Christian Dindus

If you want to know what a true Muslim looks like, look at Muhammad.

If you want to know what a true Christian looks like, look at Jesus.

He did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as having authority over all other bishops

Jesus didn't exist, so does that mean that there isn't a true Christian?

It does fit pretty well now that you said it.

This is what Catholicism makes me do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/09/04/an-atheists-defense-of-the-historicity-of-jesus/

>"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

- Bart Ehrman

>"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.

- Michael Grant

>"In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

- Richard Burridge

You don't exist. Are you writing this post?

This triggers people so much lmao. But yeah, this view is idiotic.

The mythical Christ is a completely different character from the historical Yeshua, you fool. Learn the difference.

...

It is likely there was perhaps an apocalyptic preacher in Judea named Yeshua in the first century CE.

It is, however, impossible that there existed a Jesus Christ that healed the sick and was the "son of god" and was crucified and resurrected, mainly because these are all "facts" attributed to him by subsequent cultists many decades and centuries after the original events transpired.

It is not my fault that you are so idiotic to actually consider such things as virgin births or miracles in a historical discussion.

The mythical Christ existed before the world was made as part of the Trinity.

Yeshua was an Essene ascetic who was killed by the Romans. Later Saul of Tarsus invented some stories that Yeshua was The Christ.

They definitely exist as separate characters.

...

For what crime was Jesus executed?

Good on you for believing these superstitions, though I wonder why you even linger on Veeky Forums, when, in the end, history is a scientific discipline, and stories of miracles are not taken at face value.

Even scribes should hear the Gospel.

Remove Merchant

...

You left out the fact that the barbarians that destroyed Rome were mostly Christian but yeah. Early church was pretty bad when they weren't being murdered. Pretty much have to take the L.

>Arians

They are not

They are largely Catholic or Jewish or Deists

Protestants only have hilly billies like Ken Ham

Not that guy, but I'm pretty sure that even one of the guys you used to support your statement (Ehrman) that Jesus exists agrees somewhat with that sentiment. Historical Yeshua could very well have been much different from what later Christians would claim he was.

youtube.com/watch?v=xG5v-dnat-U

>could very well have

In other words, an opinion.

Von Braun was infleunced by the anti christian philosophy of his day

He was also a devout Lutheran.

>could very well have

I used those words because I'm not an academic and not actually versed in the subject enough to make such a statement. I'd be willing to bet Ehrman would stated it more plainly and can probably back it up if you'd care to read.

He apparently started out quite religious and wanted to verify the historicity of the Bible, and wound up ruining his own faith in the process. So I doubt he just went around looking for shit to support that conclusion.

Scribes are entitled to their opinions.

I wish you could see me rolling my eyes. Look, if you're not interested in the subject of the historicity of Jesus, don't participate in them. You've already made up your mind that he existed exactly as your church claims, said exactly what your church claims, and supports exactly your church, so there's no point in this. But your rhetoric wont change the fact that academically, the subject of Jesus' existence is actually quite muddy.

Heterodox by its standards

Showing yet again there is no pure protestant scientist

Except hacks like Ken ham, Van Til, Sye Ten, Bahnsen, Gish, James White, Holvind

The academic consensus is the he existed:

However, I agree that his messianic claims remain controversial to this day.

Please elaborate about von Braun's "heterodox" beliefs, I'm unfamiliar with what you're referring to and am curious to hear more.

He believed in science

>The academic consensus is the he existed:

I said that his existence is a muddy matter, not that whether or not he existed is. As in what he did and what he preached. The consensus is that he existed, was baptized, and eventually crucified. That's basically it, and it does fuck-all to support the claims of any church.

>secular buildings
You don't really get how Roman Religion works, do you?

>history is a scientific discipline,
Top fucking kek.

>The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

It supports the claim that there was a teacher named Jesus who was executed by Roman authorities.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura makes clear how one cannot use science in matters of faith

So the Bible is very clear that the earth is 60000 years old contra science

If one reasons, scripture is no longer the authority

The Earth's age is not a salvation issue; whatever position one adopts on the matter it is irrelevant to their standing as a Christian.

It is a matter of faith given that if the bible is false on the matter, it is no longer the case that it is INFALLIBLE

So by believing in science and failing to explain by Scripture Alone, one is basically being delusional

>The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

- Wesley, The Articles of Religion, Article - V.

>all things necessary to salvation

>be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

Wesley was an Anglican and his practice followed by the Methodists are in fact....Prima ScriptUra!!

The Creation of the world and how humanity and all creatures came about is mentioned in the book of Genesis

If we play the ruse of sola Scriptura, we cannot use reason and say it is an allegory. We must only prove it by the plain text ALONE. But this makes it impossible to reconcile with science and evidence, making the bible wrong and hence...fallible

The entire field of biblical Genre Criticism is devoted to parsing whether a given text is literal or allegorical so while your pontifications regarding what Christians "must" do are amusing they are nonetheless founded on ignorance.

That is by definition contra sola Scriptura

In fact textual criticism shows us that the first five books of the OT are in fact written and EDITTED by various sources. Moses did not write them

This makes sola Scriptura nonsensical and opposes it.

Genre criticism is practiced by secular scholars using secular scientific methodology

Not Sola Scriptura

Here's how Luther himself characterized sola scriptura:

"The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."

Again,

>establish articles of faith

The Earth's age is not an article of faith in the Christian religion regardless of your spurious claims to the contrary.

Furthermore, genre criticism is employed by both churchmen and secular scholars. I myself was exposed to it in seminary.

bump

Luther hated Coppernicus for going against Scripture through his astrological model

In fact, where is this article of faith found? In Scripture

What do Luther and every Christfag on the planet officially say on scripture?

IT IS INFALLIBLE.

If it goes against science and reality, it is fallible under sola Scriptura.

Too bad if you cannot answer that.

Wesley can get away with lawyering around because he has the whole quadrilateral bs to lean on which includes reason.

Sola Scriptura denies this telling us that all articles of faith is to be determined by Scripture or their conformance to such

The age of the earth and evolution is a matter of faith for it challenges the assumption of scripture's infallibility

If one cannot show coherently through scripture the statement of evolution and an old universe, scripture is wrong since the basic tool of reason cannot be used or it will no longer be the authority

You are free to continue ignoring the fact that in Luther's own words sola scriptura only appertains to articles of faith which does not include every facet of the natural sciences and to paraphrase Wesley that scripture is infallible regarding "all things necessary to salvation" which is also unrelated to the Earth's age.

Ultimately you're demanding that your interpretation of what "sola scriptura" and "scriptural infallibility" mean is more authoritative than the definitions of the reformers themselves. I cannot acquiesce to this demand.

That was proven by devil worshippers and jews. Everyone knows Jesus wrote the King of Kings Jesus Bible himself and that is the word of god.

>attending seminary

Talk about hitting rock bottom - even NEETs are more useful than clergy-men.

There is a reason why Luther got so asssmad about Coppernicus. This matter relates to science and how his model of the solar system entails scripture being wrong

And you know what is Luther's favorite motto? GOD DOES NOT LIE

This is why he was asssmad. He did not say anything about science or consult the theories of his day.

The Reformers agrees with me on the definition of Sola Scriptura and its infallibility

So go ahead, show by Scripture alone, Evolution and the age of the universe

If you use reason and science, those are the authoritative standards, not scripture

That was proven by textual criticism dumbass

If you want to know what a true Scotsman looks like, look at ____. Fuck off with your fallacies.

>The Reformers agrees with me on the definition of Sola Scriptura and its infallibility

Wow real funny dipshit

Sola Scriptura demands ALL matters of faith to be tested by Scripture, NOT tradition

This is why whenever the Church Fathers disagree with them, they ignore it as it doesn't fit with their intepretation of Scripture

Nice straw man ad hominem combo, how much will that be at check out?

Christian means to be 'Christ-like" and therefore Jesus Christ is the essentially the /platonic ideal/ of a Christian and therefore is representative of the religion as a whole.

And has nothing to do with the Earth's age.

It does when Scripture's chronology gives us an impression that it is incoherent with our findings and observations

The dispute of Luther and Coppernicus shows this tension

Issues appertaining to the natural sciences are not articles of faith.

Claims of miracles contradict the sciences.

You are evading the argument again

I doubt they were seriously unable to answer the questions. I've seen a lot of fucking criticisms of Christianity that just boil down to misinterpreting the religion, by either a lot or a little.

> I've seen a lot of fucking criticisms of Christianity that just boil down to misinterpreting the religion, by either a lot or a little.

You can say that about any ideology retard.

The point here is the Christians response at the time was to chimp out.

>"T-the Christians burnt muh books, it's all their fault!"

Everybody chimped out when Rome fell.

Well obviously someone kept the records OP, because we know about them today.

Must've been an inefficient book-burning since we have the knowledge.

Let's say you're right about Christians.
But how come EVERY regime that was opposed to Christianity ended up doing much much worse things than Christian regimes?
Like communists. Christian Russian emperors had some 3000 people executed during last 100 years, and most of them were fanatic terrorists, criminals and shit like that.
Meanwhile, 3000 people executed was a quiet day during Stalin's purges.
What now? They weren't true communists?

Some books are only known by name or because someone (byzantine copists for example) summarized them for a bibliography (a scripture about books). OP is a bating retard though.

Jews sentenced him for blasphemy (I know right).
Then they took him to the Romans, who crucified him for treason.

This, Abrahamics are always batshit insane for at least the first thousand years of their existence.

>Secular buildings such as libraries

Look here user, instead of just posting an image of the cat from Tom & Jerry looking really smug i'm just going to go ahead and tell you that there were no "secular buildings" back in the day. Every societal institution was sacred and devoted to some kind of deity. That's why they had so many deities. The roman senators literally convened in a temple.

>EVERY regime
>Le Communists

Bold Claim.

Does it have to actively be against Christianity to count? Or just have different values?

It's what you'd expect really. Its the ultimate slave morality after all. They honestly believe that if they disobey what their masters claim the 'ultimate master' commands that they will be tortured for all eternity, and be rewarded for eternity for being good slaves. Its existential Paranoia weaponized.

Though it doesn't actually work, not for very long anyway, because they tend to end up 'sinning' anyway.

...

>yet ANOTHER retard who confuses sola scriptura and scriptural literalism

I pointed out Luther's beef with Coppernicus on the matter of astrology before. This remained unaddressed.

I also point out the fact that one have to show by Scripture Alone where evolution and an old universe is implied to be consistent.

Saying it's not literal because of scientific understanding entails such understanding as the authority on this matter, not Scripture.

This I pointed out and it remained UNADDRESSED.

If any of these cannot be addressed, it entails that sola Scriptura leads to an understanding of Scripture that is shallow and dull, that refuses any use of reason apart from the text itself.

The only way out of this is to literally, take the Prima ScriptUra route of Wesley

T.anti intellectual caveman

Remember, morality isn't a spook if God exists.