Is there any reason not to be a Christian?

Not among the Christian population. Hell, most of them will still deny that the gospels were written by people who were not Judean natives.

They were written by Judean natives though.

...

I don't believe in God

>JESUS IS NOT GOD(1/3)

Jesus HIMSELF said:

John 14:48 :
...My Father is greater than I

John 10:29:
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all...

John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing....

Johh 5:30 clearly implies Jesus does not possess the quality of God. God can do everything.

Matthew 24:36:
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

This verse is talking about doomsday. This clearly state that Jesus(Son) doesn't know when is doomsday. God know everything, but Jesus doesn't know everything.

>JESUS IS NOT GOD(2/3)

Mark 10:18
"And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Jesus, according to him, are not even worthy to be called good. Much less a god.

Mark 12:29
"Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.

The Trinity concept is refuted by Jesus.

John 5:31
"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.

If Jesus is god, then how come he CANNOT testify his own testimony?

Isaiah 11:2-3

2. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him (Jesus)-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the FEAR OF THE LORD
3. and he will delight in the fear of the LORD....

'God'(Jesus) fearing another God(Father)? Nonsense.

ACCORDING TO YOU CHRISTIANS, Jesus was begotten by God, which literally means he has a beginning. Thus he is not God, for God has no beginning.

No they weren't. For starters, Luke doesn't even claim to be written by a native. For the other three, ask yourself why supposed Judean natives don't know extant scripture (Mark 1:1, Matthew 2:23) language (John 19:13, 19:17), geography (Mark 7:31), religious law (Mark 10:11-12, John 18:28). Why do so many "pharisees", hold Sadducee positions? (Mark 3:7, Matthew 12:10) Why do none of them point out any of the enormous illegalities of the trial Ciaphas runs, or note that "Jesus Barrabas" would mean, "Jesus, Son of the Father" in Aramaic?

Iesus Christi is literally God.

>JESUS IS NOT GOD(3/3)
>"""""""Jesus calling the Father "MY GOD"?!?"""""""

John 20:17
Jesus said, "....my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Jesus's Father and our Father? Are we the Son of God?

JESUS SAID "MY GOD". Which is totally NOT equal with the Father.

God doesn't real m8.

>JESUS IS NOT GOD(4/3)
>JESUS WORSHIPPING THE GOD?!?
>A GOD(JESUS) WORSHIPPING THE GOD(FATHER)?!?!

Jesus pray to the Father:

Matthew 26:39
And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father...

>Repeating Muslim propaganda like a well trained dog
The Islamic brainwashing is strong with this one.

...

>i'm going to pretend that we have a crystal clear understanding of the complex social and religious customs of a society that existed over two thousand years ago so i can nitpick about minutae and act like it's the smoking gun that completely undermines the authenticity of the gospels and if you disagree with me i WILL engage you in an intensely autistic debate about the subtleties of ancient jewish law and culture and there is nothing absolutely nothing you dumb goyim can do about it!

I literally copypaste from biblehud and biblegateway

Reminder that Muhammad was not a prophet

>Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

user, not being able to tell the difference between things like Hebrew and Aramaic IS a smoking gun. If you don't want to look at it, that's fine, but don't try to pretend it's not obvious.

no OT prophet is a prophet then

I literally don't have the capacity to deal with you Christians today.

Give me one unambiguous statement that Jesus says that "he is god" or "worship him".

And I'll deal it with after 12 hours of break, maybe.

It doesn't mention anything about OT prophets? Only that any 'prophet' who goes out into the world after Jesus and denies his divinity is a false prophet.

it does not specify that. it says that spirits from God confess Jesus Christ as Lord. was Jesus Christ not Lord before he was born? he is supposed to be preexistent with the rest of the trinity

Before Abraham, I am
I and the Father are one
If you have seen me, you have seen the Father
Glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world was created

He got it from a History Channel documentary, "Banned from the Bible."

He is literally quoting directly from the Bible. Complete with verse citations, so you can look up the verses in your own copy of the Bible if you don't believe him.

that's completely unrelated to this. but Jesus did anime-user embarrass himself when he used that documentary

It's not obvious, you're just a retard.

Can you read?

Does it said "People that confessed that 'Jesus is god' is from God"?

Muhammad HONOR Mother Mary! DEFENDING her against from false accusations of her enemies!

WHY WOULD AN ARAB GO OUT OF HIS WAY TO DEFEND A JEWISH WOMAN?

Any Buddhist could say the same thing with a totally different meaning. You are the one who imposes the meaning you want.

>Jesus never spoke in metaphors bro

Ok, then just explain that one example to me.

If the author of John is in fact a Judean native, why does he twice in the same chapter, in the space of a few verses, identify Aramaic words as "Ἑβραϊστὶ " Hebraisiti, "In the Hebrew". Surely a native who grew up with Aramaic as a cradle tongue would know the difference between Aramaic and Hebrew.

It's pointless trying to read anything into Islamic doctrine because it is so obviously a satanic religion founded by a man who denies Christs divinity it's laughable. The whole religion was founded by a person who was listening to Satan and decided to undermine Christs sacrifice

>Hey look at me, I'm Muhammad, I claim God told me it's a-ok to cheat on my wife and have sex with my slaves!

I can't believe you morons buy into that shit.

Except it's clear what he's saying. After those first two the Jews started throwing rocks at him.

By the way I just got those quotes from a Bart Ehrman page, one of the foremost NT scholars who agrees Jesus never claims to be God in any other gospel but clearly does in John.

AN IMPORTANT LESSON IN HISTORY HERE GUYS

An Israeli who does not consider himself a "Jew" (but sure knows my origins is from Abraham) and certainly not a Rothschild Zionist (which you all hate and think you hate Israelis as a people) is speaking.

I'll take you back to the bible to talk about Abraham who was the richest man among the hebrews at the time and his knowledge and abilities were far more than the avarage man at the time, created God and the Jewish religion in order to control his people. Just because he knows he can tell them anything he want and they will belive.
He was the first man to be called jew on earth and his sons and family are to be considered as the first jewish origins on earth. man considered a jew only if he was born to a jewish mother. MEANING ONLY FAMILY.

After the jewish people expanded and started to imerge with other people from lands around, Jews decided to come up with another religion which they will establish and expose ONLY to those in the world who are not jews (not family) IN ORDER TO CONTROL THEM TOO.

The chosen guy to tell the story was Jesus (Joshua son of Josef) - a 100% jew from jewish family which his origins is from King David's family. Joshua sat and teached the story to his 12 apostles - messangers - students of jesus - lobbyists as we know them today.
All of them 100% jews.
The plan was that each one of them will travel to some other land in the world in order to tell the story.
One of them is going to be the first pope Saint Peter (also known for his jewish name Simon son of Jonah, or just Simon Peter).

This was not the first time that an act of spread and control like this is done by the jewish leaders, the first act was done by Jacob - grand son of Abraham, who set his 12 sons to control the Hebrew and divided the people to The 12 Tribes of Israel to be controlled by his sons years before.

However this was not also the last time

To be continued ->

The non-existence of god seems like a good one to me.

Except God does exist

You honestly and truly do not believe in religion at all.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Well user one possible explanation is given that John was writing to a Gentile audience who would neither be very interested or knowledgeable about the distinctions between Hebrew and Aramaic (after all they are very similar languages) he may have for convenience sake said Hebrew because his audience would probably at the very least know that is the language most associated with Jewish people.

The same act was done by Mayer Amschel Rothschild in Europe at the end of 18th century, when he sent his 5 sons to 5 different cities in europe. Each one of his sons is going to open one brach of the Royal Family Bank and start lending money to big corporations and governments. This act is going to effect hundreds of years later, they are going to conquer europe and be the strongest family on earth during the whole 19th century, they are going to finance both Napoleon side and British side in the war and take control on the Bank of England through this, they are going to put lobbyists in positions in US government like Jcob Schiff, with his help they are going to found the Federal Reserve together with JP Morgan and Rockefeller family back in 1910 in the meeting in Jerkyll island and take control on Americans population too, they are going to get the Balfour decleration from British nation which promises them Israeli land back and in return they bring in USA to fight alongside with Britain in WW1 (WHICH THEY FINANCE EVERY SIDE FIGHTING AND MAKE PROFITS ON) they are going to make profits from every fighting side and also finance hitler in WW2 through the Bank for International Settlements founded through partnership by both governor of the Bank of England Montegue Norman and Nazi Germany's minister of Economics Hjalmar Schacht, they are still "running the world" today and controlling every known bank, corporation, government, written and televised media and they still have lobbyist everywhere just like Henry Kissenger

Your audience not knowing the difference isn't an excuse for a blatant error. also there is no convenience to this based on aramaic being associated with Jews, as aramaic was widely spoken throughout the near east, not just by Jews.

That's not exactly persuasive. If he's so convinced of his largely gentile audience's apathy towards local knowledge of Judea, why include the relevant verses at all? Who cares what the local nomenclature is for a few trivial locations, especially since he goes on to describe their narrative functions in another verse completely.

It's hard to get to detailes by just a few words and but my bottom line is that the jewish people were the first to think that population of humans can be mass controlled and the richest and strongest people from them were invented the religion and god himself.
Since then they controlled the world's population.
They controlled in the bible, they controlled Holy Roman Empire after they invented christianity, and they are still controlling today for few thousands of years already.

And back to the topic, what there is to belive in when you know the jews created christianity on perpose and jesus and all the popes to rule were OBVIOUSLY JEWISH LOBBYISTS

The fact that Aramaic wasn't associated with Jews only proves my point; that John described as Hebrew because to a gentile audience that identifies the Jewish people specifically.

The first we need to clear up is what verse(s) you are referring to specifically.

Jesus HIMSELF said:

John 14:48 :
...My Father is greater than I
But the bible says that even the angels were greater than Jesus, in Hebrews 1, at least while he lived before the crucifixion and after the nativity.

John 10:29:
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all...
The Father is God, and is greater than all.

John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing....
Jesus is perfectly one with the Father.
"I and my Father are one."

Matthew 24:36:
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Jesus' "unknowing" isn't one based not being consubstantial with the Father, but the differing roles between the Father, who leads providence, and the Son, who brings to man the understanding of God.

Not replying to all three. Bait level

I said it upthread. John 19:13 and 19:17

And as for this part

>The fact that Aramaic wasn't associated with Jews only proves my point; that John described as Hebrew because to a gentile audience that identifies the Jewish people specifically.

The problem is that the words he uses, "Gabbatha", "Golgotha", are Aramaic words, not Hebrew ones. Why use Ἑβραϊστὶ for a word in a language that "wasn't associated with Jews"?

The Son is not the Father but both are Divine.

Not that user, but divine worshipping a divine? Divine saying to another divine as his God? Divine fearing another divine?Peter said:

Acts 2:22
"Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a """""man""""" accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Literally perfect description of a prophet.

Whoah there user, you're bending theses verses way too far.

>Bait level
The sad thing is it's not even bait. He's just regurgitating Islamic talking points about how Jesus wasn't God but just another prophet

>regurgitating Islamic talking points
He is literally quoting directly out of the Bible.

To identify the speaker as Jewish; John is writing to gentiles who have no idea about the distinctions between Hebrew and Aramaic however John wants them understand that he is a Jew writing about his own culture so rather than writing a tedious explanation about how Aramaic was a language spoken throughout the Levant so it is what Jesus would have literally used in day-to-day conversation but that Jesus ALSO would have spoken Hebrew when teaching Torah because that is the unique language of the Jews and that is the language you should associate with the Jewish people which is why John renders Jesus' (the King of the Jews) words as Ἐβραϊστὶ.

He's taking scripture out of context to make it fit the Islamic narrative.

>regurgitating Islamic talking points
He literally quoting Jesus

Just like you do to John 5?

>muh context
What more context do you need for
>...My Father is greater than I
or for
>And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father...

>believe in god or suffer in hell eternally
>only told the middle easterners ~3000 years ago
>fuck everyone not in middle east
>fuck everyone who lived 197,000 years before Judaism was a thing

What did god mean by this?

The Father and the Son love each other through the power of the Holy Spirit and Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a prophet who is also the Son of God.

Yes, I also worship my mother and refers to my wife as God before on my way to work

Oh, and also, desu vault user

You really shouldn't do that to your own mother.

As did Jesus to do his Father, desu

literally all he had to do was write aramaic instead of hebrew, no need to tediously explain anything if he was at the doesn't give a shit level of writing the wrong language for "convenience"

Problem is Jesus was both fully man and fully God. You're taking passages where he is speaking as man and trying to argue that proves he wasn't also God, even though there are clear passages where he also speaks as God.

>I and the Father are one
>Glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world was created
>If you have seen me, you have seen the Father

>To identify the speaker as Jewish;

What speaker? It's introduced as the omniscient third person narrator. A factoid to be shared with the audience above the heads of the characters in the narrative.

>John is writing to gentiles who have no idea about the distinctions between Hebrew and Aramaic however John wants them understand that he is a Jew writing about his own culture so rather than writing a tedious explanation about how Aramaic was a language spoken throughout the Levant so it is what Jesus would have literally used in day-to-day conversation but that Jesus ALSO would have spoken Hebrew when teaching Torah

This isn't even wrong. It just doesn't even logically connect to the verses in question. I can't tell if you haven't read John or you haven't read what I've been writing, or both. But it's nonsensical.

It's okay with Abba.

You want to deal with a god going through some guy, a dead guy at that? If I talk to God the Good, I talk directly. And certainly no one stands between us: definitely no one in the cult-religions full of rapists and ped-rapists with their threats from their hateful god that will punish people and children forever.

The narrator IS the speaker. John wants to communicate that he is Jewish so he renders Aramaic words as Ἐβραϊστὶ so as not to confuse his gentile audience.

You can't worship your own father.

I'll just add on to this that the reason it was important that Jesus act like man was to show others the path. How do you follow the footsteps of God? You can't, therefore Jesus took the role of man to guide the way. As man he showed the path that God wants you to walk, as God he sacrificed himself for the sins of all humanity.

I guess technically He's my Step-Dad.

Same, no person would worship someone else, puri

We ought to worship our Creator.

The word Aramaic had no weight to John's Gentile audience and would not serve to emphasize the unique Jewish context within which the events he was describing took place.

Adopted Father you mean.

But our own father? Yes, we should worship our creator. But can we worship our own father?

>The narrator IS the speaker. John wants to communicate that he is Jewish so he renders Aramaic words as Ἐβραϊστὶ so as not to confuse his gentile audience.

Except

A) Why does he want to communicate that to his audience?

B) Why bring it up at all?

C) If he does want to prove his Jewish bona fides, why do it with an actual error that does nothing to prove that he's a Judean and in fact argues against it?

Not to mention that I still have no idea what you meant with the whole "Jesus would have quoted in Hebrew to teach Torah" or how that possibly touches in with local place-names and John's identification as such.

When you become a Christian our Creator becomes your Adopted Father.

When you are the Son of God who do you worship? Father and God are one in the same.

If he is willing to lie for the sole purpose of making things more "Jewish" then he might as well take out all mentions of non-Jews.

It is essential to remember at all times that the Gospels are about Jesus and Jesus was a Jew therefore John is very interested in emphasizing the Jewish context in which Jesus performed his Earthly Ministry which is why he glosses Aramaic words as Ἐβραϊστὶ because as someone pointed out earlier Aramaic was spoken throughout the Near East so it does not carry the same narrative effect to a Gentile audience as Ἐβραϊστὶ does.

>glosses
you mean lie. intentionally saying something false is a lie.

See No, I literally mean our biological father. Desu.

you also need to look specifically at the King James Bible.

Reasons being:

>Catholic Church

Aramaic and Hebrew are so similar that if equating them for the sake of a foreign audience counts as a lie in your mind then I thank God it will not be you I encounter on Judgment Day.

...

>KJV
>Roman Catholicism

they're two completely different languages, user. there's no "equating" here. this is the same as calling spanish french, which also are two closely related languages

>Jesuit Gunpowder Assassination Attempt
>Utterly no mention of a figure like the Pope in the bible save for revelations as 'False Prophets"
>The great whore is actually the church

please chant it with me: dump that whore, get a boat! dump that whore, get a boat!

Of course. Jesus praying to God the father does not mean he himself is not also God. Read this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

They are in fact not completely different but I won't pretend I am capable of changing your mind on this topic.

However to give you an idea of the level of similarity between them compare the words for "Jew" in both:

Aramaic - Y’huddai
Hebrew - Yehudi

>(after all they are very similar languages)

Why do Christcucks always lie?

Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related, but are very markedly different: the two are mutually unintelligible. It's the equivalent of telling me German and English are similar languages just because they're in the same group: they may be closely related, but they're entirely different.