Would Jesus choose GNU/Linux?

He's wants to make up his mind by reading different perspectives maybe. It's a good trait.

>It's not possible even to be sure that there was a real Jesus -- I have real articles disputing this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
>The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.[4][5][6][q 2] It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies,[7] and deviates from the mainstream historical view. According to this mainstream view, Paul's letters and the gospels are religious documents which present the early Christian understanding of the life and death of a historical Jesus, who was crucified in the 1st-century Roman province of Judea and subsequently deified,[8][9] after his early followers had visionary experiences of Jesus' presence,[10][11][12][13][14][15] from which they concluded that he had risen from the dead and was exalted to heaven.[16]
stallman confirmed for infowars reader

I hope he realizes that Chris myth theory is mostly hogwash
He's right that Jesus thoughs aren't confirmed. Even historians don't try to summarize what he thought with 100% confidence.

I was kinda dissapointed. But those are his views.
I was hoping for him to affirm that: yes, Jesus would totaly be down with FOSS.
Trying to debunk Jesus is just sad. Also there was a lot written about Jesus in his generation.
The oldest manuscript we have of Matthew is from 150 A.D. But it was based on even older Aramaic or Hebrew versions we haven't found but know existed. The early church fathers wrote about them.

Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
—Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]

The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
—Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6:25

Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.
—Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.

who's matthew?

Fucking dumb ZOOMER.

>Also there was a lot written about Jesus in his generation.
there's a lot written about a lot of religions, god, and all that
just because there's lots of writings, doesn't make any of it real or true
not to sound all "hurr god isn't real", but there's nothing "sad" about questioning things

One of the evangelist. He is considered the author of the earliest gospel, that probably derives from a yet undiscovered document that could be the closest thing to a chronicle of Jesus life written near his life time.

>there's a lot written about a lot of religions, god, and all that
just because there's lots of writings, doesn't make any of it real or true
Agreed.
But no-one is trying to debunk Buddah, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle or Julius Ceasar. Trying to debunk Jesus having even existed is sad.

Stallman isn't questioning Jesus as god, he's questioning as a historical figure.
Sadly for him, all evidence points that probably a guy called Jesus did existed in Roman conquered Palestina.

>But no-one is trying to debunk Buddah, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle or Julius Ceasar.
you sure?
this is the first i've heard of people saying jesus didn't exist as well

there are several non christian (and indeed very christian critical) sources on the jeezy-boy from around 100AD too that are regarded as accurate. stallman is just being a sperg with poor communication skills as usual, this matter has been thoroughly debated and ultimately rejected since the enlightenment.

jesus' disciple

Buddha mythicism is almost non-existant. The only author (Acharya S) I knew that defends that idea is the same gal that spouts material about how Jesus is a scam because poor pagans.

No, I'm not sure. But I have heard many trying to debunk Jesus having even existed. Remember that Venus project/Zeitgeist guy? He made up a bunch of falshoods about other religious figures to make them look alike, and to say that Jesus was copied from them.
youtube.com/watch?v=KYIhTBQG4Mc

>Remember that Venus project/Zeitgeist guy?
no?

I also recommend Bart Ehrman "Did Jesus Existed?" book on the subject.
Or just look at Tim O'neill blog if you're lazy.

>but there's nothing "sad" about questioning things
The point is that the question of existence of Jesus wasn't even brought up, assuming the OP only asked what is in the subject of this thread.

>Tim O'neill
historyforatheists.com?
I've read him. Remember I read this, on his old blog, awhile back:
armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/10/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html

I like that he is on point, not dogmatic position.
Often times if you are right-wing, left-wing, religious or irreligious it often taints what you write, instead of trying to remain objective and factual. I'm sure I make the mistake from time to time. Bias what put me off about Dawkin. I bought his "God Delusion" hoping to get some good insights, ended up laying the book away after reading several logical fallacies and appeal to emotions.

And he used the false analogy of Russell's teapot. I was 18 at the time and a high school drop out and the first time I read Russell's teapot I knew it was a false comparison. I couldn't understand how people even spot it and how Russel is a great philosopher. If he is so great why would he not see how false the analogy is, when even a 18 year drop out can?

As expected from a kike

This is what I wrote him.

Attached: Screenshot 2019-06-04 at 19.25.55.png (379x121, 15K)

It related perfectly to the question asked.

I don't like Dawkins or the new atheists as defenders of atheism. At best, they didn't say anything "new", at worst, they became a fucking identitarian movement.
Reading Dawkins is reading a washed up Hume explained by a drunk.
And Russell had a habit to say shit outside of his field of expertise. He also said that Marxist where christianity continuators, even though Christianism starts from an individualistic idealism instead of a material method, etc.

>the false analogy of Russell's teapot
Explain how it's a false analogy. The existence of God is unfalsifiable, just like the teapot.

Jesus would be a macfag.

He is going with the "give everything to the poor" line, but that isn't even a commandment, just a consequence of loving your neighbor, which includes friends and foes.

1) There is zero archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus.
2) Any evidence that exists comes from AFTER he died, from people who never met him if he DID exist.
3) Records of his execution by Pilate do not corroborate to any bible entries except that a man claiming to be a messiah was crucified for leading the early christian cultist in political uprisings.

There is no reason to believe that Jesus as the bible depicts him is real other than as a religious leader who was no different from any other charismatic leader.

>as a religious leader who was no different from any other charismatic leader
This is exactly the case. He probably existed, but he was no different than the many other holy men of the time.

A teapot is mad made, it's something we made up for a spesific function. It's physical in a physical realm. God is non-physical beyond time and space. There could not be a teapot between Earth and Mars - unless someone shot it up there. You can deduce the existence of an eternal non-physical something, a first principle. You can use reason to come the conclusion that there is a God. You cannot deduce a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars.

We can through reason come to the conclusion that there is no teapot between Earth and Mars.
And we can through reason come to the conclusion that there is a God.
youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I

No, that is completely irrelevant to the question, see The question requires analyzing Jesus as a person, and with the information given (the fucking Gospel), try to guess if he would or not use a FOSS OS.

>You can deduce the existence of an eternal non-physical something, a first principle. You can use reason to come the conclusion that there is a God
Do tell how, because this sounds like quite the cop-out. "God exists but he's entirely non-physical so he can't be disproven by science. Checkmate, scientists." At least recognize that this non-physical God would, by necessity, not be able to have at all interacted with us (since this would make him physical).

Absolute brainlet. Stallman is talking about how it's hard to really know what he liked. He's skeptical of using only the Bible to determine that.

I interact with you on my computer via the internet, that doesn't make me digital or electronic.

I can create a program that lives in digital space, I however live outside of digital space, but I can interact with it.

No, but it makes you physical, just as the internet is. The point is that if God interacted at all with humans or the physical world, he would be in the domain of science and empiricism, so you wouldn't be able to use the cop-out.

I could eat ramen with all the space in your head. Talking about it being hard or not is not related to the question either, it is one thing to ask "Is it hard to know if Jesus would use a FOSS OS", it is another to ask "Do you think Jesus would use a FOSS OS?".
>He's skeptical of using only the Bible to determine that.
Pretty sure he would have cited a different source of there was another, or knew of another.

>There is zero archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus.
There is archeological evidence, but its indirect. Almost all ancient history characters also don't have archeological evidence.
>Any evidence that exists comes from AFTER he died, from people who never met him if he DID exist.
This applies also to almost all ancient history characters too. The fact that Christ mythers believe this is a proof of something amuses me. They ask modern history standards of evidence in a field where the evidence has to be careful assambled and filled with spectulation, because the evidence is little.
>Records of his execution by Pilate do not corroborate to any bible entries except that a man claiming to be a messiah was crucified for leading the early christian cultist in political uprisings.
Almost all historians agree that's correct, the conflict with the testaments is where the history ends and the story starts.

>There is no reason to believe that Jesus as the bible depicts him is real other than as a religious leader who was no different from any other charismatic leader.
This is the conclusion of almost any historian that has studied the issue. But you part of wrong premises.

Let's say there was a 2d world, on a piece of paper with 2d creatures. You could see them, but they could not see you. You could however talk to them, maybe they would experience it as a voice comming from within. Would this communication make you, a three dimmensional being into a two dimmensional being?

If God can interact with, or affect/ the physical realm does not make his essence physical.

>The existence of God is unfalsifiable
I suggest you start to read Popper before spouting shit you seem to not understand.

Plato’s works on Socrates were written between 427-347 B.C. The earliest copy of his manuscript is from 900 A.D., representing a staggering 1,200 year time span of lost earlier versions. Seven copies of this ancient manuscript remain in existence today and can be comparatively studied. The earliest copy of Aristophanes’ work is from 900 A.D., a time span of 1,200 years from the original manuscript. Only ten copies have survived. The earliest copy of one of Aristotle’s manuscripts is from 1100 A.D. (1,400 year time span) with as many as 49 copies existing.

During the 900-1,200 year interval of the writings on Socrates, no records exist. Copies were made of copies, repeatedly. Without earlier testimony, however, it is unknown how extensive the text may have changed.

Both Socrates and Jesus have historical sources that point to the authenticity of their existences. Socrates is immortalized by the dozens of existing manuscripts by Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. Jesus is immortalized by the thousands of existing manuscripts by his disciples.

tl;dr Why don't we ever hear doubt about the historical existence of Socrates? No academic doubts the existence of Socrates, why do [they] doubt the existence of Jesus?

The point is, at this particular time in the Roman Empire, there were no less than 50 so-called Messiahs.
It was a popular thing to do.

socrates never caused their parents to make them go to church on sunday

Yes. But only Jesus is the only that concerns history because its influence on Roman Empire and posterior story.
Fun fact: Jews call Jesus "The most damaging false messiah"

Jow Forums - Theology and Biblical Studies

theolo/g/y

Based

mark was earliest

jews weren't even monotheists in 300B.C. for example. all of their old testament lore comes from babylon and it's predecessors. the messiah is literally tailored towards sol invictus. there never was a yeshua or his discipiles. it's all propaganda in order for greeks to dominate the collapsing roman empire.

Why is everyone so defensive about jesus existing or not? Is this an American thing?

Fuck, thanks for reminding me about Zeitgeist.

I don’t think that he’s trying to debunk Jesus but only it’s his autism speaking in the sense that ‘no one really knew Jesus so I can’t really think what he would say’

Does he really think FBI and NSA agents bother to manually read emails?

No. Jesus despised Jews from all his heart, so it's safe to say he would disapprove Richard Stallman (Jew).

>There is no reason to believe that Jesus as the bible depicts him is real other than as a religious leader who was no different from any other charismatic leader.
well duh, nobody but hardcore christfags actually believes he rose from the dead or performed mircables. if a cult leader dies, is it so far fetched that his fanatically devoted followers would claim to see him after death as proof of their loyalty and his divinity? hysteria, nothing more - if you want something to be true badly enough you might just start believing it is.

Christ mythers want to be taken seriously and christians don't want their religion questioned. And historians or history enthusiasts don't like bad history.

In fact one of the proofs that jesus story is based on real elements is how christians cope with the fact that Jesus was killed. For a orthodox jew, a messiah that dies is a fake, but christians had to come with explanations to justify why Jesus was the Messiah.

So much in life, is.