Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

[Neverender]

There is not even any evidence that he existed. Like, none. Your muh scholarly consensus cuckery is not the safeguard you think it is, but first you would have to actually care to examine what it incorrectly deems to be evidence, not just accept the claim itself because muh consensus.

This is objectively incorrect and you're being retarded.

Flavius Josephus: “Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared”

Tacitus: “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Pliny the Younger: “They [the Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Suetonius: “Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians [Chrestianos]. Christus, the founder of the name [auctor nominis], had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator [procuratorem] Pontius Pilatus.”

Lucian of Samosata: “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)

 

[Cassius Crayfish]

There is not even any evidence that he existed. Like, none.

This is bait.

 

[Koomala Sharrtis]

This is objectively incorrect and you're being retarded.

>a few Romans very vaguely conveying a story from decades prior with nothing further to corroborate it
Alright, and? What am I to do with that?

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

yet think that your cuck beliefs

 

[Soycast II]

Perfect display of passive-aggressive toxicity. You would not ask this anywhere on the forum, yet think that your cuck beliefs are the special kind of cuck beliefs that should be criticized in a special way because then your emotional pleading is easier to obscure. Your muh sense of community is too enticing for you to ever back up from and address any negative connotations without its huge biases. Why address anything of substance when you can't act high-and-mighty while deceiving people of your humility or presumedly superior epistemological or moral framework.

Christian identity is the driving force, and when the actual substance of anything in your faith is being discussed you will cling to your identity in ways that are plain to see. That's why evident logical contradictions are much less controversial to you and trivial to concede, whilst criticizing the culture that actively encourages them completely riles you up because muh faith so speshul iz still better if ppl acted like it tru. This very implicit claim is the foundation of your epistemology and the one you are least likely to be willing to accept criticism about, since it's so appealing for you to rationalize through some retrospective pretense with the thousand years of history and indeed assert any given "non-Christian" successful culture or idea derives from Christianity anyhow in some convenient manner.

I’m not superior morally. I regularly engage in internet bloodsports which isn’t really conducive to a Christian lifestyle. I just know to act in a respectful manner in what I guess you could call a sacred space on this site.

One or two MatIs

You know it to be true.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

Alright, and? What am I to do with that?

Would you also be as aggressive if we would mention the fact that there are commonly known historical figures that have much less proof of their existence than Jesus? Like Pythagoras, Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, Confucius?

The proof that Jesus did exist is substantial enough by historical standards.

 

[Neverender]

>a few Romans very vaguely conveying a story from decades prior with nothing further to corroborate it
Alright, and? What am I to do with that?

I knew this is what you'd say. "It's just some Romans and one kike, who cares?"

1) You said:

There is not even any evidence that he existed. Like, none. Your muh scholarly consensus cuckery is not the safeguard you think it is, but first you would have to actually care to examine what it incorrectly deems to be evidence, not just accept the claim itself because muh consensus.

2) I gave you five separate, CONTEMPORARY, non-Biblical sources mentioning His existence and ministry.
3) Your only response is to denigrate the sources, which align with the Gospel narratives (the Gospels are primary historical source documents, by the way), and beg the question on how you're supposed to interpret genuine historical evidence.

@Cassius Crayfish is right and everyone here should ignore you.

 

[Rendang]

To think, some turned away from following Christianity because of colonialism.

There's an irony that many of these people would worship an ideology (whether it'd be Communism/Fascism, and anything in between) while dismissing their predecessors failures.

It's missing the forest for the trees; the amount of times a government has been hypocritical for realpolitik is too often. You can espouse (allegedly) solid foundations, but execution is almost always flawed. This only strengthens the argument towards original sin.



On the discussion of governance, what is the ideal Christian state, and it's governance? I can imagine we'd want to achieve a mixed economy like Distributism or Daoism-where the value of community and humility is valued much more than raw economic statistics (GDP), but I can see it being more similar to Yugoslavia, Vietnam, or Singapore, where the state can enforce it's guidelines freely, but tries its best to allow opposing voices (albeit in varying levels) a right to have an opinion, even if it is merely a gesture of goodwill. I'd love to hear other opinions though; it's a good exercise on how Christians want to express their beliefs.

 

[Jotch]

it's so over

 

[Squanto Airi]

it's so over

Christ is Risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs, bestowing life, and you're blackpilling?

 

[Nut-Roaster the 2nd]

A lot of what converted me from Atheism back to the Light was a collaboration of the autistic interests I took up, but also realising how hollow an Atheist's view and lifestyle really is. Running on pure id, being a Redditor, doing absolutely degenerate things to others and justifying it with a so-called "moral superiority"...
Scared me straight, to be honest...

 

[Neverender]

On the discussion of governance, what is the ideal Christian state, and it's governance?

The only ideal way to live would be without sin under God's kingship. The best we've done without Him is representative democracy. America's given way too much ground to its politicians and our moral center has rotted, but we've managed to avoid the extremely gay problems inherent in the various permutations of autocracy.

A lot of what converted me from Atheism back to the Light was a collaboration of the autistic interests I took up, but also realising how hollow an Atheist's view and lifestyle really is. Running on pure id, being a Redditor, doing absolutely degenerate things to others and justifying it with a so-called "moral superiority"...
Scared me straight, to be honest...

It hit me like a meteor when I realized that being 'good' is still being a real asshole in this day and age. Christ's way has done more for me in a year than trying to live by the world did in a whole decade of suffering and sin. I was really sliding towards some dark stuff, but He took me out of it. People who have never experienced that just can't understand it.

 

[Koomala Sharrtis]

I’m not superior morally. I regularly engage in internet bloodsports which isn’t really conducive to a Christian lifestyle. I just know to act in a respectful manner in what I guess you could call a sacred space on this site.

Genuine criticism is a respectful thing. I care that you don't believe in falsities and contradictions that seriously affect your worldview.

I can drop the vitriol because it really is not important at all to me to make some point about it besides what I've already said. It's just a performative kind of thing like in comedy, whatever. Don't assume I can't be polite when it comes to actually serious discussion. Sorry for being autistic, if that makes it better.

Would you also be as aggressive if we would mention the fact that there are commonly known historical figures that have much less proof of their existence than Jesus? Like Pythagoras, Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, Confucius?

The proof that Jesus did exist is substantial enough by historical standards.

I don't know, possibly. I haven't examined the historiography regarding those three.

2) I gave you five separate, CONTEMPORARY, non-Biblical sources mentioning His existence and ministry.

They are sources that there was a story going around alright. So?

3) Your only response is to denigrate the sources, which align with the Gospel narratives (the Gospels are primary historical source documents, by the way), and beg the question on how you're supposed to interpret genuine historical evidence.

Not exactly contemporary if it's decades after except maybe for like a couple of these guys, but whatever. They relayed a story, that's it.

They align with the Gospel narratives, so what? So much is distorted there and doesn't agree with each other that you're shooting yourself in the leg by appealing to them.

Material evidence is a thing. Records, documents, archeological evidence. There's none of that with Jesus, not by witnesses.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

They align with the Gospel narratives, so what? So much is distorted there and doesn't agree with each other that you're shooting yourself in the leg by appealing to them.

The Gospels, being written accounts of witnesses (also, the word martyr means "witness" for a reason), actually pass the test of credibility by criminal investigation standards. If all four Gospels did align perfectly, it would have completely invalidated them as witness testimonies and would have been instead an undeniable proof of a false conspiracy. However, the "meat" of the accounts aligns, the "seasoning" doesn't, and that's how you know it's genuine. That's why witnesses are always questioned separately, with no means of reaching another witness during a testimony, by the way.

 

[Koomala Sharrtis]

The Gospels, being written accounts of witnesses (also, the word martyr means "witness" for a reason)

This is bait, right?

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

This is bait, right?

How is this bait?

 

[Neverender]

I can drop the vitriol because it really is not important at all to me to make some point about it besides what I've already said. It's just a performative kind of thing like in comedy, whatever. Don't assume I can't be polite when it comes to actually serious discussion. Sorry for being autistic, if that makes it better.

I know you were replying to someone else, but please do. I only want to speak with you frankly. The weird hostility isn't necessary. I apologize for my own hostility: wrath is my second worst sin.

They are sources that there was a story going around alright. So?

It doesn't just attest to a 'story.' The people, practices and methodologies of Christianity are attested to by sources that viewed them AT THE TIME OF WRITING as retarded and worshipping a false god. These were written within living memory of Christ. Disregarding them because they're not immediate to Christ's life by personal experience is counter-historical and unscholarly. There's a reason the consensus is Jesus lived and was crucified.

Not exactly contemporary if it's decades after except maybe for like a couple of these guys, but whatever. They relayed a story, that's it.

You claimed Jesus didn't exist, they said Jesus did exist and that Pontius Pilate killed him. We have attestations that Pontius Pilate existed, was prefect and killed a man named Jesus, and those non-Christian sources I cited tell us Pilate sentenced Christ to crucifixion. If you refuse to believe the entirely reasonable thesis that a man named Jesus lived and died, there's nothing we can do for you here.

They align with the Gospel narratives, so what? So much is distorted there and doesn't agree with each other that you're shooting yourself in the leg by appealing to them.

No, they don't. They're eyewitness accounts, so they just don't capture everything every other Gospel says because not all the Apostles were at any given incident. That's why they're all included together as a compendium. Please, if you genuinely want to talk about the reliability of the Gospels, tell us what makes you say this. But honestly, you don't have to, because:

Material evidence is a thing. Records, documents, archeological evidence. There's none of that with Jesus, not by witnesses.

The Gospels are eyewitness accounts and historical documents. You claim they're unreliable, I think the opposite because we have other documents that prove their faithful transmission. Let's set that aside.

I genuinely don't think you want to understand, because this is where the counterargument ALWAYS boils down to with somebody who is just arguing for the sake of argument. If I gave you a real piece of the True Cross, you'd say there's no way to verify it's the True Cross because it would bear no marker of historical veracity. If I gave you the nails driven through His hands, you'd say there's no way to verify they were anything but Roman nails of a common type. If Christ appeared before you RIGHT NOW, you would question if you were just hallucinating somehow. You wouldn't believe unless you saw Christ in His tomb dead, watched him for three days laying there, then saw Him get up off the slab and walk out, and even then I think you'd ask "well, how'd he fake it?"

Your heart is hard and you think you know it all already, and that we're beholden to proving everything to YOUR standard of proof while ignoring the standards of people who have done decades of work investigating the veracity of the life of Christ. You won't even accept history: why would you accept the supernatural? I'm not saying this to be hateful. I think you're being close-minded and it will blinker you forever if you don't open up a little.

 

[Rendang]

Material evidence is a thing. Records, documents, archeological evidence

The Early church was persecuted, and thus many of the items they made were actively being destroyed; It'd be literal suicide if you had a mural of the Lord beyond tombs, so many would've been intentionally obscured to prevent their destruction, such as giving pagan iconography a new meaning, or they'd be seemingly mundane objects and disputed, like the Shroud of Turin or any corpse parts of His followers.

The few documents and teachings we have would have to be either handed down to the followers (The Apostolic Fathers), and likewise their beliefs, which is clearly seen in the Shepard of Hermas and 1st Clements, 1st and 2nd century texts.

 

[Koomala Sharrtis]

How is this bait?

You're not going with "spiritual witnessing/martyrdom is the same as how witnesses are understood in historiography or in law", right? No eyewitness actually wrote anything, disregarding the post-resurrection accounts.

Disregarding them because they're not immediate to Christ's life by personal experience is counter-historical and unscholarly.

It's not that they weren't immediate. They are describing people who weren't immediate as well. They're not implying that the Christians believing this story actually were eyewitness, are they?

killed a man named Jesus

Why are you just reiterating a plain assertion that there is evidence for this? What's the point?

The Gospels are eyewitness historical document accounts.

It's wild that you're making this claim. John and Matthew were not Apostles. These are texts written at the end of the century by God only knows who.

If I gave you a real piece of the True Cross, you'd say there's no way to verify it's the True Cross because it would bear no marker of historical veracity. If I gave you the nails driven through His hands, you'd say there's no way to verify they were anything but Roman nails of a common type.

How the hell would I be able to verify these things were from the crucifixion?

If Christ appeared before you RIGHT NOW, you would question if you were just hallucinating somehow.

Right... Because that's equivalent to doubting he appeared to others.

You wouldn't believe unless you saw Christ in His tomb dead, watched him for three days laying there, then saw Him get up off the slab and walk out, and even then I think you'd ask "well, how'd he fake it?"

And that's equivalent to doubting the stories asserting it without any evidence, sure.

You won't even accept history: why would you accept the supernatural? I'm not saying this to be hateful. I think you're being close-minded and it will blinker you forever if you don't open up a little.

I accept divinity and deities in a pagan context, if that's what qualifies as "the supernatural". Not that I'd say that nature can be transcended somehow. An afterlife is explainable naturally, even potentially things like resurrection and walking on water, without actually assuming tricks, as far as I'm concerned,

The Early church was persecuted, and thus many of the items they made were actively being destroyed; It'd be literal suicide if you had a mural of the Lord beyond tombs, so many would've been intentionally obscured to prevent their destruction, such as giving pagan iconography a new meaning, or they'd be seemingly mundane objects and disputed, like the Shroud of Turin or any corpse parts of His followers.

The few documents and teachings we have would have to be either handed down to the followers (The Apostolic Fathers), and likewise their beliefs, which is clearly seen in the Shepard of Hermas and 1st Clements, 1st and 2nd century texts.

Well, none of that helps your case unless you really want to argue sindonology.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

You're not going with "spiritual witnessing/martyrdom is the same as how witnesses are understood in historiography or in law", right?

Yes, I will, because that's the whole point?! I'm sorry you're not the one who should be asking "is this bait," but me. Stop dismissing evidence just because you, not historians (who talk about it in first place), are personally not satisfied with it. Or rather, don't want to be satisfied with it, so you're just constantly changing the rules of the game to make yourself look like a winner.

I don't even know what are you doing here, this thread isn't for you and you're not acting in good faith (lol) about it.