God exists and Jesus wasn't His son or prophet. Prove me wrong, fags

If you can take it as a reliable historical book then why don't you trust the writer's claims on Jesus' divinity?

Keep that fedora steady tippin mon ami

this must be the single dumbest argument I've heard

my diary is relatively accurate in describing the last two weeks, why won't you believe me when i say god speaks to me directly???

>christfaggot makes a compelling argument
>le fedora kek ecks dee

It's an entirely different story when your diary also makes the claim that a Jew started healing the lame and blind

The news is telling me jesus never existed. How will this effect religion?

not much because the devil has taken over the churches.

is it so hard for christfags to admit that a written document can contain both truths and falsehoods

B-bbbuuut it's metaphorical of how J-jjesus was modest and kind. FUCK YOU! you atheist

I believe it's possible but the idea that you'll take these writers at their word except for when it comes to claims of divinity is strange. If you refuse to believe simply because you just don't want to, sure, go ahead but this doesn't have any grounds besides your stubborness

i don't "take them at their word", you pathetic sophist. i claimed i didn't care about the historical aspects of the bible, you reply that i swear to the veracity of the entire text except for the parts i happen not to like. you're a liar, essentially, and your entire argument is based on twisting my words

congrats for making me like christians even less

my apologies, i read the first reply wrong and assumed you only had a problem with those claims

Really, the most important question to figure out is if the bible can be a trusted historical document. If we find it can be then claims of divinity should fall right into place afterwards. So i have to ask again, what's preventing you from doing so? (Or is it just apathy?)

provide sources dick-lips

>If we find it can be then claims of divinity should fall right into place afterwards
are you seriously still insisting on this point

are you so thickheaded you think a book is either entirely true or entirely false?

It's your fault for making vague statements and not communicating with others properly. Nobody cares whether you respect Christians or not.

no, it's your fault for not being able to read

>i don't much care about the historical aspects
there's not much room for interpretation here, buddy

I'm a different user, silly.

is not me

Markan priority is a pretty well argued topic, and I am not a fan of john or Paul, which seems like real fan fiction.

Thanks for the link tho

you're the one i was replying to. tell me what's vague about that and how it can be miscontrued in any way

Matthew 7:6

:)

I read it as "i don't care for the historical aspect as much as the divinity aspect"

Even if it doesn't prove my claim, I'm still interested in why you don't believe the bible to be a historical document. Can you please answer that?

I hope it does some good. I feel the author cites some sturdy sources but I'd like your opinion on it if you get around to it

>i don't care for the historical aspect
this is how you should read it

it's also the answer to your question. i don't know how many times i have to repeat that i don't make any claims at all regarding the bible as a historical text

When will people learn that faith is not about proof

Nice try, (((user))))

I read it, I find the article's argument pretty weak compared to Ehrman.

His examples only cite Jesus as "Son of God" not the Trinitarian totality. Also, modern historical analysis on all fronts agree that first century jewish messianic language does not bestow upon "the chosen one" divinity, rather Davidic sovereignty over the nation of Israel. Furthermore the argument regarding John the Baptist's statements on preparing the way are echoed in Jesus' statements regarding "The Son of Man", which I always felt was a third party and seems to relate grammatically to the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran.

There are good arguments against my position however, which I lack knowledge to confront. The argument lies between Elaine Pagels and Luke Timothy Johnson (whom I think you would enjoy), and focuses on the critique that the gospel of John was written to counter the material that later formed the Gospel of Thomas. Luke Timothy Johnson finds historical critical readings questionable contemptuous and thinks that the bible should be read honestly, without looking for subtext or using techniques such as multiple attestation or the criterion of embarrassment.

Anyways, for me the message of the New Testament is at its most useful in Mark, the sermon on the mount in matthew, and the letter of St. James.

This is probably a meme thread but...

Certain aspects of Jesus have a very sinister ring to them. His whole thing of humbleness towards men, the implication that Human suffering is an integral part of the Eschatological blueprint, and almost French Philosopher-like apathy are telling signs of a certain someone.

Then again a lot of other aspects are straight up Gnostic and fiercely so, more radical than any heresy.

>congrats for making me like christians even less
wew
How will the Christian church ever survive without a hysterically emotional fedoralord's approval

if god is real why doesn't he just fucking prove it then

>nah just take my word for it bro ;)

he wanted his suppliant to recognize he was God.... duh

John 3:16

...

this is a board for books you retarded faggot

I'm pretty sure he washed his hands of it all around the time of the black death. It seems like a huge shitfit desu

> tfw never seen people discuss philosophy or religion on Veeky Forums