Topic: Hey christians
+The Asshole — 12 years ago #37,072
I want you to PROVE to me, that jesus is white, and that all the pictures you see, are actual pictures of him.
The stipulation here is, you cannot use pictures, or words out of the book of lies. Prove both of those by your own words.
Checkmate
The stipulation here is, you cannot use pictures, or words out of the book of lies. Prove both of those by your own words.
Checkmate
(Edited 1 minute later.)
+Anonymous B — 12 years ago, 18 minutes later[T] [B] #418,123
I don't think anyone, Christian or otherwise, ever claimed Jesus was white. I know him rather well and these days he comes in whatever colour you wish him to be.
As to the pictures, of course they are stylised though bear a resemblance to the image on the shroud. Once again his appearance is rather insignificant - his physical body has been dead for over 2000 years.
He Jesus I know lives. His physical death was to take on my sins. You my also lay claim to this salvation if you wish. Amen.
As to the pictures, of course they are stylised though bear a resemblance to the image on the shroud. Once again his appearance is rather insignificant - his physical body has been dead for over 2000 years.
He Jesus I know lives. His physical death was to take on my sins. You my also lay claim to this salvation if you wish. Amen.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #418,124
·The Asshole (OP) — 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #418,125
@418,123 (B)
> I don't think anyone, Christian or otherwise, ever claimed Jesus was white. I know him rather well and these days he comes in whatever colour you wish him to be.
Hmmmmmmm, so now, you have no proof what his skin color is, but yet claim he is real?
> I don't think anyone, Christian or otherwise, ever claimed Jesus was white. I know him rather well and these days he comes in whatever colour you wish him to be.
Hmmmmmmm, so now, you have no proof what his skin color is, but yet claim he is real?
(Edited 55 seconds later.)
·Anonymous B — 12 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #418,126
@previous (The Asshole )
You write as though you believe him to be physically alive today. The colour of his skin is completely insignificant. He was born in Bethlehem in Judea of local parents thus one can assume he was of dusky appearance typical of the area.
His lifestyle as an adult was meager and one can reasonable assume him to have been thin and wearing a full beard as was the custom. Though none of this as any real bearing on his works.
There is no doubt that he existed and was the founder of Christianity - this is a well documented fact. Whether you believe in his good works is your business and not what OP asked. Amen
You write as though you believe him to be physically alive today. The colour of his skin is completely insignificant. He was born in Bethlehem in Judea of local parents thus one can assume he was of dusky appearance typical of the area.
His lifestyle as an adult was meager and one can reasonable assume him to have been thin and wearing a full beard as was the custom. Though none of this as any real bearing on his works.
There is no doubt that he existed and was the founder of Christianity - this is a well documented fact. Whether you believe in his good works is your business and not what OP asked. Amen
·The Asshole (OP) — 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #418,127
@previous (B)
Soooooo, since your saying there is NO actual proof, that he used to be a real human being, that you can use your imagination and draw your own picture on what he looks like?
One would ASSUME, that since he was born in bethlehem, as you claim, that some moron from that country would have known what he looked like. Therefore, since no one "actually" ever saw him, he is a made up character.
You still failed to give any proof that he does, or did, exist.
Soooooo, since your saying there is NO actual proof, that he used to be a real human being, that you can use your imagination and draw your own picture on what he looks like?
One would ASSUME, that since he was born in bethlehem, as you claim, that some moron from that country would have known what he looked like. Therefore, since no one "actually" ever saw him, he is a made up character.
You still failed to give any proof that he does, or did, exist.
·The Asshole (OP) — 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #418,128
...
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
·The Asshole (OP) — 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #418,129
@418,126 (B)
Soooooo, since your saying there is NO actual proof, that he used to be a real human being, that you can use your imagination and draw your own picture on what he looks like?
One would ASSUME, that since he was born in bethlehem, as you claim, that some moron from that country would have known what he looked like. Therefore, since no one "actually" ever saw him, he is a made up character. t.v.
You still failed to give any proof that he does, or did, exist.
Soooooo, since your saying there is NO actual proof, that he used to be a real human being, that you can use your imagination and draw your own picture on what he looks like?
One would ASSUME, that since he was born in bethlehem, as you claim, that some moron from that country would have known what he looked like. Therefore, since no one "actually" ever saw him, he is a made up character. t.v.
You still failed to give any proof that he does, or did, exist.
·Anonymous B — 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #418,131
@418,128 (The Asshole )
> There is no doubt that he existed and was the founder of Christianity - this is a well documented fact. Whether you believe in his good works is your business and not what OP asked. Amen
There is no point in discussing this with you as you clearly cannot read.
> There is no doubt that he existed and was the founder of Christianity - this is a well documented fact. Whether you believe in his good works is your business and not what OP asked. Amen
There is no point in discussing this with you as you clearly cannot read.
+Justin Igger — 12 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #418,137
Jesus wether he is the son of god or just a regular guy was way to kind and intelligent to be a nigger.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
+Anonymous D — 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #418,139
·The Asshole (OP) — 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #418,140
@418,131 (B)
Well known fact? Is this because the book of lies tells you this?
Proof motherfucker proof..... where is the proof?
Well known fact? Is this because the book of lies tells you this?
Proof motherfucker proof..... where is the proof?
·Anonymous B — 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #418,149
@previous (The Asshole )
The question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is distinct from the study of the historical Jesus, which goes beyond the analysis of his historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea. Nor does it concern supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus, which historians tend to look on as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[ Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[ Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time more so than any of his contemporaries with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions". Although a small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, the great majority of scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention implausible. Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence. Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
The sources for the historicity of Jesus are mainly Christian sources, but there are some mentions also in a few non-Christian Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus. These include the works of 1st-century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93--94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery. Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars. Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe and the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion.
Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus. John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader. Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event. Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, highly skeptical with regard to the Gospel accounts of miracles, wrote in 1995
That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.
Leading historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee". According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived is an "extreme view". He wrote
If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.
According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory", adding that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Michael Grant wrote in 1977 that
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."
Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University[53] has stated "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."
Historian Donald Akenson wrote "Yeshua, born in Nazareth,...after his death, was transformed into Jesus-the-Messiah, or, if you like, Jesus Christ."
Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs[56] has stated "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain."
The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician. Other possible references to Jesus and his execution may exist in the Talmud, but they also aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.
TL:DR Ample evidence beyond and outside the bible exists.
The question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is distinct from the study of the historical Jesus, which goes beyond the analysis of his historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea. Nor does it concern supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus, which historians tend to look on as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[ Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[ Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time
The sources for the historicity of Jesus are mainly Christian sources, but there are some mentions also in a few non-Christian Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus. These include the works of 1st-century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93--94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery. Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars. Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe and the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion.
Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus. John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader. Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event. Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, highly skeptical with regard to the Gospel accounts of miracles, wrote in 1995
That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.
Leading historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee". According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived is an "extreme view". He wrote
If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.
According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory", adding that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Michael Grant wrote in 1977 that
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."
Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University[53] has stated "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."
Historian Donald Akenson wrote "Yeshua, born in Nazareth,...after his death, was transformed into Jesus-the-Messiah, or, if you like, Jesus Christ."
Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs[56] has stated "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain."
The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician. Other possible references to Jesus and his execution may exist in the Talmud, but they also aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.
TL:DR Ample evidence beyond and outside the bible exists.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
+Anonymous E — 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #418,172
Everything said about Jesus supposed skin color is an assumption at best. People from Palestine are not always dark-skinned and hook nosed, neither they looked like the inhabitants of a trailer park in Idaho or a from a black ghetto. AT the end of they Jesus has the skin the color that best support your political agenda.·The Asshole (OP) — 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #418,177
@previous (E)
Thanks for the proof.
@418,149 (B)
That clearly indicates that "jesus" did not die on the cross, as your book of lies have led you to believe.
Checkmate fucker
Thanks for the proof.
@418,149 (B)
That clearly indicates that "jesus" did not die on the cross, as your book of lies have led you to believe.
Checkmate fucker
+FUCK !YAH.boners — 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[T] [B] #418,213
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.