Did he exist? Is he myth? Is he the Christ? So far in my studies im leaning towards he didn't exist at all...

Did he exist? Is he myth? Is he the Christ? So far in my studies im leaning towards he didn't exist at all. If he did exist his original vision has been warped by church teaching. In Matthew he tells us he did not come to abolish the old law, the church would have you believe otherwise.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

He says he came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it, and he did. The Resurrection is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

Incidentally this makes Judaism something of a religious dead end. Sort of an obsolete faith.

>17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He was probably a real man who was mixed in with a lot of myth to form the symbol needed for earlier Christianity to the extent it really doesn't matter if he was real or not.

I have no doubt if Jesus was a real human being he wouldn't approve of at least half of the shit that's directly attributed to his teachings.

He's a legend, based on a real person.

>the church would have you believe otherwise.

No. m.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI that video sums it up pretty well.

>wouldn't approve of at least half of the shit that's directly attributed to his teachings.

Care to expand?

There probably was a real preacher named named Yeshua who was crucified for insurrection. Although I think the mythicist view is fascinating and shouldn't be dismissed entirely, like many Christians would like.

>Jews don't believe any of this but we know better because they new testament says so.

>This is proof of what Jesus believed

I'm of the impression that he did exist in some form. After all, you don't start a widespread zealous religious movement based on wishy-washy tales.

However, he almost definitely wasn't the mystic preacher the Gospels make him out to be. The popular "historical" consensus is that he was probably just one of many apocalyptic preachers in first century Judea, but I'm more of the impression that he was more an enlightened/practiced mystic who preached some form of self-denial and spiritual inquiry as described in the Gnostic gospels, and that his message of self-salvation got corrupted by later writers who made it something more legalistic and doctrinal.

>After all, you don't start a widespread zealous religious movement based on wishy-washy tales

Are you sure about that?
>Greeks
>Romans
>Nords
>Africans
Other than that I seem to agree with you.

John Frum throws a kink in the idea that a messiah figure can't just be invented out of whole cloth in a relatively short frame of time.

The difference is these religions weren't based off any earthly figures. Jesus' message supposed power was that it came from a real person, not just a mythological figure that only existed in tales.

Jesus' message supposed power came from the fact it specifically preached salvation to the lame, the poor, and the enslaved. It didn't specifically matter who it came from but that it came from one person made it easier to grasp.

>Did he exist?

Yes

>Is he myth?

No

Is he the Christ?

I believe so

So far in my studies im leaning towards he didn't exist at all.

It's a pretty fringe idea m8

If he did exist his original vision has been warped by church teaching. In Matthew he tells us he did not come to abolish the old law, the church would have you believe otherwise.

"The church" doesn't teach that he came to abolish the old law, the law was renewed and brought to perfection.

Great insight douche

yep, only black people have black hair

>So far in my studies im leaning towards he didn't exist at all
There is not a single accredited historian who thinks this.

not him, but let's discuss the arguments. if you have some arguments against this from historians, use them. oh wait, there isn't much at all besides historians reciting an appeal to the consensus themselves

Your samefag is showing

That or an amalgamation of real people.

Considering our earliest sources documenting him are years later, from the government that executed him, and all the dogma regarding his teachings were ratified by a leader of that government centuries later (see Council of Nicea), I find the dogma of Christianity dubious at best.

I would totally, given impossible circumstances, chill with the historical Jesus and discuss the political situation of Roman occupied Judea with him, as well as the ramifications of his influence on the world, millennia later.

>talking with known rabble-rouser and zealot Yeshua

Enjoy the fuckin cross lad

I said given impossible circumstances.

Meaning, in Heofonum.

>being this much of a cuck for the gladius

I bet you pray to Caesar everyday so the Romans don't get suspicious too

There are some that do, although you'd probably write them off as not accredited for whatever reason, but yes the majority of new testament scholars believe that Jesus existed. The majority of new testament scholars are also Christians but that's another can of worms altogether.

Consensus can be wrong though, obviously. At one time it was thought that Moses existed and there were Hebrew slaves in Egypt

Moses probably did exist, though. Or at least there was a great leader of the Israeli/Semitic peoples who got turned into Moses through subsequent stories told.

Why is it that people can accept that the Flood story has a prehistoric basis in fact, but they can't do the same for the Exodus story?

Exodus in general or exodus from Egypt specifically? Because if it's the latter, then there's absolutely zero archeological evidence for it.

>Why is it that people can accept that the Flood story has a prehistoric basis in fact
Nobody does this outside of fundamentalist Christians as far as I know.

Regarding Moses, I'm fairly sure there's no direct proof supporting his existence or that Egypt ever had Hebrew slaves. If Moses did exist, he's been warped beyond verifiability into a wholly legendary figure.

>Flood story has a prehistoric basis in fact
that cultures have experienced floods in the past we know for certain. that the israelites were slaves that were liberated is a much longer shot especially when we have no archeological evidence to support the wandering through the wilderness and that the geography mentioned in Numbers is not contemporary to when it supposedly happened, but to the 6th century BC. this is not even including that Moses's childhood story was stolen from a story about Sargon of Akkad

my post got deleted for posting the truth, wow

kek, you mean for shitposting

its not shit posting, look up revelations 1:14 if you dont believe me, janitor got hurt from the truth about who jesus really is but you cant silence the truth about god. my post got deleted but i wasnt banned

I already looked it up and responded. that was retarded

On what basis? Jews don't believe Jesus preached the truth. By your logic Islam makes Christianity obsolete because it alters Jesus's place in the biblical cannon significantly (by making him a holy prophet but not the messiah).

Obviously this doesn't make Christianity obsolete because there are a lot of people who don't think Islam is true. This is how Jews feel about Christianity. The same way you might feel about Islam or even Mormonism.

>37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
>Matthew 22:37-40

>18 Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, “Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” 19 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. 21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.”
>Mark 2:18-22

>14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”[a] 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”[b] (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
>Mark 7:14-19

Probably didn't. The fact alone that earliest recordings of him come 50 years after the fact, which is literally two-to-three generations after his death, put that probability below 50%, not to even mention all the historical precedent of figures being invented.