Loomis

Hey Self-Mutation,

Is jakejonesiv ignoring biblical evidence?

Just answer honestly.

Decypher

As far as I'm aware, scholars widely accept a historical Jesus. But that he went around saying, "I am the way"?

That is from the Gospel of John. And actually, I believe there is much doubt that the material really goes back to a historical Jesus.

Loomis

Hey Self-Mutation,

Is Decypher ignoring biblical evidence?

Just answer honestly.

Kapyong

Gday,

Wow, you say some crazy shit.


So there is relevant non-Christian literature.


Oh, so now, there is NOT any relevant non-Christian literature?

Then why do Christians cite Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus etc.?


So, evidence is "silly" ?
FFS.


What bollocks !
How can you believe such nonsense?

When doing historical Xenu research the Scientology texts should be treated historically.

When doing historical Hercules research the Greek myths texts should be treated historically.

When doing historical Moroni research the Mormon texts should be treated historically.


K.

Decypher

What do you mean by "substantially correct" here? Do you think we should just accept what the gospels say about Jesus walking on water? Just accept the accounts of the Transfiguration? Just accept the claims about OT prophecy fulfillment?

Kapyong

Gday,

The evidence all this is true is the Scientology books themselves. I don't know how one can read all the Scientology books, and say with a straight face "Yep, all this is fiction. Nothing happened. Nothing was going on at that volcano."


The Gospels are a joke because the Greek myths say so.


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

But the persons who authored Scientology didn't say it was fiction.

Otherwise, nobody would believe it and you wouldn't have Scientology church fathers defending the faith as early as the 1960s.


They DID !!!

Some Christians DENIED that Jesis ever came in the flesh (see 2 John.)

Minucius Felix,
in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.
"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -



Dionysius of Corinth,
in late 2nd century,
claims Christians were changing and faking his own letters just as they had changed the "scriptures of the Lord ".


Celsus,
in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"


Porphyry,
in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”


Julian,
in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".
Julian was “convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. ”


K.

Lógos Sokratikós

This is interesting. In your first paragraph you seem to take one book, let's call it book A, as true at face value.

In the second paragraph you choose to reject book B due to an external criterion, its being coherent with book A.

Double standards right there.

"Who's foolin' who here?"
Maybe, you are fooling yourself with your double standards?

Doug Shaver

Are all writings and mentionings to be trusted without question?

Doug Shaver

You say so. Can you give us any other reason to believe it?