I have been doing some reading on Jesus

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TooMuchClay 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

None of the original sources or those who wrote shortly after with near access to the sources agree with anything you've said here. And the new testament + early writings are far far far more in the vein of accurate accounts than anything else from classical antiquity.

You think Titus was remotely unbiased? Livy? Plutarch? Please. And don't get me started on the Classical Greek historians, they would have been right at home with today's NewsShow hyperbole. You should read what Josephus had to say on them. Ouch.

The development of a working metaphysical model for scientific investigation, as well as the very concept of charity and the freedoms won by peasants by the late middle ages prove that the Western and Eastern traditions of Christianity have contributed more to civilization than anything else.

But you'll unfortunately likely only realize how wrong your "theories", supported by nothing more than your hate and spite, are when you plunge head first into self torment after your brief time is up.

Any search for Truth cannot be a bad thing but ask yourself: are you really prepared to accept the truth, even if it means Christian Tradition was right all along?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

None of the original sources or those who wrote shortly after with near access to the sources agree with anything you've said here

Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera (22 BC – AD 40) wrote about the affair and other early sources refer to Jesus as the "son of Mary." The Bible itself is the source of the idea of Jesus banging his followers along with extrapolation of human nature.

My third point about worshipping Jesus is idolatry is pretty self-explanatory. The whole trinity nonsense was created to explain why a man could be worshipped. When you gotta do mental gymnastics to justify actions, well, it's bullshit. We have a modern example of that in transgenderism.

I'd have to look into when people first wrote about the idea Jesus was not the one crucified, pretty sure that was early on. But since people don't come back to life, the crucifixion never happened, someone else took on the role of Jesus, or someone else died. There are only so many possibilities that are believable.

You think Titus was remotely unbiased?

Everything can be considered suspect and compromised, but we can draw likely conclusions regardless.

your hate and spite

There's no hate or spite on my end, I suspect you're feeling attacked. It is not my intention.

prove that the Western and Eastern traditions of Christianity have contributed more to civilization than anything else.

I don't see how how that's relevant to the reliability of the bible narrative of Jesus, but I'd agree.

Any search for Truth cannot be a bad thing but ask yourself: are you really prepared to accept the truth, even if it means Christian Tradition was right all along?

You're welcome to believe whatever you'd like. I am not comfortable worshipping a man, so the Christian tradition doesn't work for me.