Last month Trump vowed to defend Christianity and urged Christians to vote for him
“This is really a battle between good and evil,” evangelical TV preacher Hank Kunneman says of the slew of criminal charges facing Donald Trump. “There’s something on President Trump that the enemy fears: It’s called the anointing.”
The Nebraska pastor, who was speaking on cable news show “FlashPoint” last summer, is among several voices in Christian media pressing a message of Biblical proportions: The 2024 presidential race is a fight for America’s soul, and a persecuted Trump has God’s protection.
“They’re just trying to bankrupt him. They’re trying to take everything he’s got. They’re trying to put him in prison,” author, media personality and self-proclaimed prophet Lance Wallnau said in October on “The Jim Bakker Show”, an hour-long daily broadcast that focuses on news and revelations about the end times that it says we are living in.
Jesus would be pissed if he heard this. Too bad he is make believe like his dad.
The historical existence of Jesus is not disputed.
Don’t worry. These are the same people who think that reindeer and narwhals are also fictional.
Yeah, I totally meant that a man named Jesus never existed.
Really though, Jesus never turned a man unblind nor a river into wine. It’s all story time in Gallilee.
Attack ideas not people please. It ought to be really easy for you to present evidence for your Messiah.
We aren’t saying Jesus was a messiah or in any way divine, but he was there and did things (probably different from what Christianity claims)
You can dislike and oppose Christianity w/o denying the fact that Jesus exists.
Ok you weakened your claim. Fine, now prove your weakened claim. This really shouldn’t be that difficult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
Don’t stop reading there. Wikipedia is biased. I’m making a talk point to remove that line because it’s biased and unnecessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
And? 95% of the humans race believes in some form of God. About 66% of biblical scholars believe the Resurrection was a true historical event as well as the gospel author citations being accurate
Are you being intentionally clueless? The image specifically says “modern scholars”, whereas all of your examples are of unqualified people. Moreover, most scholars of antiquity are not Christian.
Yes modern scholars. The typical modern scholar of the bible believes the events really happened and the attributions are correct.
How much longer are you going to continue to use the circular logic of something is true because it is believed to be true and it is believed to be true because people believe that it is true?
Present evidence, not arguments from authority or No True Scotsmen. I can demonstrate vaccines work by data not be invoking some doctor who said something one time.
Scholars of antiquity, not Biblical scholars?
Bro it’s 2024. The sky being blue is disputed.
Are you sure about that?
Nobody’s “sure”, but there are enough records and accounts to be reasonably confident that among the many traveling rabbis collecting followers in Roman Judaea was one from Nazareth named Joshua/Jesus, and that he was executed for political activities.
That’s it though.
Beyond that, his story is largely a creation of his followers, some of whom were apocalyptically charismatic enough in their own right to keep an ember alive, and eventually it sort of spread among the Jewish diaspora and the military, and happened to be in (relative) ascendance with the latter when an Eastern emperor needed to rethink some political strategies.
After that, it’s largely survivorship bias, with every hint of writing about him being preserved, transcribed, recreated, or invented from whole cloth, and anything from his contemporary itinerant preachers being ignored or suppressed.
Not quite. In fact, there’s a rather significant survivorship bias around the versions of Jesus. Literally the very earliest primary documents involve someone known for persecuting Christians telling Christians in an area he has no authority to persecute that they should abandon other versions of Jesus they accepted or other gospels in favor of the version he claimed based on spiritual visions of someone he never met in life.
We have nothing but fragments recorded by its critics of the Gospel of the Egyptians, for example, and the Gospel of Thomas we only have because of a single person burying it in a jar around the time it became punishable by death to possess.
The version of Jesus with female disciples that was talking about Greek atomism and Epicurean proto-evolutionary thought is actually super interesting historically given the overall philosophy, but it’s barely extant and only is because of archeological discoveries after the church lost effectively mega-monarchal status to just become a mega corporation instead.
And even in the modern era discoveries the church has any purview over like the Mar Saba letter abruptly go missing before it can be further validated by scholars.
The survivorship around “other versions” of Jesus look like they were conducted by Stalin with a two millennia reach. It involved literally burning down the successor to the library of Alexandria (and with it sources potentially related to a “Gospel of the Egyptians”).
May I see those records? Contemporary first hand please.
Also I was wondering if you could explain why Paul never mentions Nazareth or anyone else until Mark needs a name of smallest toen he can find in the area. Man, Mark could really set a scene well.
Yes. Was he the son of god or messiah? No. Be he was around and did spread something religious.
Prove it.
No.
The historical existence of several Jewish reformers of the era baked into a singular allegory is not disputed.
Ergo, he’s make believe - just like his dad.
You don’t have to deny Jesus’ existence, which is overtly true, to deny that what he taught was true— or the same as modern day Christianity
It’s not worth arguing with the folk that push this narrative.
If they are as poorly informed to make the argument it’s likely in large part because of an affinity for the concept greater than an affinity for knowledge of any details surrounding it.
So providing a counterpoint or more details just falls on willfully deaf ears.
To be fair though, the blame falls more on proselytizers deafening so many ears with their bullshit than on the people with such an acquired distaste for the canonical Jesus that they feel the need to throw out historical Jesus with the bathwater. I definitely get the sentiment, even if the historical Jesus became one of my hyperfocus interests over the past few years.
Given that you just saw someone dispute it, you know that isn’t true.
Obviously there are fringe cases. His existence (not his role as Messiah— you seem to be conflating the two) is not disputed by modern scholars of antiquity.
Argument from authority
Ha ha ha, Jesus never existed. Stop living in the Bronze Age.
You don’t have to deny Jesus’ existence, which is overtly true, to deny that what he taught was true— or the same as modern day Christianity
Jesus did not exist, which is overtly true.
Yeah! And neither did Pontius Pilate! \s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone
Contemporary physical evidence of Pilate. Please produce some for your Messiah.
Our messiah? accepting Jesus’ existence historically does not mean we are Christians
Fine you are not a Christian. Cool. Now do you have evidence of your weakened claim or are you just going to point to other people to make your argument for you?
I don’t give a flying fuck about a “messiah.” I just don’t see any good reason to deny the existence of a historical figure (in this case, a Jewish carpenter who pissed people off and got executed for it) out of pure delusional spite.
https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/is-jesus-real/
He never existed, nothing to do with delusion or spite.
There are reasons to believe the man didn’t exist and you have not provided a single shred of evidence that he did exist.
exactly. no one is delusional enough to think he was real.
You don’t have to deny Jesus’ existence, which is overtly true, to deny that what he taught was true— or the same as modern day Christianity
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof by those making the claim. good luck.
How is “some guy existed and said something about religion but idk what he said” extraordinary?
Very well. Explain where all the traditions about his acts and sayings came from. There is evidence of attestation and you should be able to address that.
Because the whole thing is a con explanation does address that. They were running a grift and that was it. Of course the stories and sayings are all mixed up, liars need amazing memories. And of course the Jerusalem church was doing well they could draw in the crowds each week with yet another amazing adventure of Jesus.
deleted by creator