Did Christ really exist ?

[Skywalker]

Individual Hind also saw visions of Lord Krishna.
Religious people tell white lies all the time if it helps people come to the faith. If he was telling the truth, then he fell and had a hallucination of a light. He decided it was Jesus. He claimed it spoke? He was excited and heard voices then. The story is a huge myth. Paul seeing a vision does not make a myth real.
If someone sees Harry Potter tomorrow does that mean Harry Potter is real or they just had a vision.
Your excuse "Paul had no reason to lie" is ridiculous. He may be telling the truth and had a hallucination. But he likely wanted to bring new followers and would not have thought of it as a lie. It doesn't make a make-believe savior demigod real? The story is fake?

Those Hindus weren't persecuted and jailed and they didn't go on missionary trips. Why would Paul want to bring new followers into Christianity? He persecuted Christians. He had nothing to gain joining a persecuted group of people. He was jailed and persecuted after he believed in Jesus.

 

[joelr]

Matthew got some his information about Jesus from the same sources as Mark because they were part of the same generation. That's why Matthew and Luke might have gotten some of the same information from Mark as a person, directly.

There is no doubt among Christian scholars that either Q or Mark was the source. You are now making stuff up to suit beliefs that are not actually true in the real world. 97% of Mark is copied word for word into other gospels. Same sentance, geographical errors, it's not possible to duplicate pages and pages word for word. Mark was the source for the other gospels.

 

[Skywalker]

Why are you lying?
I already provided a video of Professor Stravopolou explaining the Judahite religion was re-worked during the Persian invasion starting in 5 BCE?

"With possible roots dating back to the second millennium BCE, Zoroastrianism enters recorded history in the 5th century BCE.["

She explained the OT was rebranded using Persian concepts that were never before part of the Jewish religion.
I also posted a video of PhD Carrier explaining the same thing.
If the Jewish version reworked the savior myth using "grace" or if it was already inan earlier mystery religion, who cares? It's still all mythology?
We have already visited this. Are you in denial or did you forget?

The Jewish concept of the Messiah is not based on Persian religions. It is based on God is a loving God who doesn't want to punish us but he is also just and he doesn't want us to have to pay the price for our sins, so he became the Messiah. What does that belief have to do with the Zoroastrian religion?

 

[Skywalker]

When the OT was reworked around 5BC and added Persian elements the messiah concept was one of the additions. A prophecy of a messiah.
When a writer made up a story about a dying/rising demigod happening in the Jewish religion (obviously created by a Greek speaking Jew) we had Christianity.
There are many versions that emerged in the first 2 centuries. What's in the bible now are 4 of 40 gospels. Many were extremely different.

Jesus is not a demigod. Jesus was born of a virgin because he was God incarnate. People who believed in demigods believed in God having a wife, which is a concept blasphemous to Christians. I don't agree with the Gnostic gospels because they are so different from the Bible that they are mutually exclusive.

 

[Skywalker]

There is no doubt among Christian scholars that either Q or Mark was the source. You are now making stuff up to suit beliefs that are not actually true in the real world. 97% of Mark is copied word for word into other gospels. Same sentance, geographical errors, it's not possible to duplicate pages and pages word for word. Mark was the source for the other gospels.

The sentences and geography and specific words are similar because they all described the life of Jesus. If different people told you their account of the same event many of the details would be the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution cannot create something that is as complicated and detailed as the human eye because not even human inventions are like that. Log into Facebook

That is quite the non-sequitur. You probably do not realize that the evolution of the eye is very well understood. It is not that hard to understand.

DNA only works when the right amino acids are working together. How could something that has to be arranged in the right order, have just existed out of spontaneous generation?

Sorry, RNA probably came first. And "spontaneous generation"? How far behind the times are you. But since you have now moved the goalposts to abiogenesis you have in effect conceded the argument about evolution. I am glad that we are getting somewhere.

Jesus is not Hercules. Jesus was God in the flesh. Hercules is the son of Zeus and a woman. Muslims think the Bible says that Jesus is literally God's son. That blasphemy is not taught in the Bible. Both Christians and Muslims would agree that to view God as having the same dignity as a human is blasphemous. Muslims think that the Bible has false teachings because of misconceptions of details like that. The Son of God is a reference to the Sonship of Jesus. Jesus is God the Son.

One man's dogma is another man's blasphemy. I would say that your calling God a liar would be blasphemy. Though you probably do not understand how you do that.

 

[Skywalker]

That is quite the non-sequitur. You probably do not realize that the evolution of the eye is very well understood. It is not that hard to understand.



Sorry, RNA probably came first. And "spontaneous generation"? How far behind the times are you. But since you have now moved the goalposts to abiogenesis you have in effect conceded the argument about evolution. I am glad that we are getting somewhere.



One man's dogma is another man's blasphemy. I would say that your calling God a liar would be blasphemy. Though you probably do not understand how you do that.

How did I call God a liar?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did I call God a liar?

By saying that Genesis is literally true.

 

[joelr]

Those Hindus weren't persecuted and jailed and they didn't go on missionary trips. Why would Paul want to bring new followers into Christianity? He persecuted Christians. He had nothing to gain joining a persecuted group of people. He was jailed and persecuted after he believed in Jesus.

He didn't persecute Christians like you say. He persecuted anti-temple Jews:


"Paul confesses that "beyond measure" he persecuted the church of God, more specifically Hellenised diaspora Jewish members who had returned to the area of Jerusalem.[46][note 1] According to James Dunn, the Jerusalem community consisted of "Hebrews," Jews speaking both Aramaic and Greek, and "Hellenists," Jews speaking only Greek, possibly diaspora Jews who had resettled in Jerusalem.[47] Paul's initial persecution of Christians probably was directed against these Greek-speaking "Hellenists" due to their anti-Temple attitude."

Paul was already very religious and switched to the Jesus-movement which was still a Jewish movement. He obviously wanted the updated version of the religion and we do not know that he didn't have other motivations.

He wasn't arrested for 20 years later.

On his 3rd missionary trip:

"He is claimed to have performed numerous miracles, healing people and casting out demons,"

Demons? Yeah, so he's just not credible at all. That vision was probably as B.S. as the demons he cast out.

 

[Skywalker]

By saying that Genesis is literally true.

The Bible doesn't contradict what I said.

 

[rational experiences]

First of all story telling owns a lot of detail that belongs to each separately described act or action in a reaction or reactive status plus other living self presence.

Like animals. They are in the story.

Stories told for human reasoning, who most are not subjective scientific theists.

So when you go back to human memory and our ownership, none of us had names rationally. It would then infer that each animal or spirit body in Nature knew its name and named itself.

Not rational.

As the name Jesus is still used by human being males, do you think them the condition of the name used as Jesus in the Bible?

The quote should be no. The story is a story, and it is taught for relative human advice.

So the name Jesus a title is given to the story. Before, science using Temple and pyramids quote the title story theme, to teach against occult practice, science thesis, nuclear mass converting in thesis...by machine causes as Moses.

Yet who was harmed? Human male adult, human male sons, babies, human female adults, and their babies female daughters....animals, the Garden Nature and Earth a massive energy body that owned energy x mass origins in space, that evolved into God stone planet entity did not own sink holes naturally.

The scientific removal of original sin is a male science theist telling stories about the mass of planet Earth exactly........the same....exactly as he has ever done.

How is that not a logical explanation about humans who use a name to quote special purpose or special being, when the theme states...no man is God and do not claim inequality. As the overall teaching purpose.

Seeing science, the theist self human and Designer always quantified his life, his thoughts and his self presence especial as compared to everyone else?

Be rational for once.

If a male preached, do not think what is occurring in my life a special condition....it was because phenomena was involved. What is not natural in natural and what conditions should not exist. Science the occult however knew that they changed and conjured change. Know, own ego expression in male life that feels powerful as a self thinker by that intent.

What was taught against....to force natural history, taught as a God history, to burn as a body in Hell conditions a teaching of relativity in the sciences.

With a claim that this form of spirit body did the sacrifice and owned all losses. Became a smaller body/mass because of it...and hence we should not own any natural spiritual change to a human body, spiritual, healthy, beautiful, perfect, to its highest condition, self presence, equal self presence, spiritual parents for spiritual human babies. Yet lost that status due to lying science theism and machines....designed by the designer, who then quips...seems like machines act like a bio expression.

When he designed machine from his owned bio expressions.

Then tries to infer history of a machine to everything that he once said he personally claimed ownership of.....all thoughts about powers before he changed it.

That is the Destroyer human male conscious identity you all were warned against, to false prophecise such idealisms as a machine acts like a bio life, hence it is connected. When he did all of the inventing his own higher bio life self.

That is what the term to con means. It is very easy for a human who uses a themed storytelling ideal to have gained a lifestyle from that preaching to give up what his claim to owning the lifestyle means. His preaching ability.

The theme to preach owns a human conclusion, if you are going to speak on behalf of a realistic equal self.....then act accordingly yourself in your life and stop arguing due to a life style that you knowingly do not want to give up. As the motivation to argue against the truth being spoken.

Unrealistic to claim you speak the truth when a portion of being honest means you live as a real equal in life.

The Bible is named the Bible. It is not named God, it is not named Jesus...it is named a book of teaching. So if you quantify you are a truthful teacher, Jesus taught due to being life attacked and sacrificed in a phenomena condition.

What about the rest of you claiming you are teaching against occult science intent?

We did own a human brother who owned a spiritual human Father as his memory of origin teaching about self life harmed. He told everyone his Genetic Father was the Father who taught the God themes in the sciences. Told everyone his own Father sacrificed his life and claimed that he did it to save everyone else.

Anyone who has ever been life harmed would disagree that life being sacrificed owned a human cause to qualify that it is worthy or should occur.

A spiritual human would suggest that this theme would placate the Father of God to be mean and nasty to first of all give life to a baby son. To then sacrifice his life claiming it was to teach others.

As a human to be taught is to be spiritual and positive for the growth and conditions to be loving and positive.

I never believed the Jesus theme to be any truthful holy account of why life got sacrificed. For since when did human greed, status and ownership control own a natural history reasoning for why it is expressed? It was chosen.

The theme why God attacked human life, as humans chose it, the teaching.

If a human quotes life was sacrificed and it became a lesson. Due to less of the son...the DNA genetics removed and gone. Then medically you would be teaching a real truth.

If you quote, life is still in medical knowledge being sacrificed. You would re read the information about Jesus and then quote an argument. The documents said the life of being sacrificed was saved. For life sacrificed has not yet healed and returned to a non sacrificed life.

So the term Jesus is still amongst us.....human brothers and sisters in life being sacrificed without it being Jesus the teaching. For it is not Jesus the teaching, the teaching involved thesis and data and history also in its quotes, detailing bodies of multi natural presence changed.

Not human owned as detailed information.
Not human inferred as detailed information.

Yet how many teaching preachers overlook the total storyline quotes animals and the Garden nature and original Sin God owned O the planet were all removed?

Removing original sin does not save anyone.

But then stand back and look at humans who quote teach self sacrifice in scientific themes. Who quote, yes the spiritual science information quotes, remove self life whilst you remove life of human brother or sister as correctly advised by data advice. And we call them terrorists. Yet they read information and quote that is what it teaches. Science as a theme.

So then you ask the scientist did you not always know that you inferred God by mass as energy and inferred removal of mountain tip to pyramid thesis as the science. To remove the body of evolved God, stone, and make it disappear.

The answer is yes, of course they always theme in science removal of energy from mass and the making of God the origin body disappear.

And still today you want to argue about the inanity of the origin claim....but I was trying to save us from the presence of God...the body that forced our spiritual presence to own life and suffer conditions not of our choice?

Being how Satanism the science history is the coercive human con...and still is expressed today in the very same human conditions.

Christ. CH is a named scientific status to designs he claims exist in gas states. Gas a spirit in science versus God by mass. CH that arose out of the God form...stone mass he quotes. That changed spatially by cold and pressure into their owned natural forms.

So also quotes....is not God. Also quotes and is not human.

Then asks did Christ really exist when a male human as a male and a human is quoting all ideas from his own thinking and speaking human teachings.

The evaluations are therefore male and human and you owned quoting and teaching them. That a male in natural life owned the support of the Christ gases existing/remaining in the heavenly body, because natural life attacked and sacrificed taught you. A human reality, to experience and preach why.

 

[joelr]

The Jewish concept of the Messiah is not based on Persian religions. It is based on God is a loving God who doesn't want to punish us but he is also just and he doesn't want us to have to pay the price for our sins, so he became the Messiah. What does that belief have to do with the Zoroastrian religion?

You are playing dumb or in denial.
Messianic ideas did not exist in Judaism. After 5BC when the religion was re-worked into a more monotheistic religion messianic concepts were added. Why can you not understand this? The Israelites did not have anything about a messiah in the OT until after the Persians allowed then to re-work their religion and they added multiple Persian concepts.
They are still myths but the Jews wanted them in their religion.
Yes, you are following ideas that were imported from the Persian religion. I see why this would be hard to accept.

Not only is this true we also know early Jewish myths were ALSO TAKEN FROM EARLIER MYTHS?!? So they had been doing it.
The creation account, flood and many other things are older myths.

Zoroastrianism
Some scholars believe that many elements of Christian mythology, particularly its linear portrayal of time, originated with the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism.[29] Mary Boyce, an authority on Zoroastrianism, writes:

Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[30]

Mircea Eliade believes the Hebrews had a sense of linear time before Zoroastrianism influenced them. However, he argues, "a number of other [Jewish] religious ideas were discovered, revalorized, of systematized in Iran". These ideas include a dualism between good and evil, belief in a future savior and resurrection, and "an optimistic eschatology, proclaiming the final triumph of Good".[31]

The concept of Amesha Spentas and Daevas probably gave rise to the Christian understanding of angels and demons.[32]


Actually almost every biblical story is some form of an older myth:
Christian mythology - Wikipedia

 

[Skywalker]

He didn't persecute Christians like you say. He persecuted anti-temple Jews:


"Paul confesses that "beyond measure" he persecuted the church of God, more specifically Hellenised diaspora Jewish members who had returned to the area of Jerusalem.[46][note 1] According to James Dunn, the Jerusalem community consisted of "Hebrews," Jews speaking both Aramaic and Greek, and "Hellenists," Jews speaking only Greek, possibly diaspora Jews who had resettled in Jerusalem.[47] Paul's initial persecution of Christians probably was directed against these Greek-speaking "Hellenists" due to their anti-Temple attitude."

Paul was already very religious and switched to the Jesus-movement which was still a Jewish movement. He obviously wanted the updated version of the religion and we do not know that he didn't have other motivations.

He wasn't arrested for 20 years later.

On his 3rd missionary trip:

"He is claimed to have performed numerous miracles, healing people and casting out demons,"

Demons? Yeah, so he's just not credible at all. That vision was probably as B.S. as the demons he cast out.

The early Christians were like Messianic Jews. Christianity began as a Jewish sect. The first Christians were Jewish Christians. Because of Gentile believers eventually Christianity and Judaism became separate. Christianity is the Gentile expression of following the Messiah of Israel.

God's existence means that miracles and healings and deliverances that glorify God are possible. God delivers people. That's why I don't believe in people like tv exorcists. That is a travesty of the Gospel. Jesus and the Apostles cast out demons to show that He is God. The people you see on TV are teaching false versions of the Bible that glorify themselves. They have nothing to do with the gospel. Paul wasn't like that, he only glorified God.

 

[joelr]

Jesus is not a demigod. Jesus was born of a virgin because he was God incarnate. People who believed in demigods believed in God having a wife, which is a concept blasphemous to Christians. I don't agree with the Gnostic gospels because they are so different from the Bible that they are mutually exclusive.

A demigod is the son of a God and a human. God is the father, Mary the mother. The myth follows the demigod model exactly.

All religions usually have demigods and other divine beings also actually being really just the main God. Lord Krishna in one Hinduism is really also the ultimate God Brahman. Brahman does not have a wife.

Stop trying to desperately rescue these myths by quibbiling about semantics. I do not care about apologetics that say "oh Jesus wasn't this because he blah blah...."
Every religion makes changes to the model. Just because Christianity made changes doesn't mean it's not myth. Dying rising gods who are sons of a God is a classic myth. Even when you say "oh Jesus IS god so... nope, still a demigod myth.

 

[joelr]

The early Christians were like Messianic Jews. Christianity began as a Jewish sect. The first Christians were Jewish Christians. Because of Gentile believers eventually Christianity and Judaism became separate. Christianity is the Gentile expression of following the Messiah of Israel.

God's existence means that miracles and healings and deliverances that glorify God are possible. God delivers people. That's why I don't believe in people like tv exorcists. That is a travesty of the Gospel. Jesus and the Apostles cast out demons to show that He is God. The people you see on TV are teaching false versions of the Bible that glorify themselves. They have nothing to do with the gospel. Paul wasn't like that, he only glorified God.

People on tv are fake. The gospel stories are also fake. It's fiction.

 

[joelr]

The sentences and geography and specific words are similar because they all described the life of Jesus. If different people told you their account of the same event many of the details would be the same.

No, not pages and pages of verbatim Greek. That means someone copied it. The Synoptic problem has been a huge problem in Christian theology. You think you just solved it by going " oh yeah they like knew each other..."

Many details might be the same. Not 15 pages word for word????

 

[Skywalker]

You are playing dumb or in denial.
Messianic ideas did not exist in Judaism. After 5BC when the religion was re-worked into a more monotheistic religion messianic concepts were added. Why can you not understand this? The Israelites did not have anything about a messiah in the OT until after the Persians allowed then to re-work their religion and they added multiple Persian concepts.
They are still myths but the Jews wanted them in their religion.
Yes, you are following ideas that were imported from the Persian religion. I see why this would be hard to accept.

Not only is this true we also know early Jewish myths were ALSO TAKEN FROM EARLIER MYTHS?!? So they had been doing it.
The creation account, flood and many other things are older myths.

Zoroastrianism
Some scholars believe that many elements of Christian mythology, particularly its linear portrayal of time, originated with the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism.[29] Mary Boyce, an authority on Zoroastrianism, writes:

Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[30]

Mircea Eliade believes the Hebrews had a sense of linear time before Zoroastrianism influenced them. However, he argues, "a number of other [Jewish] religious ideas were discovered, revalorized, of systematized in Iran". These ideas include a dualism between good and evil, belief in a future savior and resurrection, and "an optimistic eschatology, proclaiming the final triumph of Good".[31]

The concept of Amesha Spentas and Daevas probably gave rise to the Christian understanding of angels and demons.[32]


Actually almost every biblical story is some form of an older myth:
Christian mythology - Wikipedia

The Messiah is mentioned in the book of Job, which is before Jewish contact with the Persians. The proto evangelium is in Genesis 3: 15. God promised to Eve that a Redeemer would be sent who would defeat the works of the devil.

 

[Skywalker]

A demigod is the son of a God and a human. God is the father, Mary the mother. The myth follows the demigod model exactly.

All religions usually have demigods and other divine beings also actually being really just the main God. Lord Krishna in one Hinduism is really also the ultimate God Brahman. Brahman does not have a wife.

Stop trying to desperately rescue these myths by quibbiling about semantics. I do not care about apologetics that say "oh Jesus wasn't this because he blah blah...."
Every religion makes changes to the model. Just because Christianity made changes doesn't mean it's not myth. Dying rising gods who are sons of a God is a classic myth. Even when you say "oh Jesus IS god so... nope, still a demigod myth.

Jesus was born of a virgin because He was God. God does all things decently and in order. Jesus is different from the Hindu beliefs about Brahman. There's a different being changing details of the demigod story like the Greeks did with their different myths, and Jesus being born of a virgin because of Him being God, and dying for the sins of the world. The ressurection of Jesus is a consistent story and different from the zombie story of Osiris.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible doesn't contradict what I said.

So what? You are still calling God a liar.

Did your God make the world?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus was born of a virgin because He was God. God does all things decently and in order. Jesus is different from the Hindu beliefs about Brahman. There's a different being changing details of the demigod story like the Greeks did with their different myths, and Jesus being born of a virgin because of Him being God, and dying for the sins of the world. The ressurection of Jesus is a consistent story and different from the zombie story of Osiris.

No, he was not "born of a virgin". That was not even a prophesy of the Bible. It was an error of the writers. The verse that they referred to did not say that Jesus would be born of a virgin. You should try to understand what it says.