or ironic, to me this is rather indicative to what festers within you. allah yeshfik.
    Interestingly, he still uses the brackets "Jesus (if he really existed)", even stylistically that has not changed. But, you should actually take his points more seriously. If you recall, he was one of the most devout Christians on Earth. He then decided to go much deeper into Christianity because he wanted to quench the thirst of his devotion. He then single-handedly acquired the knowledge of all popes, priests, and commoners combined. Once he obtained that knowledge, he was shocked. He then left Christianity, because of the depth to which he understood it. He even thought Jesus existed at the beginning of his devotion.
     
    These verses cannot be interpreted in any other way. If you read the whole passage still means the same thing.

    Ephesians 2:8-9
    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    Not of works, lest any man should boast.


    To your other point, hypocrisy and religion are synonyms, so it’s no surprise that the bible condemns evil while also espousing evil acts. History is full of such examples.
    Let us get this straight and then see if you can be of any help. Does Christ espouse evil such as murder and slavery because a) Christ condemns to hell those who would definitively espouse said evil such as murder and slavery like that of classical greece? if yes, how? how does condemning evil to hell equates to espousing it? or b) Because Christ, you may claim, also, independently of and besides this condemnation, espouses said evil, according to the Bible? If so, then how does Christ according to the Bible taken in its entirety or wholeness espouse said evil such as murder and slavery? The argument/explanation that i hope you may present must indeed involve Biblical verses, but "arbitrary selected Biblical verses speaking for themselves" is not an argument, let alone a convincing one, I'm afraid I might get laughed at and be ridiculed if I answered them as such.
     
    Last edited:
    These verses cannot be interpreted in any other way. If you read the whole passage still means the same thing.

    Ephesians 2:8-9
    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    Not of works, lest any man should boast.


    To your other point, hypocrisy and religion are synonyms, so it’s no surprise that the bible condemns evil while also espousing evil acts. History is full of such examples.
    this by the way is a beautiful verse.

    it means that no matter how hard man tries, and no matter how good man becomes, man will never be able to reach perfection, thus there will always be an unbridgeable gap separating man from God, and it is only through the grace accorded by God, that man can overcome this gap and be with God despite man's imperfections.
     
    Let us get this straight and then see if you can be of any help. Does Christ espouse evil such as murder and slavery because a) Christ condemns to hell those who would definitively espouse said evil such as murder and slavery like that of classical greece? if yes, how? how does condemning evil to hell equates to espousing it? or b) Because Christ, you may claim, also, independently of and besides this condemnation, espouses said evil, according to the Bible? If so, then how does Christ according to the Bible taken in its entirety or wholeness espouse said evil such as murder and slavery? The argument/explanation that i hope you may present must indeed involve Biblical verses, but "arbitrary selected Biblical verses speaking for themselves" is not an argument, let alone a convincing one, I'm afraid I might get laughed at and be ridiculed if I answered them as such.
    The premise of your question is wrong. You’re assuming the bible or religions in general are rational and consistent which is erroneous. In fact, the bible is known for its numerous contradictions and inconsistencies, so it comes at no surprise that the character of Christ preaches peace and harmony whilst condemning non-believers and espousing slavery among other hideous things… I’ve posted these scriptures multiple times in this thread and Deep into Atheism…
     
    and the crushing majority of scholars and historians around the world, including non-Christians and historians, recognize that Christ is real.

    it is not your position that has not evolved. it is your perception, your arguments, and your ongoing stubbornness to address the Christian faith as you want it to be rather than as what it really is. you do realize you have not even once presented any of the verses you quote in their correct context and their correct meaning? :) which makes you more like annoying little kid, rather than someone who is capable of approaching the topic maturely.

    let alone your uncanny ability to ignore truth. how many times have people explained the Christian perspective of the points you have raised and showed you how far off you are from the truth? how do you react to that? you simply ignore them and go back to embracing your erroneous notions and insist on dealing them over and over. what does that say about you?

    this what i mean by you do not evolve. quite a sorry case if you ask me.


    and the crushing majority of scholars and historians around the world, including non-Christians and historians, recognize that Christ is real. you once claimed you know more about Christianity than all the popes and priests combined, so do you also know more about history than all the scholars combined?

    not to mention your claims are also factually wrong. Pauline letters for instance were written less than 15 years following the Crucifixion. but you see what the real issue is, YOU KNOW THAT, and you have been told that a countless amount of times. and yet like a broken record, you will come back again to make the same claim. there is no truth in you my friend.


    if islam is on the brink of extinction because philosophically it is more like a house of cards riddled with incoherence and misunderstandings, relying only on blind faith and ideological brute force. the problem with islam is that most muslems have to be just like you to adhere to the faith. intolerant, close minded, oblivious to meaning and understanding. etc....

    so here you are, the mature grown up that you are, of all this forum this the only thread that you are active in, and of all the possible topics you could be addressing, you restrict your interactions to attacking Christ and Christianity. you surely seem to be spending so much time hating someone you claim does not exist. to bystanders, this may appear to be laughable or ironic, to me this is rather indicative to what festers within you. allah yeshfik.
    I think you should re-examine that statement. This is your own opinion, or more accurately wishful thinking. The problem with you religious folks is you live in a bubble and assume others share your delusions.

    Secondly, you base your entire knowledge of the bible from what your church has told you, not from real historians and scholars. There’s no evidence that Paul ever met the man from Judea which this whole biblical legend was based on. Furthermore, there’s much controversy surrounding Pauline letters. Their authenticity are disputed by scholars and some of the letters are pseudepigraphal as is the case for other authors of the bible. Point being, we know nothing about this man from Judea except from what is written about him by people who never knew him. What we do know is the character of Christ is an entire fabrication. This we can say with certainty and that’s all that matters.
     
    I think you should re-examine that statement. This is your own opinion, or more accurately wishful thinking. The problem with you religious folks is you live in a bubble and assume others share your delusions.

    Secondly, you base your entire knowledge of the bible from what your church has told you, not from real historians and scholars. There’s no evidence that Paul ever met the man from Judea which this whole biblical legend was based on. Furthermore, there’s much controversy surrounding Pauline letters. Their authenticity are disputed by scholars and some of the letters are pseudepigraphal as is the case for other authors of the bible. Point being, we know nothing about this man from Judea except from what is written about him by people who never knew him. What we do know is the character of Christ is an entire fabrication. This we can say with certainty and that’s all that matters.
    see how you always run away from one claim straight to another without ever standing to recognize your error? this is simply because you do not have any respect for veracity. your claim has now gone from:

    "Everything you know about Jesus is from the bible, none of which was written by his contemporaries (if he actually existed)"​
    to
    "There’s no evidence that Paul ever met the man from Judea"​

    we know very well Paul never met Jesus before his Crucifixion, how do we know that? he says it himself, ya mr evidence inta. there is however plenty of evidence that Paul went from hunting Christians and delivering them to the authorities to decimate them, to becoming one of the biggest pillars of Christianity after what described as an encounter with the resurrected Christ.

    and we know very well the origin of the Pauline letters, which ones are authentic and which ones raise question marks, how do we know that? because we research them ourselves.

    as to the historicity of Jesus, and quoting from wikipedia with the corresponding scholarly references.
    Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[53][54][55][56] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus.[15]:181 The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][57][58] Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[59][60][61][62][63][64]

    and again this is not the first time we provide you with this information. so what is the meaning of this? how many times are you going to bring this same point back over and over? if this is an exercise in stubbornness and refusal to adhere to truth, then you win uncontested, hands down.

    so in short you are incapable of an intelligent debate. so what is the point, really?
     
    see how you always run away from one claim straight to another without ever standing to recognize your error? this is simply because you do not have any respect for veracity. your claim has now gone from:

    "Everything you know about Jesus is from the bible, none of which was written by his contemporaries (if he actually existed)"​
    to
    "There’s no evidence that Paul ever met the man from Judea"​

    we know very well Paul never met Jesus before his Crucifixion, how do we know that? he says it himself, ya mr evidence inta. there is however plenty of evidence that Paul went from hunting Christians and delivering them to the authorities to decimate them, to becoming one of the biggest pillars of Christianity after what described as an encounter with the resurrected Christ.

    and we know very well the origin of the Pauline letters, which ones are authentic and which ones raise question marks, how do we know that? because we research them ourselves.

    as to the historicity of Jesus, and quoting from wikipedia with the corresponding scholarly references.
    Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[53][54][55][56] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus.[15]:181 The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][57][58] Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[59][60][61][62][63][64]

    and again this is not the first time we provide you with this information. so what is the meaning of this? how many times are you going to bring this same point back over and over? if this is an exercise in stubbornness and refusal to adhere to truth, then you win uncontested, hands down.

    so in short you are incapable of an intelligent debate. so what is the point, really?
    You're failing to make the distinction between the man from Judea who could have went by the name Jesus, or another name, from Jesus Christ as depicted in the bible. I've already said, I personally believe there was such a man of which the bible is loosely based on. However, the Jesus of the bible certainly did not exist. He's a mythical figure entirely fictionalized by unauthentic authors which you have admitted. What a shaky foundation you base your beliefs on. The miracles of Christ alone invalidate him of being a real person. He's no more real than the Greek gods. It takes a great leap of faith to believe in fantasies.

    I also love that you went to wikipedia and not the catholic encyclopedia:

    Historicity of Jesus
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The historicity of Jesus concerns the degree to which sources show Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure. It concerns the issue of "what really happened", based upon the context of the time and place, and also the issue of how modern observers can come to know "what really happened".

    ...

    The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.[22][23][24] Historicity, by contrast, as a subject of study different from history proper, is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly, it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and, secondly, the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances.
     
    Last edited:
    You're failing to make the distinction between the man from Judea who could have went by the name Jesus, or another name, from Jesus Christ as depicted in the bible. I've already said, I personally believe there was such a man of which the bible is loosely based on. However, the Jesus of the bible certainly did not exist. He's a mythical figure entirely fictionalized by unauthentic authors which you have admitted. What a shaky foundation you base your beliefs on. The miracles of Christ alone invalidate him of being a real person. He's no more real than the Greek gods. It takes a great leap of faith to believe in fantasies.

    I also love that you went to wikipedia and not the catholic encyclopedia:

    Historicity of Jesus
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The historicity of Jesus concerns the degree to which sources show Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure. It concerns the issue of "what really happened", based upon the context of the time and place, and also the issue of how modern observers can come to know "what really happened".

    ...

    The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.[22][23][24] Historicity, by contrast, as a subject of study different from history proper, is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly, it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and, secondly, the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances.
    you can rest assured i am not failing to make any distinctions. there is however no authenticity in you, this is the chronological progression in your last three posts:

    your starting point: "Everything you know about Jesus is from the bible, none of which was written by his contemporaries (if he actually existed)"
    your first deflection: "There’s no evidence that Paul ever met the man from Judea"
    and your most recent deflection: There is a distinction between the historicity of Jesus as a figure and the reconstruction of the Life of Jesus.

    you went from claiming that the scriptures were not written by contemporaries, to doubting Christ's existence as a person, to then claiming that paul, a contemporary never met Christ in person, to your latest jem, that i failed to make a distinction between historical jesus and the historicity of Jesus in my quote :) funny.

    so every time you are proven wrong upon a claim, you simply flee to the second. we understand very well the difference between whether or not a person existed, and between the detailed reconstruction of his life. you however do not seem to understand that, and this is why you jump from one point to the next, without ever being able to make these distinctions.

    each of these points can also be further expanded, but you however are more into "hit and runs" for the obvious reasons. and in case you haven't noticed, you have been regurgitating the same things over and over and over again. sorry case of a human parrot. you have opened this subject more than a dozen times now, and here you are again, reopening as if you have no recollection of the subject :) how sad is that? :)
     
    you can rest assured i am not failing to make any distinctions. there is however no authenticity in you, this is the chronological progression in your last three posts:

    your starting point: "Everything you know about Jesus is from the bible, none of which was written by his contemporaries (if he actually existed)"
    your first deflection: "There’s no evidence that Paul ever met the man from Judea"
    and your most recent deflection: There is a distinction between the historicity of Jesus as a figure and the reconstruction of the Life of Jesus.

    you went from claiming that the scriptures were not written by contemporaries, to doubting Christ's existence as a person, to then claiming that paul, a contemporary never met Christ in person, to your latest jem, that i failed to make a distinction between historical jesus and the historicity of Jesus in my quote :) funny.

    so every time you are proven wrong upon a claim, you simply flee to the second. we understand very well the difference between whether or not a person existed, and between the detailed reconstruction of his life. you however do not seem to understand that, and this is why you jump from one point to the next, without ever being able to make these distinctions.

    each of these points can also be further expanded, but you however are more into "hit and runs" for the obvious reasons. and in case you haven't noticed, you have been regurgitating the same things over and over and over again. sorry case of a human parrot. you have opened this subject more than a dozen times now, and here you are again, reopening as if you have no recollection of the subject :) how sad is that? :)
    My original position is in my opinion the historical Jesus did exist, but the biblical Jesus is a farce. In terms of authors, there's question marks on Pauline letters, some of which are certainly pseudepigrapha. Another author was Peter, we know his authorship is unauthentic and can be dismissed entirely. And don't get me started on the remaining authors.

    Your own quotation from wikipedia:

    Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[53][54][55][56] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus.[15]:181 The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][57][58] Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[59][60][61][62][63][64]

    The challenge you continue to struggle with is separating history from mythology. Extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence. If you are privy to such evidence please be so kind to share it with us, otherwise stick to blind faith. Lesson from today is it's safer for you to stick to your catholic encyclopedia. Clearly when you quote from wikipedia, you're opening a can of worms for yourself.
     
    Last edited:
    My original position is in my opinion the historical Jesus did exist, but the biblical Jesus is a farce. In terms of authors, there's question marks on Pauline letters, some of which are certainly pseudepigrapha. Another author was Peter, we know his authorship is unauthentic and can be dismissed entirely. And don't get me started on the remaining authors.

    Your own quotation from wikipedia:

    Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[53][54][55][56] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus.[15]:181 The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][57][58] Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[59][60][61][62][63][64]

    The challenge you continue to struggle with is separating history from mythology. Extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence. If you are privy to such evidence please be so kind to share it with us, otherwise stick to blind faith. Lesson from today is it's safer for you to stick to your catholic encyclopedia. Clearly when you quote from wikipedia, you're opening a can of worms for yourself.
    According to Wikipedia: Giordano Bruno (/dʒɔːrˈdɑːnoʊ ˈbruːnoʊ/; Italian: [dʒorˈdaːno ˈbruːno]; Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus; 1548 – 17 February 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and cosmological theorist.[3] He is known for his cosmological theories, which conceptually extended the then-novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own (a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism). He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its "center".

    n April 1583, Bruno went to England with letters of recommendation from Henry III as a guest of the French ambassador, Michel de Castelnau. There he became acquainted with the poet Philip Sidney (to whom he dedicated two books) and other members of the Hermetic circle around John Dee, though there is no evidence that Bruno ever met Dee himself. He also lectured at Oxford, and unsuccessfully sought a teaching position there. His views were controversial, notably with John Underhill, Rector of Lincoln College and subsequently bishop of Oxford, and George Abbot, who later became Archbishop of Canterbury. Abbot mocked Bruno for supporting "the opinion of Copernicus that the Earth did go round, and the heavens did stand still; whereas in truth it was his own head which rather did run round, and his brains did not stand still",[25] and reports accusations that Bruno plagiarized Ficino's work.