I am a Christian (Christian Identity adherent) who is about to end a 5 year relationship with a Jewish girl...

>biological descendants of Cain
All of Cain's progeny were wiped out during the global Flood. Every man living is a descendant of Seth.

Attached: 45458455.jpg (351x500, 150K)

>Ask me anything
You know Jesus wasn't even a real person, right?

>pic related

Attached: jesus.jpg (333x499, 35K)

>The bible was fake
>Just read this book
Wow so this is the power of athiesm.

>Wow so this is the power of athiesm.
Who says I'm an atheist?

The historical facts, as best as we can establish them, stand on their own two feet. The historian's own religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Did that historian read the oldest scripture in its native tongue?
Does he speak Aramaic and Latin and Hebrew and Koine Greek? Not much of a historian if hes just commenting on second hand sources now is he?

>Does he speak Aramaic and Latin and Hebrew and Koine Greek?
Yes, of course he does. You don't earn a PhD in ancient history without knowing the languages.

Not sure why you'd bring up Aramaic, though. There are no biblical texts written in it, and I suspect very few (if any) early Christian texts.

>The Gospels come decades later and are the first we hear of an earthly story for Jesus.
Wrong. Matthew was written within four years of Jesus' death, by the apostle Matthew. Mark was written by John Mark who interviewed Peter. Luke was written by the historian Luke, almost certainly within two decades of Jesus' Resurrection. Only John was written "decades" after, and that is an eye-witness account and thus a primary source.

>The Gospels are wildly fictitious in their content and structure.
Baseless claim and nigh-universally rejected by literary and historical scholars.

>Every story has discernible allegorical or propagandistic intent.
Baseless claim and nigh-universally rejected by literary and historical scholars.

>The first (Mark) looks like an extended meta-parable (outsiders are told a story, while insiders are told what it really means).
Piss poor exegesis, desu.

I'll read your book then, mate.
Do me a favor and clean up my ancestral homeland will ya?
You're making us AngloSaxons look bad innit?

Attached: 1531536655669.jpg (309x388, 17K)

>Responding to what he sees as the main elements in the same book, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh, Larry Hurtado, has written that, contrary to Carrier's claims, Philo of Alexandria never refers to an archangel named Jesus. Hurtado also states that the apostle Paul clearly believed Jesus to have been a real man who lived on earth and that deities of pagan saviour cults such as Isis and Osiris, etc., were not transformed in their devotees' ideas from heavenly deities to actual people living on earth.

>Reviewing On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Christina Petterson of the University of Newcastle, Australia, in the academic journal Relegere, writes, "Even if strictly correct, the methodology is tenuous. In addition, the numbers and the statistics seem like a diversion or an illusionary tactic which intentionally confuse and obfuscate", and that, "Maths aside, nothing in the book shocked me, but seemed quite rudimentary first year New Testament stuff." Petterson says Carrier's conclusion that the later tales of a historical Jesus should be studied for their literary and rhetorical purpose and not for their specific historical content "reveals Carrier's ignorance of the field of New Testament studies and early Christianity"

> Daniel N. Gullotta, reviewing Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, says he finds Carrier's arguments "problematic and unpersuasive", his use of Bayesian probabilities "unnecessarily complex" and criticizes Carrier's "lack of evidence, strained readings and troublesome assumptions." Gullotta also says that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, either documentary or archaeological, that there was a period when Christians believed that Jesus only existed in heaven rather than living as a human being on earth, which he says is Carrier's "foundational" thesis.

No you are wrong because on the Ark Noah's sons had daughters of the Cains Bloodline as wives.

You need to lookup that fact.

Cain the son of Yaldabaoth by Eve. The Gnostic Satan aka Demiurge. The Half Creator.

Seth was the true son of Adam by Eve born to replace Abel after Cain killed him.

Attached: adam4b.png (390x250, 2K)

>Wrong. Matthew was written within four years of Jesus' death
Impossible. Mark, Matthew and Luke all reference the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
>by the apostle Matthew.
You don't know who wrote any of the gospels, and neither does anyone else.
>Mark was written by John Mark who interviewed Peter.
That is a church tradition that emerged centuries later. Again, no evidence.
>Luke was written by the historian Luke
The author of Luke is not known. Again, the name comes from a later tradition.
>almost certainly within two decades of Jesus' Resurrection.
Also impossible, see above.
>Only John was written "decades" after
John is almost impossible to date, because the original manuscripts are lost. What we have now is a hodge-podge mish-mash of a text whose pages aren't even in the right order.
>and that is an eye-witness account
None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts, not even John, so why would you make that claim? Is it because your IQ isn't as high as you'd like it to be?
>>The Gospels are wildly fictitious in their content and structure.
>Baseless claim and nigh-universally rejected by literary and historical scholars.
That the gospels are historically unreliable is standard opinion now in biblical circles. Obviously, the priests haven't told that to their parishioners which is why you haven't heard it yet.
>>Every story has discernible allegorical or propagandistic intent.
>Baseless claim and nigh-universally rejected by literary and historical scholars.
You can easily disprove the claim by presenting just one gospel story which has no discernible allegorical or propagandistic intent.
>Piss poor exegesis, desu.
Presumably you've never even read the book and so aren't in a position to criticise it, positively or negatively.

Absolutely heretical:

>2 The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose.
>3 And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.
Genesis 6: 2,3

The Sons of God are the children of Seth and the daughters of men are the daughters of Cain. God saw these intermarriages as an abomination and would not have allowed such to survive the Flood. Also Noah would not have allowed his sons to marry fallen women.

>Hurtado also states that the apostle Paul clearly believed Jesus to have been a real man who lived on earth
I haven't read Hurtado, but this claim of his, presuming you've reported it accurately, is profoundly nonsensical.

Paul mentions Jesus' life and teachings exactly zero times. Either he's the only Christian in 2000 years who has no interested in what Jesus did and said, or we can take him at his word when he claims Jesus only ever appears in dreams.

>That the gospels are historically unreliable is standard opinion now in biblical circles.
Obviously, I meant 'biblical scholarship circles', not 'circles of people who like reading the bible'

No the Sons of god from that verse is not talking about children of Seth at all.

Its talking about the Igigi or the Watchers that became the Fallen when they took human females to have as wives at the wedding of Marduk to Sarpanit.

Sons of God are the fallen angels noob

You're delusional, whites are not jews. And the bible clearly states that god doesn't care what ethic group or race you are. Christian identity types are totally delusional.

>Impossible. Mark, Matthew and Luke all reference the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
Begging the question. The prophecy exists, but they do not explicitly mention the fall of Jerusalem which adds to the evidence that it had not occurred yet.

>You don't know who wrote any of the gospels
Yes we do.

>That is a church tradition that emerged centuries later.
Wrong. That was the constant teaching of the Church.

>The author of Luke is not known.
Wrong. Read Acts.

>Also impossible
Begging the question. You presuppose the non-existence of prophecy to disprove prophecy.

>John is almost impossible to date
Wrong again. John is dated to 64 AD, possibly updated ~90 AD

>None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts
Wrong again:

This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
John 21:24

>That the gospels are historically unreliable is standard opinion now in biblical circles.
Appeal to false authority, appeal to popularity, begging the question.

>You can easily disprove the claim by presenting just one gospel story which has no discernible allegorical or propagandistic intent.
Begging the question. You presuppose allegorical intent for all stories in order to prove non-literal intent. Provide evidence that Early Christians perceived said stories as allegorical. Baseless claim without evidence.

>Presumably you've never even read the book
I have read Mark probably two dozen times.

>Paul mentions Jesus' life and teachings exactly zero times.
Wrong.

Proven wrong by Aquinas:

newadvent.org/summa/1051.htm

At the time Eve went forth from Paradise she was yet a virgin. All lust and fornication among men is
from the chief Archon, Samael, born of the fire of his rebellious spirit. Men follow his example and sin,
even as women imitate the tempting snares of Lilith, his consort.

When he had driven Eve out he repented of his rashness, saying, “I will lie with the daughter of Man and
beget a son.” So saying, he pursued her on shadowy wings. He came upon the woman as she was
preparing herself in the bedchamber of her husband. As the thunderbolt falls from heaven, or as the
hawk folds its wings and stoops upon its prey, so Samael the Ancient Serpent fell upon Eve to ravish her.

He sought t defile the luminous spark of life that shone within her. The Omniscient Spirit looked down
from his high throne and understood the wicked purpose of Samael. He sent his angel Armozel to
snatch back the spark of Barbelon out of the vessel of the woman before the Archon penetrated her
maidenhead. The lust of Samael was satisfied, but the light was not polluted.
Adam came upon his wife. When he saw the filth of blood and impure seed that stained her thighs he
knew the Serpent had mounted her. This was the stain of the first menstrual discharge, the curse of
women forever hence. He turned away and denied Eve his caresses. The woman waxed hot with the
scum of the Serpent that foamed inside her womb. She used her enticements to seduce Adam until he
lay with her in her impurity.

In the fullness of time a man child was born. She wrapped him in the hem of her garment and bore him
to Adam, saying, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” The face of the infant was red with indignation, and the eyes of the child were black with rage. On its head hung a forelock of hair black as the wing of a
raven. Nor was it ever heard to laugh. The name of the boy was Cain. Adam thought him the fruit of his
loins but Eve knew he was spawn of the Serpent.

Proven by nicodemus ... the math is simple , we are the sons of man and only through the son of man we can become sons of God . Thus in the old testament sons of God had to be a angel human hybrid

What are you quoting from?

Read Jubilees 5, Enoch and the Sumerian Tablets.

They all have versions of the same story.

>On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the angels are understood to be incorporeal."

>On the contrary, The bodies assumed by angels have no life, as was stated in the previous article (Reply to Objection 3). Therefore they cannot exercise functions of life through assumed bodies.

That's the author of this book btw. An enlighten fedora millennial

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 142K)

>Read these non-canonical books
No.

Arre you stupid or something what do you think the fall did ?

Its a Gnostic Grimoire called Liber Lilith.

You can find a book called Liber Lilith and inside of it is a really old book called the Liber Lilith which has the oldest known surviving Gnostic Creation myth.

This book was in Alexandria and John dee's private library where it survived fire from both places.

It also has some of the most disgusting and evil dark magic of the Archons in it that I have ever come across.

In the fullness of time a second man child was born. For Adam continued to lie with Eve in her blood.
The face of the infant was fair, and its eyes were blue. The hair upon its head shone with the glory of
the Sun. When the boy attained his manhood he sang songs of his own making while he tended the
sheep of his father. The name of the boy was Abel. He was truly the fruit of Adam, but a terrible fate
descended upon his head from the sin of his father.
Cain made offerings to the Lord, that is to Samael the chief Archon, but his heart was rebellious and his
thoughts prideful. Abel made offerings from his flock, and his heart was gentle in his breast and his
thoughts obedient. Samael accepted the gifts of Abel that were humbly given. He turned his back upon
the gifts of Cain, given in arrogance. Cain hated Abel because the Lord favoured him. When Cain was
with his brother in the field he raised his hand and slew him.
Samael bemoaned the murder of Abel and waxed wroth. He cursed the earth that Cain should gain no
profit out of it. For he loved the son of Adam more than his own seed. And the earth would no longer
bring forth to nourish him. He went out from his fields and the flocks of Adam. Lest Cain suffer
destruction in is wandering Samael put a fiery brand upon his face. By this mark the lion and the basilisk
shunned him.

Cain went into the land that lies east of Paradise and took a wife. She was not a woman but a daughter
of Lilith begot by Samael through the Blind Dragon. Her name was Noko. She was a demon of secret
desires. Upon her Cain begot Enoch. He built a city, and it was called after the son of Cain. Enoch begat
Irad, and Irad begat Methujael, and Methujael begat Methusael, and Methusael begat Lamech. All the
line of Cain sprang from lustful couplings with the daughters of Lilith.
Lamech took two demons of the wilderness to be his wives. One was named Adah, and the other was
named Zillah. Upon Adah he begat Jabal, who was wise in all the ways of sacrifice and the reading of
signs. And Adah brought forth another son named Jubal, who sang hymns of praise and worship before
graven idols. Upon Zillah he begot Tubal‐Cain who taught the making of weapons of war. And Zillah
brought forth a sister to Tubal‐Cain who was named Naamah. She was a seducer and a sorceress skilled
in incantations and the making of talismans.

In appearance Naamah is like Lilith. Above her navel she is formed as a woman. Below her navel she is
sometimes a woman and sometimes a consuming pillar of flame. Naamah put on her enticements and
seduced her brother Tubal‐Cain to lie with her. Likewise she used her allurements to arouse the lust of
Lamech, and when she had coupled with her father and received his seed upon the seed of her brother,
she put on wings of darkness and flew away laughing in the wickedness of her heart.
In remorse of his evil act of incest Lamech raised his hand against Cain and slew him. For it was the
curse of Cain that gave rise to the sinfulness of Lamech. Thus was the judgment of Samael fulfilled
against Cain for the murder of Abel his brother.

>Begging the question
So, your main argument is "prophecy is real, therefore shut up"...?

>>You don't know who wrote any of the gospels
>Yes we do.
Ok, no problem. Present your evidence for authorship of the gospels. Primary source documents please.

>>The author of Luke is not known.
>Wrong. Read Acts.
I wasn't aware that Luke identified himself in Acts, but you must feel free to correct me citing chapter and verse.

I'm looking for "My name is Luke, I come from Capernaum, and I am the author of this manuscript", not some vague wording that could be interpreted a hundred different ways.

>>John is almost impossible to date
>Wrong again. John is dated to 64 AD, possibly updated ~90 AD
Unfortunately it is almost certainly an interpolation.

>Appeal to false authority, appeal to popularity, begging the question.
It was you, not me, who made appeals to authority. I just pointed out that those authorities don't say what you think they are saying.

You're not very good at this logic stuff, are you?

>Provide evidence that Early Christians perceived said stories as allegorical. Baseless claim without evidence.
Mark continually and repeatedly writes that his gospel should not be taken literally.

>>Presumably you've never even read the book
>I have read Mark probably two dozen times.
I was talking about Carrier, not the Gospel of Mark, you bumbling idiot.

Why would anyone read "Presumably you've never even read the book" and assume that I was talking about the bible? Deliberate dishonesty or just low IQ?

After the murder of Abel, Adam refrained from lying with his wife for one hundred and thirty years,
saying “Why should I beget sons for murder? A man is lifted up from dust and to dust he returns. Better
by far if he were never born.” He made a bed for himself in a separate chamber and slept apart from
Eve, who wept bitterly. She was empty and was not filled. The stain of Serpent continued to lie upon
her.

Great was the corruption of Adam who lusted for Eve in her time of impurity she buried his seed in the
filth of the Serpent. Lilith the Queen of Harlots had not ceased to desire connection with Adam. When
she saw the depth of his wickedness she grew mighty in her shells and came to Adam while he lay
sleeping. She flew in through his open mouth and entered his flesh. In his dreams she came to him and
had intercourse with him. He was not strong enough to resist her seductions. She stretched her serpent
body across his skin and drew forth heat to engender demons.

>Arre you stupid or something what do you think the fall did ?
But the text says it was the "Sons of God" so are you suggesting that demons are "Sons of God"???

>Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. ii.), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man.

>Unfortunately it is almost certainly an interpolation.
Oops. This is obviously a response to
>John 21:24

>Wrong.
Wow, what a great argument! No need to cite chapter and verse, just yell "WRONG!!" like a dribbling retard.

Your theory is flawed. Anyone can come to Christ.

After the death of Cain at the hand of Lamech, the Invisible Spirit sent the angel Armozel to Eve. The
angel restored to the woman that which has been taken from her to guard it from defilement. Once more the pure light shone from her countenance. Adam looked upon her, and the love that had
withered sent forth a green shoot. He ceased to receive embraces from Lilith and Naamah. He returned
to his wife and lay with her wholesomely in accordance with the Law.
In the fullness of time Eve gave birth to a son. She wrapped him in the hem of her garment and showed
him to Adam. , saying “God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.” She did
not say “I have gotten a man from the Lord” because this time Samael was not the sire. The face of the
infant shone like the face of the Sun, because the spark that was in Adam and the spark that was in Eve
mingled within him and burned doubly bright. And the name of the boy was Seth, who is first in the
descent from Adam.

There was great rejoicing in Heaven because the light of Barbelon, the Shekhina, that had dimmed in her
with the coming forth of Samael was at last restored to brightness. In the fullness of time the soul of
Adam will ascend to the First Aeon and take its place beside the Mighty One, Autogene the Mashia, by
the light of Armozel. The soul of Seth will ascend to the Second Aeon and dwell in the presence of the
light of Oroiel. The seed of Seth will arise even to the Third Aeon and the light of Daveithu. This Aeon is
destined to become the seat of the prophets. The souls of all those who repent of their wickedness will
fly up to the Forth Aeon and the light of Aleleth.

>Your theory is flawed. Anyone can come to Christ.
That's not what the bible actually says, is it?

You have read the bible, haven't you?

>But the text says it was the "Sons of God" so are you suggesting that demons are "Sons of God"???

Yes ,right after the fall the first punishment was to be banished on earth and to be the enemy of man kind

14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

>15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Then they screwed up even more and hell was created where they went after they died in the flood

>Whites are the true Hebrews
Why does that matter ? When did it matter ? Are you trying to appeal to juice ?
Also going to need a source for this

Amazing
Keep it up

>So, your main argument is
Strawman fallacy. My main argument is that you are begging the question by presupposing the non-existence of legitimate prophecy.

>Primary source documents please
Begging the question, changing goalposts.

>I wasn't aware that Luke identified himself in Acts
Luke wrote Acts. Luke is identified in two of Paul's letters.

>Unfortunately it is almost certainly an interpolation.
Provide evidence for claim.

>It was you, not me
Baseless claim.

>Mark continually and repeatedly writes that his gospel should not be taken literally.
Wrong.

>I was talking about Carrier
Irrelevant. He made a literary-analysis claim about Mark and therefore one need not read some other book to argue about said claim, but one must only read Mark.

>you bumbling idiot.
>low IQ
>Deliberate dishonesty
Resorting to name-calling when challenged rather than providing citations and sources for his claims. Typical for those who are insecure in their positions.

Gnostics are the true Jeu.

Was the apple actually a penis and knowledge really knowledge of the pleasure of having your pussy filled up by a fat cock?

>…18For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit, 19in which He also went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ark was being built. In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water.…

If Jesus preached the spirits it means that spirits repented , thus the demons are today among us as a second chance .

They were genetically engineered.

Attached: its an abstract2.jpg (754x390, 71K)

Attached: Pic.jpg (957x1024, 210K)

there were. substantial parts of daniel were written in syriac, which is a form of aramaic.

that theory of yours by the way is really dumb, bud. you have pappias, the daughters of philip, polycarp, irenaeus, clement of rome, justin martyr, tacitus, suetonius, and many others who discussed Christ whose writings have been lost to history.

even Jesus' brothers descendants are mentioned, the grandchildren of jude many years after. there was even a term for the descendants of the brothers and sisters of Christ. Forgot the word, and im fucking lazy.

Within a decade of Christs death and resurrection, you were having non canonical (though cherished by the early Christians) and canonical writings start to crop up.

that, and we have a fragment of a single percentage point of the writings from the classical period. Christ would not have been noticed till soon after his death by the gentiles because of His followers. Also rwmember that region was a backwater, and has recently been a partially contested territory as it borders regions controlled by vassels of the Persians.

dude, just read your own books, read original sources, even the sources that dipshit author used. this is when you really start learning. then, you can confirm it for yourself one way or another.

still though, the Jesus myth theory is one of the most irritatingly retarded dan brown tier theories out there

He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.
Philippians 2:8
(Mentions his death on cross)

Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh
Romans 1:3
(Mentions his birth and physical lineage)

I charge thee before God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who gave testimony under Pontius Pilate, a good confession,
1 Timothy 6:13
(mentions an event in his life with an historical figure)

I didn't know I was dealing with someone who had never read any of Paul's letters. I assumed that someone who was questioning the historicity of the Bible would have at least read it once. I guess I assumed wrong. Typical for atheists.

That is a prophecy concerning Satan and Christ. Your reading is heretical.

>If Jesus preached the spirits it means that spirits repented
That is him preaching to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Moses, and all the Holy Patriarchs and Prophets and Gentiles and all the blameless Pagans who were not in Heaven because they had died before Christ came but were not condemned because they were Holy.

the original name of Constantinople was Jerusalem, right?

Wrong you have adam he is made of dirt , then you have the fallen angels who did a reversed second comming and turned in to flesh

>That is him preaching to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Moses, and all the Holy Patriarchs and Prophets and Gentiles and all the blameless Pagans who were not in Heaven because they had died before Christ came but were not condemned because they were Holy.

>20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah

its the fallen angels noob , you are a heretic to even think humans have souls , according to you God lied

>. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5

Bump. Awesome thread.

Attached: 5368A3AF-8E14-42EA-8D5E-AE0C16B0C8B5.png (800x600, 735K)

Bumping this Holy thread.
I somehow doubt it but maybe. Would it not have been called Byzantium?

Attached: Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png (800x558, 291K)

>you are a heretic to even think humans have souls
Confirmed for heresy.

CONDEMNED AS HERETICAL:
>33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
Exsurge Domine

Hope you like it hot, heathen.

Attached: 654654654.jpg (640x419, 126K)

>My main argument is that you are begging the question by presupposing the non-existence of legitimate prophecy.
Yes. Obviously any critical reading of the gospel texts presupposes that human beings are not clairvoyants.

If you need to assign supernatural powers to people, in order to make your arguments work, you've given up on rational thought and chosen the path of fantasy.

No better than the conspiracy theorists who think JFK was shot by leprechauns or something.

>Luke is identified in two of Paul's letters.
Don't know what you're talking about. Are you talking about 1 Tim 5:18?

You know 1st Timothy a forgery, right?

>Provide evidence for claim.
John 21:24 suddenly starts talking about himself in the third person. Therefore it is probably not part of the original text but an interlinear note of some kind.

>Baseless claim.
Liar. This is what you wrote >Baseless claim and nigh-universally rejected by literary and historical scholars.
>Baseless claim and nigh-universally rejected by literary and historical scholars.

>>Mark continually and repeatedly writes that his gospel should not be taken literally.
>Wrong.
Yeah. Now I am convinced that you've never read Mark. You definitely haven't read Mark 4: 10-13.

>Irrelevant. He made a literary-analysis claim about Mark and therefore one need not read some other book to argue about said claim, but one must only read Mark.
Right. So you're going to refute a claim without even knowing the claim is because you haven't even read the text.

You think this is a good way to conduct yourself, do you?

>I have never read City of God
We know, user... we know.

Attached: 21232144354.jpg (650x390, 37K)

> 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

God lied

Attached: Screenshot_35.png (790x538, 830K)

>The Bible isn't antisemitic
Mmmm No Sweetie

Attached: 10984039284.jpg (374x290, 46K)

>I am a LARPer (LARPer Identity adherent) who is about to end a 5 year relationship with an inflatable doll. I know a book of fairy tales inside out, and I also make stuff up about the biblical Old Testament.

Judaism has everything to do with the bible and the fairy tale that christianity showcases. It is the literal origin of the bible, and jews know to ignore it because fucking nothing is happening. They despise a false prophet with every fibre of their being just like european atheists and people of other religions. My LARP says whites are jewish and sons of some kike and the entirety of history has been we trying to push this LARP.

Ask me anything, I can LARP forever.

>and Jews know they are the biological descendants of Satan (Cain)

As are you, lol

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God lied

Is the meaning of life to worship a jew for all of eternity and never ever do anything fun like fucking for ever and ever?

>22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 2

You actually already ate from the tree, God lied

> for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

God lied

It is obviously not a literal story. The dust of the earth is not just dirt, it is spiritual essence.

>7 And the Lord God created man in two formations; and took dust from the place of the house of the sanctuary, and from the four winds of the world, and mixed from all the waters of the world, and created him red, black, and white; and breathed into his nostrils the inspiration of life, and there was in the body of Adam the inspiration of a speaking spirit, unto the illumination of the eyes and the hearing of the ears.

>Obviously any critical reading of the gospel texts presupposes
Checkmate. You presuppose the non-existence of prophecy and use said presupposition as proof that prophecy does not exist. The premise is the conclusion and therefore this is a begging the question fallacy.

>If you need to assign supernatural powers to people
Strawman fallacy.

>No better than the conspiracy theorists who think JFK was shot by leprechauns or something
False equivalency. Appeal to absurdity.

>You know 1st Timothy a forgery, right?
Baseless claim.

>John 21:24 suddenly starts talking about himself in the third person.
And?

>You definitely haven't read Mark 4: 10-13.
Does not support your hypothesis since the Evangelist writing the book is going off of the eye-witness evidence of the Apostle who was given understanding and was not given parables:

>11 And he said to them: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables:
Mark 4: 11

Provide evidence Early Christians saw this (speaking of parables) as applying to Apostles and Christians, or even applying to any people post-Ascension.

>So you're going to refute a claim without even knowing the claim is
I do know the claim, as I quoted it in my original post. I will quote it again, in case you missed it:

>The first (Mark) looks like an extended meta-parable (outsiders are told a story, while insiders are told what it really means).

john talks about himself in the third person because it is the end of the book, and was saying basically, "that guy Jesus prophetically mentioned is me". your notion is goofy as fuck.

first timothy a forgery? where did you get that? are you reading a lefty blog (which if you read the sources are usually screwy fringe types) and assuming the info is spot on.

where are you getting your ideas bud? i want to check them out. you need to break out of your bubble, read original sources.

are you the Jesus myth faggot?

>there were. substantial parts of daniel were written in syriac, which is a form of aramaic.
Ok ok, I was really talking about NT texts not ancient Jewish forgeries like Daniel, but that's ok

>that theory of yours by the way is really dumb, bud. you have pappias, the daughters of philip, polycarp, irenaeus, clement of rome, justin martyr, tacitus, suetonius, and many others who discussed Christ whose writings have been lost to history.
Unfortunately (1) all of the Christians in that list were writing well into the 2nd century, at least 150 years after Jesus' supposed death, so they don't count as evidence of anything besides what people at that time thought and (2) all those Romans you mentioned didn't actually write anything about Jesus, contrary to what you read on Wikipedia just now and (3) making a claim along the lines of "Jesus definitely existed because lots of people wrote about him but those documents have been lost" is not any kind of valid argument.

>Within a decade of Christs death and resurrection, you were having non canonical (though cherished by the early Christians) and canonical writings start to crop up.
No-one doubts that there were Christians in the mid-1st century. The dispute is about whether they believed in a Jesus who only appeared in dreams, or a flesh and blood Jesus who actually walked the Earth.

>dude, just read your own books, read original sources
What original sources? We have the Gospel of Mark, probably the Gospel of Thomas, maybe the authentic Pauline epistles, and that's it.

>Also rwmember that region was a backwater
That part of the world was a flourishing centre of economic activity. It was hardly a backwater like, say, Britain was.

>still though, the Jesus myth theory is one of the most irritatingly retarded dan brown tier theories out there
Then it should be easy to refute without using documents which might have existed but no longer do, and without using forged/2nd century documents

Temporal death.

>But, as I see, there is a spirit in men, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding.
Job 32: 8

The meaning of life is to resist the temptation of the flesh , in heaven you wont be bondaged to this temptations because you lack things like a penis

>We wuz tha real joos
We are Europeans, we were Europeans.

I thought the OT showcased several angels and demons having sex with humans, so much for not having a penis.

Ignorance is bliss.

>they believed in a Jesus who only appeared in dreams
After 12 posts he still has not cited any evidence for this claim. Pay attention to how he will simply assert this as factual, without any evidence. When challenged on this (which is contrary to accepted history) he will demand evidence against his position, as if his outlier position were the standard.

What ignorance? The bible showcases angels and demons having sex in the OT, will you be able to keep your dick away from pussy forever?

>(Mentions his death on cross)
Paul reports that his information about this event comes from dreams, not from eye-witness accounts.

>Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh
>Romans 1:3
The Greek text doesn't say 'made' or even 'born' as it's often translated. It says 'fabricated'.

>1 Timothy 6:13
Forgery

>I didn't know I was dealing with someone who had never read any of Paul's letters.
Yeah mate, I think you need to do some reading of your own if you think quoting 1 Timothy is a good way to settle arguments about Jesus' life.

ETERNAL SHITPOSTER

So do you think it was a inside job, or did some Jew not get his yacht

Attached: 44EF025F-C4C6-4C2D-AFB1-B4BE35375AE8.jpg (1872x1404, 814K)

grow up

Attached: 1519842836625.png (687x744, 332K)

>Temporal death.

Gods spirit return after death noob

You are not your own , without Christ death is eternal

Job 33:4
The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

> 14If He were to set His heart to it and withdraw His Spirit and breath, 15all flesh would perish together and mankind would return to the dust.…

Not you though God lied you have a eternal soul

>>You know 1st Timothy a forgery, right?
>Baseless claim.
I can't be bothered replying to every single bit of your posts any more, but if you actually think that 1 Timothy was written by the same author as 1Thessalonians and Galatians then you obviously haven't read any of them.

>Paul reports that his information about this event comes from dreams
Wrong.

>The Greek text doesn't say 'made' or even 'born' as it's often translated. It says 'fabricated'.
Wrong.

vexingquestions.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/richard-carrier-and-γίνομαι/

>Forgery
Baseless claim.

>Yeah mate, I think you need to do some reading of your own
I have read Paul's letters at least a dozen times.

You're in this life to gain knowledge and experience, and to understand what it means to love and be loved. So go out and have fun, it makes repenting all the more interesting as well. Creating abominations is not fun and loving though.

We are talking about heaven being spiritual , angels turned in to flesh and were banished to earth

>I can't be bothered replying to every single bit of your posts any more
Running away when challenged. Has yet to provide any evidence or cite a single source for his numerous claims. Note that he has made at least two dozen assertions with a single source; a book written by an admitted atheist (who was criticized by all his peers for flawed methodology and poor historical research) in the late, late 20th century.

For any observers, I believe I can now rest my case. What verdict will the jury find?

>You're in this life to gain knowledge and experience
Actually, having found the actual god, I do have different opinions

From Dust to Dust

>16And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there. 17I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. 18I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? 22Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?