/lit/ - Literature

>>19475624
Severus Snape

Don Quixote

Baron D.N.

>>19475624
>Behold, the virgine will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel.

>>19475624
I'm not even Catholic but you have to be extremely retarded to think this image is some great BTFO.
>Mother of God
Jesus Christ is God, Mary is thus the Mother of God. To say that Mary is just the mother of Jesus the man and not Jesus the second person of the Trinity is Nestorianism. Jesus' Divine and human aspects are inseparable.
>Most Holy
The Books of Acts describes how God gathered all of the Apostles from the corners of the earth to Mary's side when she died. The disciples of the Apostles wrote about how Mary is the most holy person to live barring Christ.
Not even going to bother running through the rest.

>>19475624
All christers are in the wrong, but what exactly is the non-Catholic position here, that Mary is not the "Mother of God"? If she is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, she is. So which is denied here, that Jesus is God or that Mary is his mother? The image itself says she is his mother as per the scripture citations, so does that mean it's the former which is denied, that Jesus is God? Very weird position for a christer but ok.

>>19475690
Most Protestants can't access the simplest of logic and thus fall into all sorts of ancient heresies which the Fathers of the Church wrote volumes refuting. Good luck getting a Protestant to read them though, they're all "corrupted".

>>19475624
The Beloved Disciple is Lazarus of Bethany. So the "Gospel of John" is actually the Gospel of Lazarus.

>>19475667
There's no correct interpretation

>>19475682
>implying Isaiah was writing about Jesus and the virgin birth isn't a Matthean fabrication based on a Greek mistranslation of almah in the Septuagint

>>19475686
>I'm not even Catholic but [proceeds to parrot Catholic apologetics]

>>19475690
>>19475696
Mary can't be the mother of someone who was never born. The cult of Mary is pure idolatry.

>>19475728
>jesus wasn't born
Wow that's rough on the historiography. He wasn't even a historical person?

>>19475734
Jesus is a person in the bible, not God.
Jesus as God Himself isn't biblical, even if you want to interpret it that way.

>>19475746
And this, inshallah, is the Protestant position?

>>19475752
It's more like Jesus's own position.

>Then a certain ruler asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call Me good?”Jesus replied.“No one is good except God alone. Luke 18:18-19

>>19475761
based socratic jesus lol

>>19475778
>the cope

>>19475789
What cope? I already said you are all wrong, all of the sects.

>>19475686
Mary was gradually turned from a nobody in the earliest extant Christian texts to a literal goddess as the centuries passed. Only a papist would deny that.

>>19475805
wrong about what?

>>19475686
Kek, imagine thinking trinitarian paganism is a thing in the Bible.

>>19475712
>unironically appealing to 10th century AD Masoretic scribbles

>>19475824
Genesis 1:2-
>Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Wisdom of Solomon 9:17-18
>Who has known Your counsel,
>Unless You have given him wisdom >And sent him Your Holy Spirit from on high?
>And thus the paths of those on earth were made straight,
>And mankind was taught was pleases You;
>So They were saved by wisdom.
The entire Trinity is revealed here. “Your counsel” – God the Father, who gives His Son, wisdom, and sends the Holy Spirit.

Zechariah 4:6
>And he answered me and spoke to me, saying, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel, saying ‘Not by mighty power nor by strength, but by Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty.

Judges 14:19
>Then the Spirit of the Lord leapt upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck thirty of their men...

Theophanies in the Old Testament of the Angel of the Lord, who is directly identified by those who see Him as ‘God’ is one example pointing towards multiplicity within the Godhead, which was identified even by 1st century non-Christian Jews such as Philo as the Logos of God, which of course, according to John 1, is Jesus Christ, the Logos made flesh. This example was also used by 2nd century Christian apologist Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho. Genesis 16:13-14 is one example of this:
>She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.
See verse 12 to see that Hagar was talking with the Angel of the Lord, identified as God. “Angel” means nothing more than “messenger” either, and need not refer to a created being.

One can also see Genesis 19:24-
>Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.
This is again indicating multiplicity in the Godhead. Made even clearer by the context of chapter 18 and 19, where God appears before Abraham (i.e. the Son).

Jacob also wrestles with an ‘angel’ in Genesis 32:22-32. After he wrestles, he names the place ‘Peniel’ or “Face of God”, because “I have seen God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” This clearly puts into context statements about no-one having seen God the Father, and Jesus saying that one who has seen him has seen the Father. Jacob wrestled with the Son.

Exodus 3:2-4
>There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
>When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”
First it says the Angel of the Lord was in the bush, and then immediately after it says God talks to Moses from the bush. This is similar to Genesis 16.

>>19475761
as far as I'm concerned, this passage completely does away with identifying Jesus with God. I would love to see the kind of Christian word salad that the attempt to sanitize and scholasticize this passage would produce

>>19475843
The spirit of God (Ruach ha-Kodesh) isn't an individual in the Old Testament.

>>19475834
>the version found among the dead sea scrolls dating to before the 1st century says the same thing
>but the greek translation must be right because it supports my interpretation

>>19475845
It’s a rhetorical question. The secret Messiah is a theme all throughout Mark too. You need to read it in the larger context of Mark too. In Mark 2:5-6, Jesus tells a man that his sins are forgiven. Immediately the Jews claim He is blaspheming, asking “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Mark 14:62-63 is another good example. Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power. The Son of Man, obviously, is a reference to Daniel 7, where “He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”—a created being would never get such an honor, and it’s no surprise that the priest begins tearing his clothes in rage when he hears Jesus say this. It can also be said that the structure of Jesus’ affirmation here begins with “I am”, followed by a pause, which is likely a reference to the “I AM” of Exodus 3 in the burning bush which the Angel of the Lord, identified with God, is sitting in.

2 Samuel 7 and Isaiah 9 make the fact He is God even more obvious:
>For unto us a child is born,
unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders.
And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and sustain it with justice and righteousness from that time and forevermore.

>>19475863
This is based statement is based on the presumption that Christianity is false and Jews are right, so it can be disregarded entirely

>>19475879
>I-It's a rhetorical question
Lmao Jesus being autistic and playing word games with a guy just because he called him good?

>>19475889
But Christianity is obviously false, since it's a fanfic of Judaism, which was a fanfic of the ancient Canaanite religion remodeled after Zoroastrianism by Cyrus the Great.

>>19475810
The entire religion from start to finish

>>19475707
how come?

>>19475894
Jesus doing this sort of stuff is run of the mill, nice job showing you’ve never opened a Bible in your life. Are you forgetting there’s parts where He even acts ‘autistic’ about who His own mother and father are?

>>19475911
Nigga that's christians trying hard to read between the lines and seeing things that aren't there. Nowhere in Mark is he presented as god or demigod or whatever people invented later. He is a miracle worker who depends on god to work his miracles and has no authority of his own.

>>19475901
Christianity is in direct continuity with Second Temple Judaism and is a fulfillment of OT messianic prophecies. There are even Sasanid traditions which place Zoroaster no more than 258 years before Alexander, thus around the time of the defeat of Darius III in 331 B.C. Towards the earlier end of serious scholarship places him in the 6th century B.C., thus far younger than the religious foundations of Abraham. William L. Malandra reports these dates in his introduction to ancient Iranian religion. Monotheism as well was the original religion of mankind. There is lots of modern research on this and good videos documenting it online. This is not even to get into prophecies such as Daniel 9.24-27

>>19475920
Reread it again: >>19475879

>>19475929
>Monotheism as well was the original religion of mankind.
Sure thing Akenaten, whatever you say

>>19475761
Arianbros...we won.

>>19475920
Honestly curious, which extant denominations believe that Jesus is not God?

>>19475929
On the contrary, Christianity is a subversion of Second Temple Judaism, a Roman project to pacify the Jews. It subverts every messianic expectation of 1st century Jews in favor of Roman rule: Here's your messiah on a stick, he's not a warrior but brought a sword to divide and conquer you, told you to turn the other cheek to authorities, and to pay your fucking taxes. Ever noticed how the OT constantly emphasizes that you should not eat the flesh from a living animal and drink its blood? Now you'll eat the flesh and drink the blood of our sacrificial lamb, who's the Yom Kippur sacrifice and the new temple that we destroyed all in one. You can point at basically anything in the NT and see it for yourself. When Jesus claims that the random centurion is more pious than anyone he met in Israel he's completely demoralizing the Jews, when Paul says there's neither Jew nor Greek he's obliterating their notion of chosen people, and so on.

>>19475889
>>19475937
False is exactly what Christianity is. You don't have to take my word for it, just read the Old Testament and then the Gospels to see how the latter are a shameless patchwork of the former and its motifs. This is known academically as biblical typology, something that Christians naively interpret as the Old Testament "prefiguring" Jesus.

>>19475937
Israelites were never an exclusively racial label, and the sooner you understand this, the more the Old Testament will make sense to you. The ‘nations’ or ‘gentiles’ refer to any sort of pagan or anyone who does not follow God and instead serves idols and demons

In Genesis 12 Abraham is told by God that “and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you”. In Genesis 22 the Angel of the Lord tells Abraham that “and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed”. What could this mean? Firstly it means that God’s plan involves all of humanity. Second, it is looking forward to Jesus Christ, a descendent in the flesh of Abraham. The Gentiles were always to come to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of you and me. Scripture attests to this:
Psalm 22:27-28
>All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations.

Psalm 86:8-10
>Among the gods there is none like you, Lord; no deeds can compare with yours. All the nations you have made will come and worship before you, Lord; they will bring glory to your name. For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you alone are God.

Also Isaiah 56:6-8.

Esther 8:17 we read that “And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.” If Judaism was some ethno-supremacist religion how are other people becoming full-fledged Jews?

We must also remember that Jesus had non-Israelites in his geneology. Rahab, a Canaanite, for one, and Ruth, a Moabite, on the other. Moses himself had a Midianite or a Cushite wife (it’s a matter of debate whether this refers to the same woman), i.e. a non-Israelite wife.

The nation of Israel, while predominantly of one group in the time of the Old Testament, was never exclusively racial in any sense, and is best seen as the Church of the Old Testament. Those truly of the seed of Abraham are those who have faith in Jesus Christ. They are the new, the true Israel, and the true Chosen People of God (1 Peter 2:9, Galatians 6:16, Galatians 3:29, etc.) Scripture confirms this.

>>19475937
>>19475946
Jesus's trial and execution itself is an reenactment of the Yom Kippur:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur#Temple_service

Compare the act of sprinkling blood with New Testament verses such as 1 Peter 1:2. Blood was required to appease Yahweh, the tribal god of Israel, and such blood rituals were recreated to formulate Christianity, which is simply a subversion of Second Temple Judaism.
Jesus is the sacrifice whose blood is sprinkled on the temple (now the congregation) while Barabbas is the scapegoat who's set free into the wilderness, carrying away the sins of Israel.

>>19475958
>Israelites were never an exclusively racial label
Except they were and that's what Paul endeavors to undo with his doctrine.
>Second, it is looking forward to Jesus Christ
lol

>>19475946
>>19475946
This entire post relies on the presumption that a motif or prefiguration cannot exist in history and must therefore be fake, because God does not exist. Opinion discarded

>>19475962
This is common sense. Instead of presupposing ancient Jewish propehcies to be retroactively real we understand one work is a product of another because we're not gullible idiots who believe in literal magic.

>>19475963
You have no arguments, buddy, I substantiated by position with the Old Testament and you ignore it all. Typical atheist retard

>>19475967
See >>19475968

>>19475968
Yeah, your position is based of the presumption that there is no sovereign God in control of history. Your paradigm doesn’t allow it, therefore it’s not ‘muh common sense’ (which is governed by your presuppositions). Some prophecies, of course, like Daniel 9.24-27, are impossible to ignore, and it’s always funny to see you fags squirm over them

>>19475971
It's not my fault you ignore what's right in front of you and cling to bias confirmation. None of your so-called "prophecies" mean anything when an honest reading undoubtedly shows that the New Testament is a subversion of the Old Testament and its motifs.

For more on prophecies meaning shit, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaticinium_ex_eventu#In_religious_writings

Jewish blood magic isn't real, anon. It's past the time to come to terms with it.

>>19475971
>using the old testament to "prove" christianity to an atheist critic
not sure that's going to fly so good

>>19475978
hi danielfag, did you figure out yet that muttering about prophecies only proves god to the room temperature crowd?

how the fuck can you give birth when you're a virgin

>>19475978
We don't ignore your prophecies, we just don't believe in them because it's written in another book that cannot ever prove any of its claims. And the burden of proof falls on your shoulders as the one making such extraordinary claims.

>>19475985
The Daniel 9.24-27 prophecy doesn’t rely on this. Try again.
>>19475994
No one can debunk me. It’s all cope and seethe.
>>19475997
You clearly don’t understand the nature of the prophecy and its exegesis then. The Temple was destroyed, just as predicted. The Messiah was killed, just as predicted. Foreign armies destroyed Jerusalem, just as predicted. Sacrifices ended. Just as predicted.

>>19475995
Apparently komodo dragons can do it

>>19476008
jews really are lizards

>>19476007
>The Daniel 9.24-27 prophecy doesn’t rely on this
Are you saying the gospels were written before Daniel?
>The Temple was destroyed, just as predicted.
Again. Who could've guessed it?
>The Messiah was killed
According to the NT writers
>Foreign armies destroyed Jerusalem, just as predicted. Sacrifices ended. Just as predicted.
It's almost like there was a historical precedent for that pessimism regarding their future...

>>19476007
>god destroys his own chosen people and their institutions to start over with a new covenant, as revealed by the prophecy
Remind me why anyone should enter into contract with that volcano demon if he has this escape clause ready?

>>19476017
Shut it down

>>19476019
>Are you saying the gospels were written before Daniel?
No clue how you even came to this conclusion. Wow.

>According to the NT writers
One of the most universal things that can be said for certain about Jesus is that he was crucified and killed. This is the one indisputable fact.

The rest of your post again misses the point, as is typical of atheists (it’s a psychological defense mechanism)—the prophecy gives us an exact time for the major events of it.

>>19476022
God never abandoned his chosen people, and many of them were quick to accept Jesus as the Messiah. The foretelling of a new covenant can be seen in the Old Testament as well. Jeremiah 31, etc

>>19475624
dont Catholics also use some extra biblical text about marries childhood?
also the bottom blurb does not contain Catholocisms most outrageous and infamous titles implying the image is poorly prepared and even subversive popery

>>19476035
>No clue how you even came to this conclusion. Wow.
So they WERE written after Daniel. Which means exactly what vaticinium ex eventu implies to anyone who isn't delusional.
>One of the most universal things that can be said for certain about Jesus is that he was crucified and killed. This is the one indisputable fact.
Historians can't even distinguish the historical Jesus from any other itinerant preacher who was also named Jesus and crucified by the Romans. How can you think that confirms an ancient Jewish prophecy when all reason points to authors actively trying to fulfill them is beyond me.
>the prophecy gives us an exact time for the major events of it
If you mean it gives the "exact time" to manufacture a Messiah and comission fanfics I agree with you.

>>19476035
>God never abandoned his chosen people, and many of them were quick to accept Jesus as the Messiah. The foretelling of a new covenant can be seen in the Old Testament as well. Jeremiah 31, etc
Why was there any need to do any of this? What was so wrong with the old covenant he had with his people that he had to tear it up and be incarnated on earth to a virgin, let himself be killed by uncircumcised demon worshipers, raise himself from the dead, and then appear again to a handful of people and tell them to go spread his message, a message at significant odds with the previous more inward one of preserving the mosaic commandments rather than converting the world to a messiah cult.

Protestants be like
>this person gave birth to God
>was just some chick, could've been anyone really

>>19476060
Vaginas usually do give birth. I know, it's crazy.

>>19475978
>Some prophecies, of course, like Daniel 9.24-27, are impossible to ignore
But you're happy to ignore prophecies in Daniel that the Egyptians and Syrians would go to war (they didn’t) and that Antiochus would die in Palestine (he died in Persia).

>>19475690
Yes, but its so little in the bible itself. it doesnt detail much about the person besides being the mother of jesus. So she is exalted, but the extent Catholics go is very out there.

>>19476057
>So they WERE written after Daniel. Which means exactly what vaticinium ex eventu implies to anyone who isn't delusional.
Retard, according to your own wikipedia page it refers to a prophecy made after the events occured. The Daniel prophecy was already written, and then it came true when it was supposed to.

>If you mean it gives the "exact time" to manufacture a Messiah and comission fanfics I agree with you.
“Broo Jews made up a scheme and destroyed their own temple and killed nearly a million of their own just to make their prophecies come true and to found a religion which would persecute them for millennia afterwards”
>>>/x/

>>19476071
>Retard, according to your own wikipedia page it refers to a prophecy made after the events occured. The Daniel prophecy was already written, and then it came true when it was supposed to.
Anon, the GOSPELS were written after Daniel. There was no fulfillment of any prophecy except what the NT authors wrote into their works. Is it really that hard to understand that they could (and did) do that because they knew the prophecies?

>>19476093
>Temple destroyed
>Jerusalem destroyed
>sacrifices ended
>Messiah claimaint killed
All well-known facts. You are just intentionally disingenuous

>>19476041
like Protoevangelium of James, Odes of Solomon, Acts of Peter, Sibylline Oracles, The Ascension of Isaiah, History of Joseph the Worker, Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, Book of Resurrection of Christ, Apocalypse of Paul, Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate, Gospel of Gamaliel, etc...

>>19476101
>Temple destroyed by the Romans
>Jerusalem destroyed by the Romans
>Sacrifices ended by the Romans
>Messiah crucified and made up by the Romans
See >>19475937 and >>19475959

It's pretty clear that Christianity is bullshit. I'm surprised there are still people shameless enought to attempt to defend it.

>>19476035
The Nazarene is a fictional character.

1. There are no Roman records of the crucifixion dating to the 1st century, every Roman source scholars resort to comes from the 2nd century forward. Utter silence about him and his claimed deeds pervades contemporaneous writings, unfitting of an extremely popular preacher whose alleged execution became such a massive public event involving the governor of Judaea (Matthew 27:11), an eclipse (Matthew 27:45), an earthquake (Matthew 27:51), and a zombie apocalypse (Matthew 27:52-53).

2. The earliest secular mention of Jesus is found in the "Testimonium Flavianum," a blatant Christian adulteration of Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. This shows how desperate the Christian community from the 3rd-4th centuries was over the lack of evidence for Jesus, and how dishonest they were to tamper with historical documents and forge evidence.

3. The biblical accounts are wholly contradictory and unreliable, authors demonstrate a lack of sound knowledge about basic things: Jesus forbidding divorce separately to women and men, despite the fact that women in his society could not get divorces (Mark 10:11-12); A geneology of Jesus tracing through the Davidic line that purports 14 generations between David and Jeconiah, which is inconsistent with the generational spread in 1 Chronicles 3 (Matthew 1:6-11); John's ignorance of the difference between Aramaic and Hebrew (John, 19:13); etc.

4. Key pieces of information from the gospels have no historical basis: Luke's absurd claim that the census required people to go back to their ancestral home (Luke 2:3); The Romans had no custom of freeing prisoners during Passover (Mark 15:6, Matthew 27:15, John 18:39, interpolated in Luke 23:17); The centurion had no reason to kill Jesus (John 19:34) since crucifixions were intended as a prolonged method of execution, and neither did Pilate to allow Joseph "The Plot Device" of Arimathaea to bury him (John 19:38); etc.

>>19476069
Catholics literally conflated her with a pagan goddess. The Marian cult is the cult of Inanna thinly-veiled.

>Worship of a "Queen of Heaven" (Hebrew מלכת השמים, Malkath haShamayim) is recorded in the Book of Jeremiah, in the context of the Prophet condemning such religious worship as blasphemy and a violation of the teachings of the God of Israel. In Jeremiah 7:18:
>The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.

>In Jeremiah 44:15-18:
>Then all the men who knew that their wives were burning incense to other gods, along with all the women who were present—a large assembly—and all the people living in Lower and Upper Egypt, said to Jeremiah, "We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Heaven_(antiquity)#Hebrew_Bible_references

>Qetesh was frequently called the "mistress of all the gods" and "lady of stars and heaven", important because in Akkadian and Sumerian, the term "queen of heaven" is literally "lady of heaven", and in fact, another known name of Ishtar's, "Inanna" is literally just Sumerian for "lady of heaven."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qetesh

>>19475667
Explain. I am interested.

>>19475908
Not him but you should be free to interpret the book in any way you want that doesn't ignore truths regarding the events and characters that transpired within. Don Quixote's character, whether tragic or comic, is an example of that.

>>19475908
Cervantes didn't leave some explanation or anything as to the meaning of the book, there are dozens of ways to read into Don Quixote, that's what makes it so good.
I suppose that DOES make him a very misinterpreted character though, since many people think they are right in the way they interpret him.

>>19475690
the virgin birth was a miracle on God's part, not Mary

>>19476238
I’m not religious but why do the vast majority of biblical scholars affirm the existence of Jesus then if all this is true? A lot of them are atheists themselves, and if they could present irrefutable proof that Jesus never existed then they could make an enormous number of Christians apostatise, which would be on their interest?

>>19475879
If you take the metaphors Jesus uses about himself literally you are insane and need to take pills. Harold Bloom was spot on when he said theology was the literalizing of metaphors and symbolism in the divine literature.

>>19475667
Wow, they look like living figures. A testament to Cervantes' originality.

>>19475624
>implying these are the only mentions of Mary in the NT

>>19475930
>calls himself the son of man
>t-that obviously means he's God

>>19476007
>No one can debunk me. It’s all cope and seethe.
off course nobody can debunk it, just like you would never be able to reason a schizo out of their delusions

>>19477434
The vast majority of biblical scholars are theologians who work for Christian institutions. The few secular and non-Christian ones like Bart Ehrman pay lip service to the status quo to preserve their careers, and even those have to acknowledge the fact that the gospels are unreliable and there's scarcely any evidence of a historical Jesus.

>>19475686
>The Books of Acts describes how God gathered all of the Apostles from the corners of the earth to Mary's side when she died.
no it doesn't

>>19475936
Islam

>>19475936
>>19478430
Jehovah's witnesses too

>>19475667
>That Trinitarian Order cross
KINO
I
N
O

>>19478430
>>19478996
Ok so that rules out 99.9% of the Christian world.

>>19479140
Well 99.9% of the Christian world is retarded and haven't read or understood the bible.

>>19479379
No true christman

>>19479423
They're Christian just not very knowledgeable about Christianity

>>19475624
>>19476238
>>19477434
>>19478322
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

>>19479617
>rationalwiki

Just link politifact.

>>19475712
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRXXGL157t4

>>19479617
Jesus did exist, shit like the virgin birth are obviously latter addition tho

>>19479764
tl;dw

>>19479951
>lazy midwit
06:53
here's dr heiser point is that alma
06:56
when a hebrew israelite when an
06:58
israelite someone familiar with the
07:00
hebrew bible
07:01
when they saw the word alma
07:04
heard it or read it they certainly had
07:07
the category possibility of virgin
07:10
for that word now they know their own
07:13
language well enough
07:14
to know that it might not be virgin but
07:17
it is
07:17
absolutely incorrect to say that it
07:19
cannot be that that meaning
07:21
cannot be part of that word now you know
07:24
let's let's do a little
07:25
little practical thinking here uh
07:28
scholars are
07:30
not necessarily known for their logic
07:32
all the time
07:33
i made i once made the comment in a
07:35
graduate seminar class
07:37
that i thought a course in logic should
07:39
be required for every graduate student
07:41
in biblical studies
07:43
i didn't make many friends that day but
07:46
i believe it
07:46
let's do a little thinking okay i have
07:48
four children i have three daughters
07:51
and one boy my daughters are 17
07:54
15 and the youngest is a daughter she's
07:57
eight now in a patriarchal culture in a
07:59
semitic culture
08:00
a woman was of marriageable age when she
08:03
hit
08:04
puberty because now you can start having
08:06
babies

>>19479951
basically, the word used for immanuel birth might as well mean virgin because of the culture of israelites

>>19479899
>obviously

Take the gnosis pill
t. schizo

>>19480006
>>19480017
Pure cope, especially when you realize only Matthew came up with that and then Luke the great historian copied it like he copied everything elsehe read.

>>19475701
Ok. So did Lazarus write the Gospel of John?