Yes, There Was A Historical Jesus

[R. S. Martin]

Abiyoyo, you failed the test question in my Post 12.

 

Why does it matter to you whether or not Jesus existed historically?

How did you fail it? By not attempting to answer it.

 

Since you do not tell us why it matters to you whether or not Jesus is a historical figure, I assume you are less than genuine in your need to have a historical Jesus.

[R. S. Martin]

Shyone, where can I read about the Gnostics pressuring the "ancients"for "evidence" that Jesus was a historical person, as you mention inPost 7?

Let's see.. I ran across this while researching the authorship of 2 Peter.

 

But it is the Gnostics of the second century who have opposed the parousia and reinterpreted it along spiritualistic lines. It is probably also they who are meant by the proclaimers of the "clever myths" (1:16) and of "knowledge" (see point 2). Characteristic of them are the libertinism and the insolent disrespect for spirit powers (see point 1). II Pet is therefore aimed against a movement which bears the essential features of second-century gnosis.

 

I should explain that the Docetists and Gnostics were not convinced of Jesus' physical nature or the physical resurrection, so the burden of establishing the physical nature fell on the Church. Hence the "pressure" to establish a real, historical physical Jesus.

 

This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, many of whom believed that matter was evil, and as a result God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil, lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.

 

Docetism can be further explained as the view that since the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus must have been an illusion and, likewise, his crucifixion. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view.

 

Anyway, in response to the Gnostics, Ireneas and Tertullian cranked up the importance of the physical stuff, and hunt for the "evidence" proving Jesus was real began in earnest.

 

Thank you for these sources. I looked up the link on 2 Peter, and also the Homepage for that site. It's a gold mine!

 

I don't have time to read all of it but I now know on what kind of scholarship your statement is based.

 

For Abiyoyo and any other Christians here, that is what I expect when I meet up with "unusual claims"--or statements that seem unusual to me. I asked for the basis on which they are built and the author was able to produce solid scholarship to back up his claims. Once Christians produce that kind of evidence for their claims, they will rise in my estimation, too.

 

EDIT: See PS below.

[R. S. Martin]

PS: Shyone, I had meant to comment on your last statement--the one about Ireneas and Tertulliun. I looked them up and (according to the dates of their deaths) both were writing around the year 200 AD. That is over a hundred years--more like 150--after the events supposedly happened. That they wanted to research the religion they followed makes a lot of sense. They lived close enough to its origin--as close as we do to Charles Darwin's time--to realistically find some evidence.

 

That eighteen centuries later, we are still seeking evidence is to my mind stupendous evidence that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. That the Christians get defensive, angry, and even leave the discussion, suggests even more that there's more to this than meets the eye. At least, so it seems to me.

[Shyone]

PS: Shyone, I had meant to comment on your last statement--the one about Ireneas and Tertulliun. I looked them up and (according to the dates of their deaths) both were writing around the year 200 AD. That is over a hundred years--more like 150--after the events supposedly happened. That they wanted to research the religion they followed makes a lot of sense. They lived close enough to its origin--as close as we do to Charles Darwin's time--to realistically find some evidence.

 

That eighteen centuries later, we are still seeking evidence is to my mind stupendous evidence that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. That the Christians get defensive, angry, and even leave the discussion, suggests even more that there's more to this than meets the eye. At least, so it seems to me.

That's the way I see it too. They were in the position to do the research, and even those before them. I think they may have been "inspired" (read spurred) to closely examine the existing sources because of the increasing prominence of the heresies that denied the need for Holy Communion - which was only administered by the budding Church and required attendance (and tithing) at said Church.

 

At this late date, pretty much every ancient source has either been examined, altered or forged, but you never know - perhaps somewhere there is another copy of these documents that would settle the issue. Maybe - but it might also depend on the provenance.

[hereticzero]

Every once in a while xtians have to resurrect a writing or a rumor of a writing. Can you cite it here? The difference is that Tacitus did not know Jesus and I doubt he would have written the name 'Jesus' since the writings of the NT were in Greek, not English or Latin at the time. Jesus is an invented English name. The Greek was Iesus, not Jesus. Iesus was not Jesus until it had been translated into Latin and then English. Christian credibility is not credible.

[Abiyoyo]

PS: Shyone, I had meant to comment on your last statement--the one about Ireneas and Tertulliun. I looked them up and (according to the dates of their deaths) both were writing around the year 200 AD. That is over a hundred years--more like 150--after the events supposedly happened. That they wanted to research the religion they followed makes a lot of sense. They lived close enough to its origin--as close as we do to Charles Darwin's time--to realistically find some evidence.

 

That eighteen centuries later, we are still seeking evidence is to my mind stupendous evidence that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. That the Christians get defensive, angry, and even leave the discussion, suggests even more that there's more to this than meets the eye. At least, so it seems to me.

 

Why does it matter whether or not Jesus existed historically?

 

Because so many people in ignorance claim that he 'without a doubt' is a fairytale and exists such as unicorns. This is not correct. I see it much more than a fairy tale.

 

Also, everyone's wants a different scale of accredits toward the evidence that Jesus lived. One person may what just something that mentions him in History (as I), some may want more than that since He was the Son of God, some want verifiable proof as if it is a science experiment, some people even want DNA evidence. Some people want Him to float on down, from the right hand of God where He supposedly now sits, and tell them personally that He is the Son of God when in the meantime, the literature (Revelations? Peter? Paul?) outside of Christianity claims he is of a heavenly embodiment at the present. The Muslims even believe Jesus ascended to heaven.

 

So why? Because to deny the history, claim forgery, claim piousness, claim heresy, is a cop out by many Skeptics.

[hereticzero]

Are you referring to this:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

If you are, what exactly does this have to do with Iesus as a true historical figure? Iesus is not even mentioned by name. And Christus, could be anyone that is anointed. I don't see it as proof of Jesus any more than the mention of Zeus in a writing proves Zeus was a real figure of history. Myth is myth, make of it what you want to. If Tacitus mentioned Christus, it was not a writing of a historical figure but Tacitus was describing the cult that Nero was trying to rub out. Either way, it doesn't prove Jesus.

[Abiyoyo]

 

If you are, what exactly does this have to do with Iesus as a true historical figure? Iesus is not even mentioned by name. And Christus, could be anyone that is anointed. I don't see it as proof of Jesus any more than the mention of Zeus in a writing proves Zeus was a real figure of history. Myth is myth, make of it what you want to. If Tacitus mentioned Christus, it was not a writing of a historical figure but Tacitus was describing the cult that Nero was trying to rub out. Either way, it doesn't prove Jesus.

 

Probably because Tacitus was a historian. Greek mythology is not discredited as irrelevant, it is taught in schools as apart of the the Roman culture. Now, it would be different if a historian wrote that Apollo lived during a time that is pinpointed and then he becomes a man!

 

Greek mythology is mythological because though it was apart of Roman culture, it isn't related to physical history whereas Christus, founding the group of his name, is of physical history because a historian that also wrote of Nero and others is writing it. That's the difference.

 

That is also why people have to use strawmen arguments of forgery in debates.

[hereticzero]

It is not an independent eye witness account of Jesus. It is written on hear-say word of mouth reporting. Much like Faux News these days.

[hereticzero]

It doesn't hold water as an argument of a historical Iesus. It is hear-say.

[hereticzero]

What do you have for an independent eye-witness account for the historical Jesus? Josephus has been proven by scholars to have been added to. What is there to suggest Tacitus was not as well? Let me know when you find something that goes 'Wow!' to the average person. Faux News of 0 to 2010 CE is not credible.

[hereticzero]

Who else saw Jesus walk on water and wrote it down? Who else saw Jesus raise the dead and wrote it down? All these wonderful miracles happening in a three-year span of time and no one wrote them down but the followers of Jesus. Does that sound like proof to you? What about the average Jew writing letters to his friends and family and he could not stick in an, 'oh by the way there is some dude healing the sick.' Someone could not write even the governor, or the king, and ask him what to do about all the people that rose from the dead when Jesus was crucified? That was in Matthew. Even the writer did not think that bit was worth more than a few paragraphs, the dead walking around and talking to people! What did they say? Who did they go talk to? Who were they? Not even one of their names were mentioned. Aunt Maude? A prophet? Who? Name one. Then prove it. What happened to them after they rose from the dead? When did they die again? Or, are they still around? Seems Lazarus should be getting pretty moldy by now. When did he die again? Or is he still around? So the writings of Tacitus mean zilch as much as the writings of Josephus mean zilch. This argument is tired. Worn out. It has been refuted by many scholars, some of them xtians too. It is just one more way xtians stretch the truth beyond all limits of common sense to try and prove their point. Quit watching the 700 Club and get a life.

[Abiyoyo]

Who else saw Jesus walk on water and wrote it down? Who else saw Jesus raise the dead and wrote it down? All these wonderful miracles happening in a three-year span of time and no one wrote them down but the followers of Jesus. Does that sound like proof to you? What about the average Jew writing letters to his friends and family and he could not stick in an, 'oh by the way there is some dude healing the sick.' Someone could not write even the governor, or the king, and ask him what to do about all the people that rose from the dead when Jesus was crucified? That was in Matthew. Even the writer did not think that bit was worth more than a few paragraphs, the dead walking around and talking to people! What did they say? Who did they go talk to? Who were they? Not even one of their names were mentioned. Aunt Maude? A prophet? Who? Name one. Then prove it. What happened to them after they rose from the dead? When did they die again? Or, are they still around? Seems Lazarus should be getting pretty moldy by now. When did he die again? Or is he still around? So the writings of Tacitus mean zilch as much as the writings of Josephus mean zilch. This argument is tired. Worn out. It has been refuted by many scholars, some of them xtians too. It is just one more way xtians stretch the truth beyond all limits of common sense to try and prove their point. Quit watching the 700 Club and get a life.

 

The Jews were Jews! They tried Jesus for blasphemy for all those claims!

[RationalThought]

I think that the historical person on which Jesus was based was Yeshu ben-Pandera. Of course Yeshu lived about 100 years before the Jesus of the New Testament is said to have lived. Yeshu formed the seed around which the Jesus myth accreted. Yeshu was a key figures in one of the near countless Jewish sects during the first century BC. Much of the background of Yeshu strongly correlates with the background of Jesus. I think that that Jewish sect survived into the Roman era, and that Peter, James, John, etc. were later day followers of Yeshu. Paul was most likely an initiate into one of the various mystery religions and saw no reason why there could not be a mystery religion with its basis as Judaism. So Paul took his Christ and married that concept with Yeshu. This would certainly explain much of the rift between Paul and the other Apostles, who saw Paul as hijacking their tradition and movement. We also need to recognize the popularity of pseudepigrapha during this time period. People thought nothing of creating scriptural works and attributing authorship to others. Outside of some of the letters attributed to Paul (who was essentially creating a new religion out of whole cloth), I don't know if we can be certain the rest of the NT or the other apocryphal works are anything but pseudepigrapha.

[chefranden]

The Jews were Jews! They tried Jesus for blasphemy for all those claims!

 

According to the legend they tried Jesus for blasphemy. According to legend Davy Crockett grinned a coon out of a tree.

 

But even if Josh was tried for blasphemy, so what? Lots of people have been tried for blasphemy, does that make them gods?

[Ouroboros]

Socrates was tried for blasphemy. He offended the religion and the gods, in a city where they were pluralistic and allowed multiple beliefs, no less.

 

It is obvious that the just wanted to get rid of him because he was annoying and upsetting the leaders, but they had no real charge to us--so they made up one.

 

Did I mention that Socrates believed in reincarnation? So perhaps he did come back as Aristotle, and hence came back from the grave.

 

Woohoo! Socrates is God!

[Shyone]

Socrates was tried for blasphemy. He offended the religion and the gods, in a city where they were pluralistic and allowed multiple beliefs, no less.

 

It is obvious that the just wanted to get rid of him because he was annoying and upsetting the leaders, but they had no real charge to us--so they made up one.

 

Did I mention that Socrates believed in reincarnation? So perhaps he did come back as Aristotle, and hence came back from the grave.

 

Woohoo! Socrates is God!

Aristotle is dead.

[Ouroboros]

Aristotle is dead.

Unless he was reincarnated as well...

[dagnarus]

Aristotle is dead.

Unless he was reincarnated as well...

 

I'm Aristotle, worship me

[hereticzero]

Who else saw Jesus walk on water and wrote it down? Who else saw Jesus raise the dead and wrote it down? All these wonderful miracles happening in a three-year span of time and no one wrote them down but the followers of Jesus. Does that sound like proof to you? What about the average Jew writing letters to his friends and family and he could not stick in an, 'oh by the way there is some dude healing the sick.' Someone could not write even the governor, or the king, and ask him what to do about all the people that rose from the dead when Jesus was crucified? That was in Matthew. Even the writer did not think that bit was worth more than a few paragraphs, the dead walking around and talking to people! What did they say? Who did they go talk to? Who were they? Not even one of their names were mentioned. Aunt Maude? A prophet? Who? Name one. Then prove it. What happened to them after they rose from the dead? When did they die again? Or, are they still around? Seems Lazarus should be getting pretty moldy by now. When did he die again? Or is he still around? So the writings of Tacitus mean zilch as much as the writings of Josephus mean zilch. This argument is tired. Worn out. It has been refuted by many scholars, some of them xtians too. It is just one more way xtians stretch the truth beyond all limits of common sense to try and prove their point. Quit watching the 700 Club and get a life.

 

The Jews were Jews! They tried Jesus for blasphemy for all those claims!

No, that is a tired Christian argument. It circles back to the question, was Jesus really a true character of history and if so, were the claims about him as the son of god or The God, true? The answer still comes up as a 'no.' He could be real or not, and the argument is still 'no, he is not who he claimed to be.' The NT was written to legitimize the Christian church's doctrine as much as the OT was written to legitimize the priest class over the Jew that did not exist until then. There were no Jews in history until they gathered together after the return from Babylon. The books of the OT were fraudulently written and were claimed as such by the OT prophet Jeremiah who recognized the Law of Moses was a pack of lies written by scribes to give credibility to the Law over the Jew.

 

(Jer 7:8) Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot do any good.

 

Jer 8:8 How do you say, We are wise, and the Law of Jehovah is with us? Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes has written falsely.

 

Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh yourselves. For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...But they did not listen, they paid no heed, but went ahead with their own plans with the most stubbornly wicked and evil hearts...Speak to them but they will refuse to listen to you. Call to them but they will refuse to answer... truth has perished from their lips and it is no longer heard in the land. (Jeremiah7:21)

 

Jeremiah denounced the law in a manner that would not get him killed by the Jews for blasphemy.

 

In the NT we find where someone wrote:

 

But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions, and strivings about the Law, for they are unprofitable and vain. (Tit 3:9)

 

How is it possible to to preach the Law and it be unprofitable and vain unless it were not true?

 

Jas 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

 

True religion shows there is no sin because of love, mercy, and forgiveness (Hosea 6:6). True religion is acceptable to everyone because it shows those with this religion practice love and mercy.

 

How can religion be pure if it only involves caring for others and showing them love and compassion, mercy and forgiveness? Because the law delivered to Moses is not true. Because the law was not given to Moses then there is only one thing that is true and that is love against which there are no Laws and love hurts no one. Where love reigns there is then forgiveness and with forgiveness there is no arguments of the Law because when a person is forgiven a crime, there is no conviction and there is no judgment. That is how love conquers all things and covers a multitude of sins. Jesus is not needed for salvation because with love, mercy, and forgiveness that the gentiles show without the Law, it demonstrates the law has no affect beyond the confines of the Law of the Jew, not the gentile. Gentiles are a law unto themselves because they show the law is a natural occurrence of the heart. The Jew thought the law was required of all men. The gentile proved they already understood what love, mercy and compassion was all about and they never received it from anyone. How is that possible unless the law the Jew received was a lie written by scribes to subject the Jew to the will of the priests and Pharisees. Paul, supposedly wrote thousands of pages of words describing how the law works in a christians's life and what did Jesus himself say about the Pharisee and scribes? Paraphrasing, he said, according to your own bible, he said that unless a man' righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisee he will not enter heaven. How is that possible without Jesus? You don't need Jesus because we already know that forgiveness covers sin, no sin equals no crime and no crime equals no judgment. This found in Romans Chapter Two. Jesus' gospel was not to the gentile, he said so himself. He even referred to gentiles as 'dogs.' Jesus' gospel was to the Jew to shame them into leaving the Law and pursuing common sense through acts of kindness towards one another coming from love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. This is the gospel of the Kingdom of God. It is found where? Within you. How? Through unfeigned love of others. The writers of the NT wander from one extreme to the other and once they focus on Paul every writing is made in reference to what Paul teaches. Screw Paul. You either follow the gospel of Jesus or you follow Paul and Paul wrote of all kinds of things he believed were necessary for salvation and unless you are holier than Paul, a Pharisee, you will not be saved. In the first part of Jesus' ministry he claimed he did not come speaking of himself but the kingdom of god. Then the writings take a different course and all one reads about is Jesus speaking of himself and the unbelievable miracles right out of the pages of the other religions before and after the period of Jesus. That is what makes Jesus unbelievable and his ministry is not known because the gospel he brought is mired in lies and deceits and the workings of the false apostle Paul. What do we know about Jesus beyond church tradition? Not one damn thing!

 

Mat 15:8-9 "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. (9) But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

 

What are the commandments of men? The ten commandments. To worship god in vain is to preach the ten commandments because in doing so, one teaches the traditions of men that become law over time, not the commandments of god. God never gave any commandments to Moses. The commandments were lies written by the scribes which Jeremiah confessed. This continues to the writings of the NT. Tradition is preached, not gospel. The gospel has no affect because of the traditions of the church. There is no Holy Ghost because everyone has their own idea of Jesus and the church. Otherwise there would only be one body of believers worshiping god in the same way and instead there are hundreds of denominations and thousands of variations of these denominations and all of them preach PAUL not Jesus. Jesus did not live, he is a figment of the christian imagination. And, if he lived, his gospel is so written over and fragmented by the mindless drivel of Paul that anything that jesus brought is fictional because it cannot be separated from the nonsense of Paul.

 

The only theme throughout the OT and NT that is repeated over and over is what? God demands mercy and not sacrifice. God demands love that covers up sin and not the insane ramblings of the Law that points fingers at everyone and accuses everyone for no reason. Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot do you any good! God demands mercy and not sacrifice because that is the only works not covered by the Law that Moses never got from god. Even the prophets knew God never told moses anything but how were they going to tell the Jew without being killed by the Jews?

 

The Law of love was not delivered to Moses so Jesus brought it. That is what the Kingdom of God is within you. Mercy and not sacrifice, and an accusation that traditions were taught as law, as commandments, when there were none given. To prove Jesus lived is impossible. To prove we need Jesus for salvation is impossible because you cannot prove he was sent by god to save us from what a talking snake did. Too many myths and not enough factual accounts. Every time we forgive each other we save each other because where forgiveness abounds there is no strife, no anger, no hate, no feelings of guilt. We don't need Jesus. We need common sense and the willingness to forgive.

[Shyone]

To prove Jesus lived is impossible. To prove we need Jesus for salvation is impossible because you cannot prove he was sent by god to save us from what a talking snake did. Too many myths and not enough factual accounts. Every time we forgive each other we save each other because where forgiveness abounds there is no strife, no anger, no hate, no feelings of guilt. We don't need Jesus. We need common sense and the willingness to forgive.

That whole post was absolutely fantastic! Brilliant! Heartfelt, honest and totally coherent.

 

Your research is also excellent. Wow. I never would have really understood the passages from Jeremiah had you not placed them into context.

 

Thanks!

[Vigile]

Who gives a shit if he existed or not? I can name at least 20 20th century writers and philosophers who offer a more profound and useful view on humanity than that sappy shit Jesus came up with in the Sermon on the Mount. And apart from that, most of what he preached was detrimental to mankind, not a boon.

[R. S. Martin]

Abiyoyo, you keep implying that "skeptics" just don't "want to believe." What about you? Perhaps you want to believe so much that it clouds your judgment about truth and false. Witness your following post:

 

PS: Shyone, I had meant to comment on your last statement--the one about Ireneas and Tertulliun. I looked them up and (according to the dates of their deaths) both were writing around the year 200 AD. That is over a hundred years--more like 150--after the events supposedly happened. That they wanted to research the religion they followed makes a lot of sense. They lived close enough to its origin--as close as we do to Charles Darwin's time--to realistically find some evidence.

 

That eighteen centuries later, we are still seeking evidence is to my mind stupendous evidence that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. That the Christians get defensive, angry, and even leave the discussion, suggests even more that there's more to this than meets the eye. At least, so it seems to me.

 

Why does it matter whether or not Jesus existed historically?

 

Because so many people in ignorance claim that he 'without a doubt' is a fairytale and exists such as unicorns. This is not correct. I see it much more than a fairy tale.

 

Also, everyone's wants a different scale of accredits toward the evidence that Jesus lived. One person may what just something that mentions him in History (as I), some may want more than that since He was the Son of God, some want verifiable proof as if it is a science experiment, some people even want DNA evidence. Some people want Him to float on down, from the right hand of God where He supposedly now sits, and tell them personally that He is the Son of God when in the meantime, the literature (Revelations? Peter? Paul?) outside of Christianity claims he is of a heavenly embodiment at the present. The Muslims even believe Jesus ascended to heaven.

 

So why? Because to deny the history, claim forgery, claim piousness, claim heresy, is a cop out by many Skeptics.

 

Thank you for attempting to answer my question. However, I have a problem with your answer.

 

You try to make me--and others--out as arguing from ignorance, saying "without a doubt, Jesus is a myth on a level with unicorns"--who mentioned unicorns in this thread???, and then you clinch your argument with a personal statement: I see it much more than a fairy tale.

 

You provide no objective evidence from history or archaeology to support your personal statement. Not even do you provide a subjective personal reason for needing to believe Jesus was a historical person. You imply that because you see it as "much more than a fairy tale," we must see it likewise.

 

Unfortunately, that does not work in a forum of freethinkers.

 

Further, you charge us with:

 

1. copping out--as though we had not done our research when in fact we produced lengthy quotes and many links for you to look up (all of which are evidence of thorough research),
2. with claiming forgery--as though there were no real reason to think forgery were evident,
3. with denying history--as though the things you posit had historical basis for us to deny, and
4. with claiming [the historical Jesus as] heresy when you produce no evidence--other than your single unsupported personal statement--to prove otherwise.

As for your middle paragraph, it's full of wildly varying and inaccurate criteria regarding what we on these forums are looking for as evidence that Jesus was a historical figure. Either you lack the intellectual insight and training to understand the historical method, or you are intentionally mocking us for disagreeing with what you consider to be obvious and indisputable truths. I don't know how else to make sense of it.

[dagnarus]

Who gives a shit if he existed or not? I can name at least 20 20th century writers and philosophers who offer a more profound and useful view on humanity than that sappy shit Jesus came up with in the Sermon on the Mount. And apart from that, most of what he preached was detrimental to mankind, not a boon.

 

What do you mean apart from. I don't see how telling people to cut their hands of if the feel like jacking/jilling themselves is helpful.

[Vigile]

Who gives a shit if he existed or not? I can name at least 20 20th century writers and philosophers who offer a more profound and useful view on humanity than that sappy shit Jesus came up with in the Sermon on the Mount. And apart from that, most of what he preached was detrimental to mankind, not a boon.

 

What do you mean apart from. I don't see how telling people to cut their hands of if the feel like jacking/jilling themselves is helpful.

 

Was that in the Sermon? I recall that was in his other teachings. I haven't picked up a bible in almost 20 years.

 

*edit* Just did a quick scan of the SOM online, and yeah, it's almost complete shit too.

 

Seriously eye-opening stuff. My esteem for our long visiting xians on this board just dropped another few notches. How can they read this shit and read what we write here and still defend it?