wow! and there are soooooo many "Christians" who don't even know this. They have no idea how close Christianity is linked to Paganism, yet they are so convinced that Paganism is "of the devil" and any other religion is headed for eternal damnation. C'mon now. Jesus never judged anyone, so how can his followers of today think they have that right? Geeeez!!
Then stop wasting your time. Until you know what Jews believe and always have believed, you will never see why Pauline Christianiy could never come from Judaism and why there is no direct line from it back to the living Jesus or his apostles. I would suggest that you might place less reliance on the misinterpreted, mistranslated and interpolated book you call your bible. God does not become a man, nor does a man become a god and you alone are responsible for atoning for your own sins.
@Matthew1944 , " God does not become a man, nor does a man become a god and you alone are responsible for atoning for your own sins.".........That as well is a very ancient religious idea , for which you have the exact amount of evidence , as you ask others for . Religion is a product of the human consciousness , and as such is subjective . It is absurd for you to make demands upon others , you yourself can not produce .
Sorry boys, Your brand of Pauline Christianity does not go back to the living Jesus and the man god didn't exist before Paul either. The Ebionites were the descendants of the Judeo "Christians" and Pauline Christianity declared them to be heretics and killed them off.
@Matthew1944 Sorry, but all sources have shown that Paul didn't start the Christian faith you are yet to show a source that shows the Apostles didn't worship Jesus. Stop being a pest and just show us the evidence that dates to that time. Because everything we've shown you so far derails your arguments, and you are doing nothing but ignoring them.
@hybridwhat The apostles were all practicing Jews, as was Jesus. To Jews, God is one and indivisible. To worship a man would be sacrilage, hyb. They were eventually known as Ebionites who considered Paul to be a liar and a heretic.
@Matthew1944 Why should i look at Jospehus on the Baptism? This is directed towards the Ebionite argument you gave, the reason why the Ebionite argument and the 2nd century citations doesn't work is because of the other things the Ebionites believed in. You understand English? LOL at you changing the argument here, i really hope that was intentional, because if it wasn't then you have bad reading comprehension.
@Matthew1944 Oh ya, you said Paul came 30 years after Christ, yet now you say that his writings came at 59. Jesus died at 30-33 AD, so it doesn't add up. You think nobody can tell that you are inventing arguments? You can't just debate with out showing academical support. You need to show a source that predates the book of Acts and is also Historian approved, with added Historian/Scholar support. You never showed that.
@Matthew1944 Read my PM on the Ebionites. The Ebionites reject Jewish beliefs, including Moses' writings so it's really a poor outlet for you. You didn't give early historians but quotes from church fathers of the 2nd century, and they're only talking about certain Gnostics who not only reject core christian beliefs but also Jewish tradition as well.
The historians you gave do not say that the Apostles of Jesus believed him to be a man only. Why do you ignore the book of Acts part?
The testimony of the Ebionites has been preserved in the writings of the Church authors Justin Martyr (second century), Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Tertullian (end of the second century and the first half of the third), Origen (middle of the third century), and Epiphanius and Jerome (fourth century). These all confirm that the Ebionites opposed Paul as a false apostle.
The Ebionites were Jesus first followers - before Paul and Pauline Christianity.
@Matthew1944 Justin Martyr etc, are from a later century. Why are you giving post-rome sources as a counter to the early AD sources presented? You don't realize how dumb you are?
Paul's writings are known to exist as early in the 40's, regardless he has records that date as early as 39 AD in prison. The Apostles also have records dating at 38 AD and they where persecuted due to preaching the divinity of Jesus.
@hybridwhat Paul's writings are known to exist as early in the 40's, regardless he has records that date as early as 39 AD in prison. "
He wasn't in prison in 39AD. He was imprisoned in Judea in 58-60 AD and in Rome in 60-61AD. He wrote his first letter, Thessalonians in the mid-50's. As Jews, the apostles wouldn't be preaching about a man-god.
@Matthew1944 Um no. There are records of him already facing trouble that early.. just read the history of the Creeds. And the Apostles preached about a Jesus as a God (God becoming Man), as we shown you over and over again by other sources outside the bible and outside the Christian religion.
Those Jews believed God became a man, period. You already have other books in the NT that where not written by Paul and the Book of Acts a reference but you just want to ignore the facts do you?
"He wasn't in prison in 39AD. He was imprisoned in Judea in 58-60 AD and in Rome in 60-61AD. "
I got ya! You see, you made the claim that Paul appeared 30 years AFTER Jesus, but now you are contradicting your own arguments because as you have shown, Paul was in the scene before 60 AD. You see my trick here for you?
You just owned yourself. So keep plugging your ears and refuse to hear the evidence, you have academics against you, and you just argued against your own stuff again.
Iranaeus, "Against Heresies", 1.27.2 - on the Ebionites
"Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and REPUDIATE THE APOSTLE PAUL, MAINTAINING THAT HE WAS AN APOSTATE FROM THE LAW.
@Matthew1944 Why are you giving 2nd Century quotes? LOL
Sorry, but 2nd Century quotes have no effect against 1st century quotes and 1st century studies, none of the sources even say or show that Paul was responsible for the creation of christianity, and not if it shows that the Apostles didn't worship Jesus.
You lost, and you are just giving more random and unnecessary content that have no relation to the point against you.
@Matthew1944 Wiki, Why are you making up our sources when we used actual Scholars? Do even read our comments or do you ignore the ones with citations?
Regardless, even Wiki wouldn't allow the arguments you made because they are seriously uneducated. The fact that you are ignoring our sources and just saying "wiki" is certain that you can't do anything to provide an actual academic counter.
Jesus evidently believed himself to be the fully human messiah of Jewish prophecy however, there were tasks that he had to accomplish DURING HIS LIFETIME that would identify him as the messiah. He died before he could do these and therefore, to the Jews, was just another failed candidate for messiahship in the same fashion as Simon ben Kokhba.
On checking on Lucien, this is what I found. "Philopatris, a direct attack on Christianity, was long attributed to Lucian, but it probably dates from the time of Julian the Apostate (cAD 331-363). The Pelegrinus tells of the death a Cynic philopher, who had flirted with Christianity" Even that is a lie, Cisco.
@pistolpete667 If you want to believe this puff is fact go ahead. Do you want to deny Paul's family background historically was the highest of the highest Jewish sect. The most learned Jews ever of antiquity. They hated everyone including other Jewish sects (Early Christians). Rabid Jews that would make today's Orthodoxy look liberal.The antithesis of paganism!!!! Insane. I love the British accents explaining this tale while England becomes Mecca. kinda sick irony.
@pistolpete667 Saul of Tarsus a polythiest, idolator, pagan worshiper. Did you even read what I just wrote previously? Even pagans/atheists don't deny Paul's Pharisee position as historical fact. Where did you get this? No source you're out of gas.
@ronoman88 Paul's Pharisee position as historical fact."
Paul claimed to be a Pharisee but based on his preaching style, biblical scholars agree he was not using the Torah which any trained pharisee would do. He also claimed to be a Roman citizen when It was not until 212AD, that Caracella granted the Jews the privilege of becoming Roman citizens. However, in Acts, Roman soldiers saved him after he claimed Roman citizenship. It's unlikely that he was even a Jew.
@ronoman88 Do you want to deny Paul's family background historically was the highest of the highest Jewish sect."
One could not be a Jew and a Roman citizen during the time of Paul. In order to be "born a Roman citizen" and yet aspire to be Jewish, one would have to be a Herodian and in Acts, Paul makes the statement "Herodian, my kinsman". Herodians were not considered to be Jewish but only aspiring to be so.
@djbehemoth Trinity is only viewed as polythestic by people who misunderstand it and view it like a triad. "The Son of" was used to describe a natural embodiment. For example, Judas "The Son of Perdition". Judas being the manifestation of Perdition. So the Son of God means, The Manifestation of God, not a secondary god or an actual offspring.
@cisco19 Trinity is only viewed as polythestic by people who misunderstand it"
The Pope has already admitted that the concept of trinity was invented in Rome, based on Matthew 28:19 "in the name of the father, son and holy ghost". That ending is a later Christian add-on and doesn't exist in the three oldest copies of the bible housed in museums.
@Matthew1944 the title was invented at Rome not the concept. If you look into history of the 1st century, Christianity already believed in the father son and holy spirit. You can read documentations from Plinny the younger.
Tertullian, c. 200 AD, Hippolytus (170-236) say to baptize in the name of the trinity, this is before Rome. Get your facts straight
If Matthew 28:19 is a forgery, why do Christadelphians use it for their baptisms?
@cisco19 Pliny the younger had nothing to say about a trinity. He wrote to Trajan asking how to handle the Christian situation. He reported he was unable to get much more information even after torturing two deaconesses.
Hippolytus wrote in 200 AD: "In God the Father Almighty. Amen. And in the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. And in the Holy Spirit in the Holy Church. Amen". which points as you say, to the beginnings of early beliefs but still without the concept of "God in three persons".
@cisco19 2) Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger states: "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome."
@cisco19 The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism
Matthew 28:19 is missing from the oldest copies of the bible - Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis.
ya, it was MISSING. That doesn't mean that the verse was never there originally.. why didn't you touch the other parts in my post concerning this?
If you claim that it was forged, then why do Christadelphians quote it in Baptism? You said the trinity was invented at rome, but look at the quotes i gave that date a century before rome adopted christianity. Stop reading random sites and read actual history books please.
@cisco19 If you claim that it was forged, then why do Christadelphians quote it in Baptism? You said the trinity was invented at rome, but look at the quotes.
Pope Benedict wrote: "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome."
@Matthew1944 2) Jews don't believe in the Trinity and thirty years before Paul invented Christianity, Jesus as a Jew, wouldn't have believed it either.
@cisco19 That doesn't mean that the verse was never there originally"
You are claiming that because it is missing in the three oldest copies of the bible, that for some reason, the trinitarian formula was removed? That's pretty desperate, cisco.
All Christian churches use it now, not just the Christadelpians.
Why are you making up comments now? Your last statement makes it obvious that you never knew anything about Christadelpians. Christadelpians are historically known to have used it ever since the 1st century. lol. Look at you doging certain quotes before the time of rome, here is another one. Research on Clement of Alexandria, that is part of the piece that shows that your arguments are all fished of random sites.
@cisco19 Christadelphians (a word created using Greek which means "Brethren in Christ" — "brethren in Christ") is a Christian group that developed in the United Kingdom and North America in the 19th century. The Christadelphian religious group traces its origins to Dr John Thomas (1805–1871), who migrated to America from England in 1832.
@Matthew1944 nice job on going Wiki for your first actual research on the subject and trying to know what Christadelphia was. What i meant in my post concerning that, is Christadelphians use the same baptism practice, which is another important evidence other than quotes from historical figures who date before Christianity in Rome, that the Matt verse is genuine. Do more research on what Christadelphians believe.
@cisco19 Well then Cisco - SAY what you mean. Lack of Trinitarian formula for baptism in Matt 28:19-20 is supported by the writings of Eusebius "They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Christ for he had said to them, 'Go make disciples of all the nations in my name.'"
@cisco19 "baptism" in the time of Jesus was called Mikvah - immersion of the body in water after purification, for instance after childbirth, sex, before entering the temple. It could even be done several times a day.
Josephus writes in reference to John the Baptist: . For immersion in water could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions.
You keep forgetting that Jesus and his apostles were practicing Jews. His apostles, later called Ebionites, did not believe Jesus to be a God and he didn't "become" a god until 30 years after his death, thanks to Paul. The concept of baptism during Jesus time then would necessarily be Jewish and would mean to those people just as Josephus writes. The concept of Father, son and Holy ghost would be absent during Jesus time, but would be added afterward by christian translators.
@cisco19 No historians who lived during the time of Jesus wrote anything about him. Josephus would be the first and even his writings came at the end of the first century. What we have of them are interpolated by christian translators and biblical scholars agree on this. Josephus, as a Jew, would not have called Jesus "The Christ".
The only thing interpolated in Jospehus writings are Christian dogmatic terms. If you take away the christian terms, you are still left with a reference of the man. Why are you now changing the topic to the historical Jesus, is it because the Trinity part was shown to have been believed a century before rome?
Read on Celsus, Plinny the Younger, Lucian in concerns of this post. The book of Acts, the gospels, and some gnostics etc all date before josephus.
@cisco19 The topic remains the same. I mentioned a historical Jesus because during his lifetime, Jesus was never believed to be a God - therefore a trinity belief during his time was impossible. Most likely It was not until the 200's AD that even the primitive idea of a trinity began to take shape. Tertullian is the first person to use the word "trinity" and he was the first person to formulate the idea of one substance having three persons.
@cisco19 2) The idea of trinity finally took its present form at the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD. Celsus equated christianity with paganism. Pliny the younger considered christianity a superstition. The goespels date from 69AD to 110 AD and you are partially right, some of them pre-date Josephus. In any case, the trinity is an entirely Christian invention.
@cisco19 3) By taking away the interpolations, yes, there is reference to the man, but still a man - not a god, as the "historical" Jesus was. It is with Christianity that he became a god and then a concept of trinity could be possible.
@Matthew1944 But didn't i give you quotes from other people and even anti-christians before rome? Saying that the main doctrine of Christianity started in rome is academically fallacious and it was already debunked by a few of the quotes that date a century before Rome. Why are you still arguing about this?
The book of Acts is considered a historical document, we see when it dates, and it teaches the Christian faith. get over it.
@cisco19 True, Tertullian was the first to advance the idea of a trinity but his ideas were at first rejected as heresy by the church.
No, Acts is NOT considered to be a historical document any more than the rest of the bible. Yes, Acts, teaches the christian faith - ACCORDING TO PAUL and this is where your paganism enters.
@Matthew1944 By what church? Rome Church didn't exist yet, and it couldn't be the first Christian church in Palestine due to the amount of documentations from plinny, Nero, and the book of Acts too. You do realize that you guys shift to Paul and Rome in the arguments, right? They say Rome started the trinity doc, but when pre-dating sources are given, it's paul. You're saying Tert was the first, but documentations say other wise.
@cisco19 The rudiments of a forming "church" body were present and Paul began converting gentiles even during the later first century - 60 AD and on. Each of your texts, Hebrews, Corinthians and such are communications to those bodies of believers. Early christianity took the form of sporadic believers who met at houses but were considered to be members of the church body. Tertullian invented the early form which was first rejected but then later accepted by the Council of Nicea in Rome.
@cisco19 The christian religion didn't form suddenly, Cisco. Until Constantine, it was illegal. Under Theodosius it became the state religion. With it, doctrine gradually formed as well and eventually became the RCC. Christianity as you know it split from the Hebrew Christians who were actually a sect of Judaism, at the time of Antioch. Today they are two distinctly different religions - diametrically opposed.
@Matthew1944 What? What does that have to do with my main point? You are becoming incoherent. Christianity started off as a cult.. as all religions start. Yes, so what? The point is, you are making the claim as if the Trinity and Jesus being God doctrine was never with in Christianity originally, when every single source that dates in the 1st century shows you are wrong. Christianity started off as an a messianic cult, and it's trinity beliefs where there since the beginning. Read up.
@cisco19 The trinity did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus nor for 30 years after his death, nor until now I find Tertullian invented it two centuries later and it was rejected by the body of Christian believers, then finally accepted and solidified at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD because Constantine believed the Roman empire could not withstand the division caused by years of arguing over doctrinal differences.
@cisco19 2) God said, I am the first, the last and there are none besides me". He also said "no other gods before me" That comes from Judaism and Jesus and his followers were practicing Jews, a sect within Judaism. Worship of Jesus amounts to idolatry. Your Matthew 28:19 is a Christian interpolation, added later to support the idea of a trinity long after the original was written.
@Matthew1944 Why are you going to the same argument that was already debunked?
Ya God said all that, so? Hasn't it occurred to you that Jesus is the MANIFESTATION of God? That is what the terminology of "Son of" is. Next, i already showed you quotes that show Matt was not interpolated. The followers where stated by historical 1st century records to have worshiped Jesus. Why won't you read Lucian and the names i gave you?
@cisco19 Debunked by who? Not you and that's for sure.
Jesus was a fully human male who was executed by Romans, died and remains dead. All Jews considered themselves to be sons of God. The biblical man-god Jesus was invented long after the real one was dead. Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis, the oldest texts in existance . Shem Tob reads: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
@Matthew1944 You where debunked, get over it. You claimed that the trinity doctrine and the Matt verse was made during Rome time. I gave quotes dating a centuries before that. Whya re you still arguing that Christianity never believed Jesus to be God originally when even Anti-christian sources of 1st century say that they did. You are still bringing up the same arguments that have already been academically annihilated.
Matt 28:19 is genuine, you where given quotes already. give it up.
@cisco19 Most of Christianity STILL doesn't believe Jesus to be God, but rather - the son of God. You fundies are the only ones who seem to think Jesus is God.
@Matthew1944 Oh ya, Jesus the Man-God was not believed long after he died. Didn't you read the words of Plinny, Nero, and Lucian. Oh yeah, but you don't want to bother to look at , instead you want to poke around arguments you saw in random sites.
If Jesus remained dead, Christianity would never have started. His followers are recorded to die horrible martyrdom, so that means they believed what they where dying for.
@cisco19 Post you "pliny, Nero, Lucien" hearsay then.
Christianity is strictly Paul's invention and that's why the Christianity you follow today is called Pauline Christianity and Paul is considered to be its father.
Dying for what YOU believe in doesn't make it any more true. It just means that you believed in it enough to die for it.
@Matthew1944@Matthew1944 So now it's Paul's invention. First Rome, then Constantine, now Paul? Make up your mind.
The whole "Paul" thing is debunked by the mere fact that Peter, Jude, Luke, etc have their own writings, each of them clearly teaching the Divinity of Jesus. Read Acts. Acts documents the early church, and Paul was not the leader.
As for your second paragraph. Think of Cause and Effect. You are giving the effect with out the cause. So what caused their serious beliefs?
@cisco19 Don't do a slide and set up strawmen, cisco. Why do you think it's called PAULINE Christianity? Paul was the source of the pagan man-god story. The trinity was invented later by believers and gained its full blossom in Rome at the Council of Nicea.
Read Acts yourself and you will see that Paul had been hauled up for preaching heresy, was rescued by Romans and made his break from the apostles after that.
@cisco19 The Ebionites called Paul and his new story. Descendants of the Jewish followers of Jesus, Ebionites, described Christianity as that comes from the 'ish kazav (Lying Man, i.e., Liar) Paul of Tarsus.
......................
So what caused their serious beliefs? "
Same as the fanatic belief of moslems who blow themselves up for Islam. Giving up your life for something you BELIEVE in isn't unique to Christians alone. Crazy people do crazy things because they BELIEVE.
@cisco19 Men-gods, nor the expectation of men-gods does not come from Judaism. That leaves only the pagans, cisco.
By the way, Paul claimed to be a Jew of the Benjamite tribe, BUT tribal associations ceased to exist 500 years before he was born. He claimed to be a Jew with Roman citizenship BUT It was not until 212AD, that Caracella granted the Jews the privilege of becoming Roman citizens.
What are you talking about? The jesus being God-man still started in Palestine during early AD, why are ignoring academic sources that already cleared this? You are arguing of baseless information and it's just like your forcing your arguments to win regardless of historical documents.
Christianity was first known as messianic cult, a shoot off sect born from Judaism. You had academic sources already, stop ignoring it.
@cisco19 Jesus the God-man didn't start during his lifetime and not for at least 30 years afterward. Jewish Christianity started as a sect within Judaism - fully Jewish but with the belief that Jesus was the fully human leader of prophecy. Check out the writings of Epiphaneus or beliefs of the Ebionites. Pauline Christianity is based on a man god and that doesn't come from Judaism. Nice story, but it's not Jewish.
@cisco19 - Remember? 2) "The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means "annointed one;" it does not, however, imply "savior." The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture.
@cisco19 3) In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest.
@cisco19 The jesus being God-man still started in Palestine during early AD, why are ignoring academic sources that already cleared this?"
Try the late first century AD, as soon as Paul introduced the concept of Pauline Christianity, starting with his three different contradicting versions of his conversion.
@Matthew1944 So if Paul introduced the concept, that means Peter and the rest who followed Jesus just suddenly believed Paul? And what about the other contemporaries of Jesus of whose martyrdoms where recorded in ethiopia, and other areas. Did they suddenly just believe Paul.
You're arguments have no historical support, because evidence shows that Paul wasn't the first to believe the Trinity-Jesus doctrine. Because the recordings of Jesus' contemporaries are recorded in their death areas.
@cisco19 Peter, James and the apostles of the Jeruslem temple did not believe Jesus to be a god. They believed they were following A messiah like Solomon and David. The concept of a man-god saviour doesn't exist in Judaism. This is shown by the writings of the Ebionites (courtesy of Epiphaneus) and why they called Paul "liar" and "heretic".
@Matthew1944 You seem to forget Cisco, that Paul was called back twice for preaching heresy, the second time at Antioch when he lied, was caught in his lies by Asian Christians (Jewish diaspora "Christians") and declared himself to be a Roman citizen, saved by Roman soldiers and made his final break with the apostles. He neither met Jesus nor studied under any of them.
@cisco19 2) The idea of a man-god came along years after Jesus death and with that, the idea of a trinity was possible. Paul was the earliest (59AD) to come up with a man-god and his writings pre-date the gospels.
...................... "evidence shows that Paul wasn't the first to believe the Trinity-Jesus doctrine."
There was no concept of a man-god before Paul and therefore the trinity concept was impossible.
@cisco19 "Because the recordings of Jesus' contemporaries are recorded in their death areas."
You're not being very clear here, Cisco. There are no writings from anyone contemporary to the time of the living Jesus. Paul and the gospels came long after his death. The gospels were written by anonymous authors and were named in the fourth century during the compilation of the bible.
@Matthew1944 The book of Acts and the Gospel of Like was written by Luke (who was a historian), that Gospel is known to be written before 70ad, and it isn't the first gospel. and that is not denied by even Atheist historians. All Gospels are known to date no less than 150 years of Jesus' life, and according to Scholars. Sources of ancient Palestine that date 150 years of a persons life is credible.
@hybridwhat continued: Jesus has over 40 documentations dating with in that 150 year scholar period.. and more than half of them talk about him being worshiped by a group known as Christians. Here is a quote from Lucian "the Christians, worship a man to this day" and that quote is centuries before the Nicene creed.
If Paul was the first, then why does the fatality records of James, Thomas, etc all say that they refused to deny what they where preaching? And is it Paul or Rome?
@hybridwhat Jesus has over 40 documentations dating with in that 150 year scholar period.."
How about: . Philo (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD) - All contemporary to Jesus time. If Jesus had been a man-God who had stirred up the area with his teachings and had a great following, why did it take several generations for anyone to write about him?
@Matthew1944 That is servel generations? Jesus is said to die at 30-33 AD with a total of a 3 year career. Generations = 50 years. And yes, soucres that date with in 150 years of a persons life is considered academically reliable, have you even studied history school.
Read books from greco roman scholars such as Michael Grant, Richard Carrier, etc. None of these men are christian, but they consider all sources of the NT and what you listed to be about the Christian faith.
@hybridwhat - No, one generation is 25 years and the life expectancy was 43 years. It was a duty of a Jewish father to marry off his sons by about the age of 20 so it could be even shorter.
@Matthew1944 LOL. One Generation equals 50+ years, please do your studies sir. Even the gospel of Luke says so and i already gave you a quote from one of the best historians that ever lived, Durrant.
@hybridwhat man forget this guy. He's going to continue arguing over and over regardless of what academic support you give to slap every one of his messages. Up to now, he has not even explained the quotes concerning the death records of the apostles, the story written in acts, and the fact that there so many references dating before 100 AD, saying that Christians worshipped Jesus.
@cisco19 - the fact that there so many references dating before 100 AD, saying that Christians worshipped Jesus."
Why is nothing written by historians contemporary to his time, considering he could raise the dead and walk on water. Surely one of several historians would have written about it. How about the scene Matthew describes during the crucifixion when all those dead saints went marching off to town in a tidy group, presumably sightseeing. No historian mentioned that either.
@Matthew1944 Celsus, Luke, Plinny... they where all of his time. They are people who existed during first century AD.. the point of the argument is that the Christian belief of Jesus was always the same. The belief didn't begin by Rome or Paul, because documents of Christian and Anti-Christian of that generation show Christianity's activities.
@Matthew1944 Man you really are dumb. Alex was a powerful king, with a decade long career. Jesus was a man from Nazareth with only a 3 year career. Coins and statues are part of a kings legacy. But a man of religion and spiritual Philosophy builds his legacy through the people who he taught. The historian argument given is on the subject of what and when Christians believed in Jesus, and historians have shown the belief to start before paul and rome. You didn't even understand the argument.
@cisco19 The Jewish Jesus and his followers, later called Ebionites were practicing Jews. A man-god to Jews would be idolatry. They believed he was a man.. The Christian Jesus, 30 years later, was a man-god. Two completely different bodies of thought, then and now.
@Matthew1944 As said many times. research on their death records because it says something else. The Book of Acts says they worshiped Jesus, and Acts is considered a historical document to every scholar. Please stop making up your own arguments please, because anybody who went to history class knows you are just throwing out random arguments of no basis.
Worshiping Jesus wouldn't be idolitary because his followers believed Jesus to be the God of Abraham made man.
@cisco19 Origen gives the testimony that all Judæo-Christians were called "Ebionites." The Christians that fled to the trans-Jordanic land (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iii. 5, 3), remaining true to their Judean traditions, were afterward regarded as a heretic sect of the Ebionites. They believed Jesus to be a man and that the God of Abraham was one and indivisible. By elevating Jesus to God status as the Pauline Christians did was breaking of the first commandment and idolatry.
@cisco19 . Acts is considered to have been written late in the 90s or more probably early in the 2nd century CE, because of its apparent reliance on Josephus' history, Antiquities of the Jews. While not a historical document per se. it is probably the most accurate of the texts but it also differs from the earliest copies of Acts and shows a good deal of interpolation and addition. What history class deals with Acts - aside from those in religious schools .
@Matthew1944 Please stop making arguments because it doesn't work, you just made yourself look more ignorant. The book of acts is considered by scholars to be before AD 70 because there is no mention of Jerusalem's destruction, Paul is being arrested at the end of the book (and Paul is killed by Nero at the 70's), and Luke died at AD 84. LOL at you making up that it was considered to be made at AD 90.. as said millions of times, do your research.
@cisco19 The dating of the deaths of Paul and Luke are by tradition only, cisco. You must be aware that as a Roman citizen, Paul could not be executed - just exiled. Not so re: the dating of Acts. This is what I read: "There is considerable evidence that Acts of the Apostles used, as one of its sources, Jewish Antiquities, published by Flavius Josephus in 93 CE. Thus Acts would have been written some time later than the year 93, probably early in the second century." Want the rest?
Not possible. The apostles were practicing Jews who believed Jesus to be a fully human leader/messiah. There are no man-gods in Judaism. Worshipping Jesus would be idolatry as has been already explained to you..
@Matthew1944 2) The gentile followers of Paul, called Pauline Christians were the ones who worshipped Jesus, cisco - not the Jewish Christians. Pagan based Pauline Christianity is what you believe in today.
@Matthew1944 So Peter, Luke, John, Mary, where Pauline Christians? Stop already, the sources have shown that Christians believed in Jesus before Paul became a christian. You were already refuted on that and you couldn't give any answer concerning the book of acts. The only thing you did as a counter was make up the date of the book of acts, when ever single history based site (including wiki) shows that Acts was written before AD 70.
@hybridwhat - The living Mary was a Jewess and had nothing to do with Pauline Christianity. Peter was also a Jewish Christian - not a Pauline Christian. Two kinds of Christians - remember? Jewish Christians believed him to be a man. Pauline christians 30 years later made him into a god. Modern Scholars affirm a date of authorship of Acts after 70 A.D., some even after 100 A.D. Those who want an earlier date, like you, are more concerned about making the bible story "work".
@Matthew1944@cisco19 LOL, but you said before that the Christianity today started from Rome-Constantine? But i guess since you found out that the Rome argument you gave was dumb, you are going to still stick with the Paul one and just ignore every academic source and logistics that show the whole "Pauline Christians" have have so many historical holes.
The first Christians where Jesus' contemporaries and the book of Acts, to even their Death Records all say they worshiped Jesus. You Failed
@cisco19 but you said before that the Christianity today started from Rome-Constantine? Pauline Christianity became organized and took the earlier form of belief that we have today, after Constantine made it legal. Are you home schooled or did you go to a religious school that fed you dogmatized "history"?
@Matthew1944 lol, but wasn't this already shown to you to be 100% false? You keep on repeating the Pauline Christianity, while ignoring the basic points of history that has been already shown to you. You are considering scholar history as dogmatic and that is because you are uneducated, you even made the claim that Acts is around 90 AD, with constant different arguments that are all incoherent with each other. Jesus' followers he was god, we already gave you historians. Stop being a moron.
@cisco19 The first Christians where Jesus' contemporaries and the book of Acts, to even their Death Records all say they worshiped Jesus. You Failed
"
The first "Christians" who WERE Jesus' contemporaries were Judeo-Christians (Ebionites) who believed that Jesus was a man. The book of Acts was written long after Jesus death and by this time Paul's gentile Christians believed he was a God.
@Matthew1944 You are getting tiring to argue with, you are just ignoring everything that is posted and refuse to use logic. As said MILLIONS OF TIMES, the apostles death records record that they where worshiped Jesus. If you say they believed him to be a man, then why where they executed/persecuted with in early Palestine?
Why do you ignore the book of acts when it says that they all worshiped Jesus as God? Shut up already.. you really don't want except failure, do you? start reading.
@Matthew1944 Richard Carrier, Michael Grant, William Durrant, FM Bruce. It's common sense, Luke died at AD 84, and the contents in acts predate the ad 70 destruction and Nero. You are a waste of time already, you are just replying random false arguments for the sake of not losing. The fact that you think Acts was made around the 90's shows you are just forcing it already, You've been done a long time ago, you couldn't even decide on what to argue about awhile ago.
@Matthew1944 The book of Acts was made around 90 AD? So from what you said, Luke wrote acts after he died? I think you actually know deep down that your arguments have been going down hill for a long time ago... and you are actually in need of scholars for the time line of Acts?
You confirm over and over again that you don't know what you've talking about, it's like you make up random arguments with out even checking if it's right. I think you should stop and take the loss..
@hybridwhat - The only apostle whose death the Bible records is James (Acts 12:2). King Herod had James “put to death with the sword,” likely a reference to beheading. The circumstances of the deaths of the other apostles are related through church tradition, so you should not put too much weight on any of the other accounts.
@Matthew1944 So what if James was the only Apostle recorded in the bible to die? You think the Bible is the only source of the Apostles? You are not going to stop with this nonsense of yours are, you just can't take the fact that you have been false since the beginning?
The deaths of the apostles are historically accepted, there isn't any scholar who denies their martyrdom records, we've given you proof by citing famous Historians and up to now, you still are forcing it.
@hybridwhat The deaths of the apostles are historically accepted"
The deaths of the apostles is TRADITIONALLY accepted. There is no contemporary writing that descrbes their deaths. In any case, they weren't preaching Pauline dogma because they broke with Paul at Antioch and were not Pauline Christians.
@Matthew1944 You are still over this? I already gave you sources and even references to show you that Christianity's doctrine existed before Paul. Why are you ignoring the book of acts that records the practices of the first christians, none of them where followers of Paul. You are barely ignoring every post and just replying with the same refuted and baseless garbage that has been answered reply after reply.
@Matthew1944 No, they are historically accepted, please read the works of the Scholars Cisco listed. If they where not preaching "Pauline Christianity", then what where they preaching and where is the proof? Because sadly, you have about 15 dominant scholars cited here that have all said that Jesus' followers lived and died under the same christian faith. We gave you the proof, and right now you have not given anything to support you nonsense.
@hybridwhat If they where not preaching "Pauline Christianity", then what where they preaching and where is the proof?"
The Ebionites were practicing Jews who called Paul a liar and heretic. Why would they be preaching his brand of Christianity. Epiphanius and Origin give a good record - why don't you try reading it?
@hybridwhat So from what you said, Luke wrote acts after he died?"
Early Church Fathers, like Eusebius, passed down a tradition that Paul was martyred in Rome, although there is no reference to Paul's martyrdom in the New Testament..
"But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Eusebius, Church History, book VIII ch. 2 )
@Matthew1944 You never attended History class have you? Of course there is no reference to Paul's death in the Bible because the NT was written before the Apostles died. The apostles are recorded in other sources, not just in the bible. Have you ever heard of Nero? Because the documentations of Nero's time record Paul's death, he was killed by Nero. You really are just arguing for the sake of not losing.
@hybridwhat Other scholars hold that the Romans released Paul, who briefly visited some churches he had planted and then turned west to evangelize Spain, a long-standing dream of his. Paul's Letter to Philemon, written when he was under house arrest, shows he expected acquittal: "Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers" ( And in Clement's letter to the Corinthians, he said that Paul "went to the limit of the West." This points to Spain.
@Matthew1944 Yeah, the Romans released Paul but as history shows, Paul was in and out of Prison. The book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest, So thanks for banking up our points. Your whole analogy is also invalid, please do better research because their is allot of historical holes,
You are getting annoying. You are replying with out even reading, because as i can see here, you've been replying the same arguments and ignoring the references
@hybridwhat Is there a way to put this Troll on ignore? It's already getting tiring arguing with him. It's like no matter how many citations or scholar references you give him, he just argues with the same argument. He does not see how many invalid historical claims he made.
Matthew, you need to do your research. Google some of the books those scholars made, i even was generous enough to give you non-christian scholars. It's like you don't even understand english.
@Matthew1944 Why? What is wrong with the citations that date or talk about things that date before them, Is it because it doesn't support your argument? We don't need to look into Justin Martyr or the rest you mentioned because historical references before them have been said and academically supported here.
There is no serious scholar who supports the Pauline argument because of certain references of the apostles, who pre-date Paul... and over all, the book of Acts which was before 70AD.
@Matthew1944 No. It's you who is wrong and does not want to accept he is wrong and far out full of ignorance. Look how many citations where given to show you Christianity started as a Jesus Worshiping-trinity believing religion. You had historical pin points that all date earlier before any of the things you argued about, and you just ran in circles giving the same old unsupported garbage.
You where wrong when you said Acts was made in the 90's, and everything else.
@hybridwhat I know, i just received a LONG PM from him, and nothing in it pertains to the argument of Christianity's "original" faith.
Anyway, why don't you impress us Matt by showing a reference of Jesus' disciples actually preaching that Jesus was just a man and not lord, if you still want to insist that they never worshiped him regardless of the countless citations/references from scholars, anti-christians, death records, and the Book of Acts? Please don't give something incoherent again
@hybridwhat Look how many citations where given to show you Christianity started as a Jesus Worshiping-trinity believing religion"
In order to have a "trinity", you need a man god. The man-god wasn't invented until at least 30 years after Jesus death. He was not worshipped as a God during his lifetime and CERTAINLY NOT by his Jewish followers because Jewish belief is that God does not become a man and a man does not become a God. Check out the OT.
@cisco19 You know, i have no idea why some people just can't admit they are wrong regardless of so much proof that has been posted. If this guy wants to ignore the scholar and historic references that where given, there is nothing you can do.
Every single argument he gave was all academically fallacious and he couldn 't even show a source that shows Paul preached the doctrine first, Instead he goes out saying, Acts and all that is wrong when clearly every famous scholar has been posted.
@hybridwhat wrote: "Paul preached the doctrine first"
Jesus was dead for thirty years BEFORE Paul was on the scene. Remember? - Origen (l.c. ii. 1), gives the testimony that all Judæo-Christians were called "Ebionites." The Jewish Christians that fled to the trans-Jordanic land (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iii. 5, 3), remaining true to their Judean traditions, were afterward regarded by Catholics as a heretic sect of Ebionites and in history, were later hunted down and killed by the RCC
@Matthew1944@Matthew1944 What? Paul came 30 years after Jesus? Jesus died at 30-33 AD Paul died at 67 AD, so you are saying that Paul became a Christian at 60-63 AD, therefore having a 4 year career? When there are Prison records around the 50 AD, and Christian creeds dating at 34 AD?
LOL I'm sorry, i really don't want to start flaming, but you are really bad at this. You are making yourself look ignorant at every post..
Jesus was already dead when Paul came along and his writings begin in 59AD. Paul died in 67AD by tradition. Paul broke with the Jewish Christians (practicing Jews) and went on to invent his own version of Christianity (Pauline Christianity) in which Jesus became a man god. He never knew Jesus nor did he study under the apostles. Check out Pauline Christianity - because Paul is the father of it.
Paul's writings doesn't mean he came on the scene during that time. Paul was arrested allot, and he wrote letters during his times in prison/house arrest. Please study history.
Paul never knew Jesus personally, yes. As it shows in Acts. Infact he persecuted Jesus' followers because they claimed him to be God, as in Acts. But you're ignoring that and just forcing around random quotes of 2nd century as if it matters to early AD sources. I'm ignoring you, you are stupid.
@Matthew1944 They did. Peter, John, James, Judas, Matt, all believed and preached Jesus was God, it's even in the book of Isiah "He be called Immanuel - God with us.. Ever lasting father, Mighty God..". Paul was not the first or the only one because we see the writings of the Apostles, and also their Death records. Luke documents the practices of the early church in Acts, and every scholar mentioned said they DID.
Stop ignoring the evidence shown to you and shut up.
@Matthew1944 The Book of Acts proclaims jesus to be God, it even says Peter, thomas, john etc believed him to be God. The book is written by Luke, who was Jew who used Matt and Mark as a reference for his Gospel. So apparently, there where Jews who did. Why do you ignore this with out showing us actual/other books of his Apostles?
You can't even argue coherently and you are just ignoring every single source whether biblical or academical. You are done and a complete waste of time.
@Matthew1944 Are you a Jew or a Muslim? Anyway, The Ebionites means "poor". The Ebionites rejected ALLOT of things that Paul never first/only thought, even beliefs of Muslims concerning Jesus. They rejected the Virgin birth, they believe that Jesus became the Christ during his baptism, etc..
Paul's laws for the Church are shown to be referenced by OT verses and the Gospels, which books he never wrote. Do your research.
@hybridwhat they believe that Jesus became the Christ during his baptism"
Hardly. Read Josephus description of John's baptizing and what it meant. "immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions." It had nothing to do with becoming a "Christian".
So Celsus, Richard Carrier, Michael Grant, Durrant are all dogmatic? Aren't these names of non-christian scholars? You really like making a fool out of yourself do you? Get over it, there is no academics in the world that supports your argument. There is no evidence that Paul started the christian faith because all the evidence and all the academics show that he didn't. You are a moron if you think it's dogmatic. Stop being in denial and go away.
@cisco19 "There is no evidence that Paul started the christian faith because all the evidence "
Really. Is even something as simple as Wiki beyond your ability?
"Pauline Christianity is a term used to refer to the Christianity associated with the beliefs and doctrines espoused by Paul of Tarsus through his writings. Most of orthodox Christianity relies heavily on these teachings and considers them to be amplifications and explanations of the teachings of Jesus. "
@Matthew1944 There are Christian writings and Non-Christian historian writings of early AD. The Christian Writings preach Jesus was Christ and God, while the Non-Christian historians told that Christian' worshipped Jesus. I think you are confused now, because you made the statement that the trinity doctrine was invented by Rome or Paul, and the historian references given are to show you that you are wrong. Christians always believed in the trinity. stop switching arguments, please.
@hybridwhat GENTILE PAULINE CHRISTIANS may have believed in a trinity but to have a trinity in the first place, Jesus would have to be a man-god. That doesn't come from Judaism at the time of Jesus or for thirty years afterward. YOU are confused because you seem to think that the Jewish Christians of the Jerusalem temple are the same as Pauline Christians that came along thirty years later. Remember Paul got hauled up for preaching heresy at Antioch, denied it but was caught.
@hybridwhat 2) He was eventually saved by the Romans by declaring himself to be a Roman Citizen ( 150 years before Jews were granted Roman citizenship by Caracella) and his ties with the apostles were permanently cut because of it. He never knew Jesus and never studied under the apostles. His story was strictly his own invention. Presumably he returned to Rome where your kind of Christianity really got its start in the form of early Catholicism.
@Matthew1944 As said before. The only people who believed Jesus to be God where the people who followed him. The historians who don't believe where not there. No one just believes a poor Man is the almighty God in the flesh with out serious evidence or experiencing evidence, that's logic. The non christian historians wrote that Christians believed in Jesus, which is something you where arguing mainly against first. You are not worth the time, you don't even understand your own arguments.
@hybridwhat The only people who believed Jesus to be God where the people who followed him. "
Jesus and the people who followed him were practicing Jews, hyb. None of them believed him to be a god and certainly not God himself in the flesh. Only the fundies of today believe that he was God himself.
There were two kinds of Christians - not at all the same and that is where your confusion lies. There is no direct line of Pauline Christians going back to the time of the living Jesus.
@hybridwhat Research Cornerstones: How Long Is a Generation? Science Provides an Answer -"- Archive October 2005 Vol. 23 / No. 5
"As a matter of common knowledge, we know that a generation averages about 25 years—from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child—although it varies case by case. We also generally accept that the length of a generation was closer to 20 years in earlier times when humans mated younger and life expectancies were shorter."
@Matthew1944 That is familial generation, the generation being talked about is CULTURAL GENERATION.. Cultural Generations took more than 50 years. It is sociology not genetics. i have no idea why you are using Familial Generation as an argument when the topic is with in Ancient Palestine to early Rome. If you don't or didn't know the difference, then i'm starting to feel sorry for you.
Well, that's might white of you, hyb. In thirty years, the story was spread orally. Most of the population was illiterate. After six or so re-tellings, the story changed completely and a man became a god. The Jews were expecting a fully human messiah. Paul's gentile Christians inherited a god-man.
@Matthew1944 One generation is 25 years? So a 25 year old man is a generation old. You really are trolling now, and you are just plain ignorant. You can read the works of any classical scholar or historian, 150 years is not long enough for stories of early AD to evolve into Myths. Take a look at Alexander the great, his written sources date 500 years after he died, yet it is still credible. Jesus' references date no less than 10-20 years after he died.
@cisco19 Take a look at Alexander the great, his written sources date 500 years after he died, yet it is still credible"
Take a look at the coins inscribed with his profile and his name as well as ancient maps that chart the territories he conquered. Got anything like that for Jesus. I have no doubt that a man lived upon whom this legend is based but he certainly wasn't a God.
Acts debunks the argument about Paul creating the Trinity doctrine, and Acts is favored more by historians than any book in the bible. This was told to you repeatedly, and you couldn't give a legit response other than attacking my videos and pretending that various academic sources and historian quotes are voided. You have made so many different arguments already for your case, and each of them contradicts or has no relevance to your past arguments. Go away troll.
wow! and there are soooooo many "Christians" who don't even know this. They have no idea how close Christianity is linked to Paganism, yet they are so convinced that Paganism is "of the devil" and any other religion is headed for eternal damnation. C'mon now. Jesus never judged anyone, so how can his followers of today think they have that right? Geeeez!!
mztizzy1212 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Paul was knocked to the ground and blinded because he saw the glorified Jesus from heaven.That is enough to make him an apostle.
If you want to learn about Jesus,the christian way and Paul click the link on my channel.
Garrison5402 1 month ago
this video is so off the mark lol
Hoogz20 3 months ago
Then stop wasting your time. Until you know what Jews believe and always have believed, you will never see why Pauline Christianiy could never come from Judaism and why there is no direct line from it back to the living Jesus or his apostles. I would suggest that you might place less reliance on the misinterpreted, mistranslated and interpolated book you call your bible. God does not become a man, nor does a man become a god and you alone are responsible for atoning for your own sins.
Matthew1944 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Matthew1944 , " God does not become a man, nor does a man become a god and you alone are responsible for atoning for your own sins.".........That as well is a very ancient religious idea , for which you have the exact amount of evidence , as you ask others for . Religion is a product of the human consciousness , and as such is subjective . It is absurd for you to make demands upon others , you yourself can not produce .
ComradeAgopian 4 months ago
Sorry boys, Your brand of Pauline Christianity does not go back to the living Jesus and the man god didn't exist before Paul either. The Ebionites were the descendants of the Judeo "Christians" and Pauline Christianity declared them to be heretics and killed them off.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Sorry, but all sources have shown that Paul didn't start the Christian faith you are yet to show a source that shows the Apostles didn't worship Jesus. Stop being a pest and just show us the evidence that dates to that time. Because everything we've shown you so far derails your arguments, and you are doing nothing but ignoring them.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat The apostles were all practicing Jews, as was Jesus. To Jews, God is one and indivisible. To worship a man would be sacrilage, hyb. They were eventually known as Ebionites who considered Paul to be a liar and a heretic.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Why should i look at Jospehus on the Baptism? This is directed towards the Ebionite argument you gave, the reason why the Ebionite argument and the 2nd century citations doesn't work is because of the other things the Ebionites believed in. You understand English? LOL at you changing the argument here, i really hope that was intentional, because if it wasn't then you have bad reading comprehension.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Oh ya, you said Paul came 30 years after Christ, yet now you say that his writings came at 59. Jesus died at 30-33 AD, so it doesn't add up. You think nobody can tell that you are inventing arguments? You can't just debate with out showing academical support. You need to show a source that predates the book of Acts and is also Historian approved, with added Historian/Scholar support. You never showed that.
So why are you forcing this argument so much?
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat You need to show a source that predates the book of Acts and is also Historian approved, with added Historian/Scholar support"
The Ebionites predate both and the quotes I gave you come from early historians. I think I've given you enough so that they support each other.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Read my PM on the Ebionites. The Ebionites reject Jewish beliefs, including Moses' writings so it's really a poor outlet for you. You didn't give early historians but quotes from church fathers of the 2nd century, and they're only talking about certain Gnostics who not only reject core christian beliefs but also Jewish tradition as well.
The historians you gave do not say that the Apostles of Jesus believed him to be a man only. Why do you ignore the book of Acts part?
cisco19 4 months ago
@cisco19 "The Ebionites reject Jewish beliefs, including Moses' writings so it's really a poor outlet for you."
That's completely wrong. They embrace the jewish beliefs and practices.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
The testimony of the Ebionites has been preserved in the writings of the Church authors Justin Martyr (second century), Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Tertullian (end of the second century and the first half of the third), Origen (middle of the third century), and Epiphanius and Jerome (fourth century). These all confirm that the Ebionites opposed Paul as a false apostle.
The Ebionites were Jesus first followers - before Paul and Pauline Christianity.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Justin Martyr etc, are from a later century. Why are you giving post-rome sources as a counter to the early AD sources presented? You don't realize how dumb you are?
Paul's writings are known to exist as early in the 40's, regardless he has records that date as early as 39 AD in prison. The Apostles also have records dating at 38 AD and they where persecuted due to preaching the divinity of Jesus.
Stop making up arguments.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat Paul's writings are known to exist as early in the 40's, regardless he has records that date as early as 39 AD in prison. "
He wasn't in prison in 39AD. He was imprisoned in Judea in 58-60 AD and in Rome in 60-61AD. He wrote his first letter, Thessalonians in the mid-50's. As Jews, the apostles wouldn't be preaching about a man-god.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Um no. There are records of him already facing trouble that early.. just read the history of the Creeds. And the Apostles preached about a Jesus as a God (God becoming Man), as we shown you over and over again by other sources outside the bible and outside the Christian religion.
Those Jews believed God became a man, period. You already have other books in the NT that where not written by Paul and the Book of Acts a reference but you just want to ignore the facts do you?
hybridwhat 4 months ago
"He wasn't in prison in 39AD. He was imprisoned in Judea in 58-60 AD and in Rome in 60-61AD. "
I got ya! You see, you made the claim that Paul appeared 30 years AFTER Jesus, but now you are contradicting your own arguments because as you have shown, Paul was in the scene before 60 AD. You see my trick here for you?
You just owned yourself. So keep plugging your ears and refuse to hear the evidence, you have academics against you, and you just argued against your own stuff again.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
Eusebius: Ecclesaistical History, 3.27.4
"These men [Ebionites], moreover, thought that it was necessary to REJECT ALL THE EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE, WHOM THEY CALLED AN APOSTATE FROM THE LAW."
Matthew1944 4 months ago
Origen: Contra Celsus: 5:61 On the Ebionites:
5:61 "...there are certain heretical sects which DO NOT RECEIVE THE EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE PAUL, AS THE TWO SECTS OF EBIONITES
Matthew1944 4 months ago
Iranaeus, "Against Heresies", 1.27.2 - on the Ebionites
"Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and REPUDIATE THE APOSTLE PAUL, MAINTAINING THAT HE WAS AN APOSTATE FROM THE LAW.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Why are you giving 2nd Century quotes? LOL
Sorry, but 2nd Century quotes have no effect against 1st century quotes and 1st century studies, none of the sources even say or show that Paul was responsible for the creation of christianity, and not if it shows that the Apostles didn't worship Jesus.
You lost, and you are just giving more random and unnecessary content that have no relation to the point against you.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat Why are you giving 2nd Century quotes?"
Because all those quotes are CRITICISMS of the Ebionites and for that reason are probably a lot more reliable.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Wiki, Why are you making up our sources when we used actual Scholars? Do even read our comments or do you ignore the ones with citations?
Regardless, even Wiki wouldn't allow the arguments you made because they are seriously uneducated. The fact that you are ignoring our sources and just saying "wiki" is certain that you can't do anything to provide an actual academic counter.
cisco19 4 months ago
Jesus evidently believed himself to be the fully human messiah of Jewish prophecy however, there were tasks that he had to accomplish DURING HIS LIFETIME that would identify him as the messiah. He died before he could do these and therefore, to the Jews, was just another failed candidate for messiahship in the same fashion as Simon ben Kokhba.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
On checking on Lucien, this is what I found. "Philopatris, a direct attack on Christianity, was long attributed to Lucian, but it probably dates from the time of Julian the Apostate (cAD 331-363). The Pelegrinus tells of the death a Cynic philopher, who had flirted with Christianity" Even that is a lie, Cisco.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
Completely false.
ronoman88 7 months ago
@ronoman88 completely in denial
pistolpete667 6 months ago
@pistolpete667 If you want to believe this puff is fact go ahead. Do you want to deny Paul's family background historically was the highest of the highest Jewish sect. The most learned Jews ever of antiquity. They hated everyone including other Jewish sects (Early Christians). Rabid Jews that would make today's Orthodoxy look liberal.The antithesis of paganism!!!! Insane. I love the British accents explaining this tale while England becomes Mecca. kinda sick irony.
ronoman88 6 months ago
@ronoman88 well if you wish to deny the evidence thats in your face be my guest. but youre wrong
pistolpete667 6 months ago
@pistolpete667 Saul of Tarsus a polythiest, idolator, pagan worshiper. Did you even read what I just wrote previously? Even pagans/atheists don't deny Paul's Pharisee position as historical fact. Where did you get this? No source you're out of gas.
ronoman88 6 months ago
@ronoman88 Paul's Pharisee position as historical fact."
Paul claimed to be a Pharisee but based on his preaching style, biblical scholars agree he was not using the Torah which any trained pharisee would do. He also claimed to be a Roman citizen when It was not until 212AD, that Caracella granted the Jews the privilege of becoming Roman citizens. However, in Acts, Roman soldiers saved him after he claimed Roman citizenship. It's unlikely that he was even a Jew.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@ronoman88 Do you want to deny Paul's family background historically was the highest of the highest Jewish sect."
One could not be a Jew and a Roman citizen during the time of Paul. In order to be "born a Roman citizen" and yet aspire to be Jewish, one would have to be a Herodian and in Acts, Paul makes the statement "Herodian, my kinsman". Herodians were not considered to be Jewish but only aspiring to be so.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 Of course not! I'm with you about Paul. You have misdirected your assesment. It is pistolpete667
ronoman88 5 months ago
@ronoman88 - Sorry! Maybe Cisco?
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@djbehemoth Trinity is only viewed as polythestic by people who misunderstand it and view it like a triad. "The Son of" was used to describe a natural embodiment. For example, Judas "The Son of Perdition". Judas being the manifestation of Perdition. So the Son of God means, The Manifestation of God, not a secondary god or an actual offspring.
cisco19 7 months ago
@cisco19 Trinity is only viewed as polythestic by people who misunderstand it"
The Pope has already admitted that the concept of trinity was invented in Rome, based on Matthew 28:19 "in the name of the father, son and holy ghost". That ending is a later Christian add-on and doesn't exist in the three oldest copies of the bible housed in museums.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 the title was invented at Rome not the concept. If you look into history of the 1st century, Christianity already believed in the father son and holy spirit. You can read documentations from Plinny the younger.
Tertullian, c. 200 AD, Hippolytus (170-236) say to baptize in the name of the trinity, this is before Rome. Get your facts straight
If Matthew 28:19 is a forgery, why do Christadelphians use it for their baptisms?
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Pliny the younger had nothing to say about a trinity. He wrote to Trajan asking how to handle the Christian situation. He reported he was unable to get much more information even after torturing two deaconesses.
Hippolytus wrote in 200 AD: "In God the Father Almighty. Amen. And in the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. And in the Holy Spirit in the Holy Church. Amen". which points as you say, to the beginnings of early beliefs but still without the concept of "God in three persons".
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 2) Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger states: "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome."
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism
Matthew 28:19 is missing from the oldest copies of the bible - Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944
ya, it was MISSING. That doesn't mean that the verse was never there originally.. why didn't you touch the other parts in my post concerning this?
If you claim that it was forged, then why do Christadelphians quote it in Baptism? You said the trinity was invented at rome, but look at the quotes i gave that date a century before rome adopted christianity. Stop reading random sites and read actual history books please.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 If you claim that it was forged, then why do Christadelphians quote it in Baptism? You said the trinity was invented at rome, but look at the quotes.
Pope Benedict wrote: "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome."
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 2) Jews don't believe in the Trinity and thirty years before Paul invented Christianity, Jesus as a Jew, wouldn't have believed it either.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 That doesn't mean that the verse was never there originally"
You are claiming that because it is missing in the three oldest copies of the bible, that for some reason, the trinitarian formula was removed? That's pretty desperate, cisco.
All Christian churches use it now, not just the Christadelpians.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944
Why are you making up comments now? Your last statement makes it obvious that you never knew anything about Christadelpians. Christadelpians are historically known to have used it ever since the 1st century. lol. Look at you doging certain quotes before the time of rome, here is another one. Research on Clement of Alexandria, that is part of the piece that shows that your arguments are all fished of random sites.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Christadelphians (a word created using Greek which means "Brethren in Christ" — "brethren in Christ") is a Christian group that developed in the United Kingdom and North America in the 19th century. The Christadelphian religious group traces its origins to Dr John Thomas (1805–1871), who migrated to America from England in 1832.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 nice job on going Wiki for your first actual research on the subject and trying to know what Christadelphia was. What i meant in my post concerning that, is Christadelphians use the same baptism practice, which is another important evidence other than quotes from historical figures who date before Christianity in Rome, that the Matt verse is genuine. Do more research on what Christadelphians believe.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Well then Cisco - SAY what you mean. Lack of Trinitarian formula for baptism in Matt 28:19-20 is supported by the writings of Eusebius "They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Christ for he had said to them, 'Go make disciples of all the nations in my name.'"
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 "baptism" in the time of Jesus was called Mikvah - immersion of the body in water after purification, for instance after childbirth, sex, before entering the temple. It could even be done several times a day.
Josephus writes in reference to John the Baptist: . For immersion in water could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
You keep forgetting that Jesus and his apostles were practicing Jews. His apostles, later called Ebionites, did not believe Jesus to be a God and he didn't "become" a god until 30 years after his death, thanks to Paul. The concept of baptism during Jesus time then would necessarily be Jewish and would mean to those people just as Josephus writes. The concept of Father, son and Holy ghost would be absent during Jesus time, but would be added afterward by christian translators.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 No historians who lived during the time of Jesus wrote anything about him. Josephus would be the first and even his writings came at the end of the first century. What we have of them are interpolated by christian translators and biblical scholars agree on this. Josephus, as a Jew, would not have called Jesus "The Christ".
Happy now?
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944
The only thing interpolated in Jospehus writings are Christian dogmatic terms. If you take away the christian terms, you are still left with a reference of the man. Why are you now changing the topic to the historical Jesus, is it because the Trinity part was shown to have been believed a century before rome?
Read on Celsus, Plinny the Younger, Lucian in concerns of this post. The book of Acts, the gospels, and some gnostics etc all date before josephus.
study more.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 The topic remains the same. I mentioned a historical Jesus because during his lifetime, Jesus was never believed to be a God - therefore a trinity belief during his time was impossible. Most likely It was not until the 200's AD that even the primitive idea of a trinity began to take shape. Tertullian is the first person to use the word "trinity" and he was the first person to formulate the idea of one substance having three persons.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 2) The idea of trinity finally took its present form at the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD. Celsus equated christianity with paganism. Pliny the younger considered christianity a superstition. The goespels date from 69AD to 110 AD and you are partially right, some of them pre-date Josephus. In any case, the trinity is an entirely Christian invention.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 3) By taking away the interpolations, yes, there is reference to the man, but still a man - not a god, as the "historical" Jesus was. It is with Christianity that he became a god and then a concept of trinity could be possible.
and the idea solidifed in Rome, not Israel.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 lol I see your still at it.....cisco just ignore this guy you will get nowhere.
HaShim383 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 But didn't i give you quotes from other people and even anti-christians before rome? Saying that the main doctrine of Christianity started in rome is academically fallacious and it was already debunked by a few of the quotes that date a century before Rome. Why are you still arguing about this?
The book of Acts is considered a historical document, we see when it dates, and it teaches the Christian faith. get over it.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 True, Tertullian was the first to advance the idea of a trinity but his ideas were at first rejected as heresy by the church.
No, Acts is NOT considered to be a historical document any more than the rest of the bible. Yes, Acts, teaches the christian faith - ACCORDING TO PAUL and this is where your paganism enters.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 By what church? Rome Church didn't exist yet, and it couldn't be the first Christian church in Palestine due to the amount of documentations from plinny, Nero, and the book of Acts too. You do realize that you guys shift to Paul and Rome in the arguments, right? They say Rome started the trinity doc, but when pre-dating sources are given, it's paul. You're saying Tert was the first, but documentations say other wise.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 The rudiments of a forming "church" body were present and Paul began converting gentiles even during the later first century - 60 AD and on. Each of your texts, Hebrews, Corinthians and such are communications to those bodies of believers. Early christianity took the form of sporadic believers who met at houses but were considered to be members of the church body. Tertullian invented the early form which was first rejected but then later accepted by the Council of Nicea in Rome.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 They say Rome started the trinity doc"
The pope seems to think so.
...................
You're saying Tert was the first, but documentations say other wise. "
Yes, he is noted for that invention.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 The christian religion didn't form suddenly, Cisco. Until Constantine, it was illegal. Under Theodosius it became the state religion. With it, doctrine gradually formed as well and eventually became the RCC. Christianity as you know it split from the Hebrew Christians who were actually a sect of Judaism, at the time of Antioch. Today they are two distinctly different religions - diametrically opposed.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 What? What does that have to do with my main point? You are becoming incoherent. Christianity started off as a cult.. as all religions start. Yes, so what? The point is, you are making the claim as if the Trinity and Jesus being God doctrine was never with in Christianity originally, when every single source that dates in the 1st century shows you are wrong. Christianity started off as an a messianic cult, and it's trinity beliefs where there since the beginning. Read up.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 The trinity did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus nor for 30 years after his death, nor until now I find Tertullian invented it two centuries later and it was rejected by the body of Christian believers, then finally accepted and solidified at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD because Constantine believed the Roman empire could not withstand the division caused by years of arguing over doctrinal differences.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 2) God said, I am the first, the last and there are none besides me". He also said "no other gods before me" That comes from Judaism and Jesus and his followers were practicing Jews, a sect within Judaism. Worship of Jesus amounts to idolatry. Your Matthew 28:19 is a Christian interpolation, added later to support the idea of a trinity long after the original was written.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 Why are you going to the same argument that was already debunked?
Ya God said all that, so? Hasn't it occurred to you that Jesus is the MANIFESTATION of God? That is what the terminology of "Son of" is. Next, i already showed you quotes that show Matt was not interpolated. The followers where stated by historical 1st century records to have worshiped Jesus. Why won't you read Lucian and the names i gave you?
Are you ignoring what i've been posting?
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Debunked by who? Not you and that's for sure.
Jesus was a fully human male who was executed by Romans, died and remains dead. All Jews considered themselves to be sons of God. The biblical man-god Jesus was invented long after the real one was dead. Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis, the oldest texts in existance . Shem Tob reads: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
Matthew1944 5 months ago
Comment removed
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 You where debunked, get over it. You claimed that the trinity doctrine and the Matt verse was made during Rome time. I gave quotes dating a centuries before that. Whya re you still arguing that Christianity never believed Jesus to be God originally when even Anti-christian sources of 1st century say that they did. You are still bringing up the same arguments that have already been academically annihilated.
Matt 28:19 is genuine, you where given quotes already. give it up.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Most of Christianity STILL doesn't believe Jesus to be God, but rather - the son of God. You fundies are the only ones who seem to think Jesus is God.
Matthew 28:19 is a later christian interpolation.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 Oh ya, Jesus the Man-God was not believed long after he died. Didn't you read the words of Plinny, Nero, and Lucian. Oh yeah, but you don't want to bother to look at , instead you want to poke around arguments you saw in random sites.
If Jesus remained dead, Christianity would never have started. His followers are recorded to die horrible martyrdom, so that means they believed what they where dying for.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Post you "pliny, Nero, Lucien" hearsay then.
Christianity is strictly Paul's invention and that's why the Christianity you follow today is called Pauline Christianity and Paul is considered to be its father.
Dying for what YOU believe in doesn't make it any more true. It just means that you believed in it enough to die for it.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 @Matthew1944 So now it's Paul's invention. First Rome, then Constantine, now Paul? Make up your mind.
The whole "Paul" thing is debunked by the mere fact that Peter, Jude, Luke, etc have their own writings, each of them clearly teaching the Divinity of Jesus. Read Acts. Acts documents the early church, and Paul was not the leader.
As for your second paragraph. Think of Cause and Effect. You are giving the effect with out the cause. So what caused their serious beliefs?
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Don't do a slide and set up strawmen, cisco. Why do you think it's called PAULINE Christianity? Paul was the source of the pagan man-god story. The trinity was invented later by believers and gained its full blossom in Rome at the Council of Nicea.
Read Acts yourself and you will see that Paul had been hauled up for preaching heresy, was rescued by Romans and made his break from the apostles after that.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 The Ebionites called Paul and his new story. Descendants of the Jewish followers of Jesus, Ebionites, described Christianity as that comes from the 'ish kazav (Lying Man, i.e., Liar) Paul of Tarsus.
......................
So what caused their serious beliefs? "
Same as the fanatic belief of moslems who blow themselves up for Islam. Giving up your life for something you BELIEVE in isn't unique to Christians alone. Crazy people do crazy things because they BELIEVE.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 Men-gods, nor the expectation of men-gods does not come from Judaism. That leaves only the pagans, cisco.
By the way, Paul claimed to be a Jew of the Benjamite tribe, BUT tribal associations ceased to exist 500 years before he was born. He claimed to be a Jew with Roman citizenship BUT It was not until 212AD, that Caracella granted the Jews the privilege of becoming Roman citizens.
………………………..
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944
What are you talking about? The jesus being God-man still started in Palestine during early AD, why are ignoring academic sources that already cleared this? You are arguing of baseless information and it's just like your forcing your arguments to win regardless of historical documents.
Christianity was first known as messianic cult, a shoot off sect born from Judaism. You had academic sources already, stop ignoring it.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Jesus the God-man didn't start during his lifetime and not for at least 30 years afterward. Jewish Christianity started as a sect within Judaism - fully Jewish but with the belief that Jesus was the fully human leader of prophecy. Check out the writings of Epiphaneus or beliefs of the Ebionites. Pauline Christianity is based on a man god and that doesn't come from Judaism. Nice story, but it's not Jewish.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 - Remember? 2) "The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means "annointed one;" it does not, however, imply "savior." The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 3) In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 The jesus being God-man still started in Palestine during early AD, why are ignoring academic sources that already cleared this?"
Try the late first century AD, as soon as Paul introduced the concept of Pauline Christianity, starting with his three different contradicting versions of his conversion.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 So if Paul introduced the concept, that means Peter and the rest who followed Jesus just suddenly believed Paul? And what about the other contemporaries of Jesus of whose martyrdoms where recorded in ethiopia, and other areas. Did they suddenly just believe Paul.
You're arguments have no historical support, because evidence shows that Paul wasn't the first to believe the Trinity-Jesus doctrine. Because the recordings of Jesus' contemporaries are recorded in their death areas.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Peter, James and the apostles of the Jeruslem temple did not believe Jesus to be a god. They believed they were following A messiah like Solomon and David. The concept of a man-god saviour doesn't exist in Judaism. This is shown by the writings of the Ebionites (courtesy of Epiphaneus) and why they called Paul "liar" and "heretic".
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 You seem to forget Cisco, that Paul was called back twice for preaching heresy, the second time at Antioch when he lied, was caught in his lies by Asian Christians (Jewish diaspora "Christians") and declared himself to be a Roman citizen, saved by Roman soldiers and made his final break with the apostles. He neither met Jesus nor studied under any of them.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 2) The idea of a man-god came along years after Jesus death and with that, the idea of a trinity was possible. Paul was the earliest (59AD) to come up with a man-god and his writings pre-date the gospels.
...................... "evidence shows that Paul wasn't the first to believe the Trinity-Jesus doctrine."
There was no concept of a man-god before Paul and therefore the trinity concept was impossible.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 "Because the recordings of Jesus' contemporaries are recorded in their death areas."
You're not being very clear here, Cisco. There are no writings from anyone contemporary to the time of the living Jesus. Paul and the gospels came long after his death. The gospels were written by anonymous authors and were named in the fourth century during the compilation of the bible.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 The book of Acts and the Gospel of Like was written by Luke (who was a historian), that Gospel is known to be written before 70ad, and it isn't the first gospel. and that is not denied by even Atheist historians. All Gospels are known to date no less than 150 years of Jesus' life, and according to Scholars. Sources of ancient Palestine that date 150 years of a persons life is credible.
hybridwhat 5 months ago
@hybridwhat continued: Jesus has over 40 documentations dating with in that 150 year scholar period.. and more than half of them talk about him being worshiped by a group known as Christians. Here is a quote from Lucian "the Christians, worship a man to this day" and that quote is centuries before the Nicene creed.
If Paul was the first, then why does the fatality records of James, Thomas, etc all say that they refused to deny what they where preaching? And is it Paul or Rome?
hybridwhat 5 months ago
@hybridwhat Jesus has over 40 documentations dating with in that 150 year scholar period.."
How about: . Philo (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD) - All contemporary to Jesus time. If Jesus had been a man-God who had stirred up the area with his teachings and had a great following, why did it take several generations for anyone to write about him?
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 That is servel generations? Jesus is said to die at 30-33 AD with a total of a 3 year career. Generations = 50 years. And yes, soucres that date with in 150 years of a persons life is considered academically reliable, have you even studied history school.
Read books from greco roman scholars such as Michael Grant, Richard Carrier, etc. None of these men are christian, but they consider all sources of the NT and what you listed to be about the Christian faith.
hybridwhat 5 months ago
@hybridwhat - No, one generation is 25 years and the life expectancy was 43 years. It was a duty of a Jewish father to marry off his sons by about the age of 20 so it could be even shorter.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 LOL. One Generation equals 50+ years, please do your studies sir. Even the gospel of Luke says so and i already gave you a quote from one of the best historians that ever lived, Durrant.
hybridwhat 5 months ago
@hybridwhat man forget this guy. He's going to continue arguing over and over regardless of what academic support you give to slap every one of his messages. Up to now, he has not even explained the quotes concerning the death records of the apostles, the story written in acts, and the fact that there so many references dating before 100 AD, saying that Christians worshipped Jesus.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 - the fact that there so many references dating before 100 AD, saying that Christians worshipped Jesus."
Why is nothing written by historians contemporary to his time, considering he could raise the dead and walk on water. Surely one of several historians would have written about it. How about the scene Matthew describes during the crucifixion when all those dead saints went marching off to town in a tidy group, presumably sightseeing. No historian mentioned that either.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 Celsus, Luke, Plinny... they where all of his time. They are people who existed during first century AD.. the point of the argument is that the Christian belief of Jesus was always the same. The belief didn't begin by Rome or Paul, because documents of Christian and Anti-Christian of that generation show Christianity's activities.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Celsus, Luke, Plinny... they where all of his time"
Celsus - Second century.
Luke - The author of the Luke gospel is anonymous and admits he wasn't an eye witness.
Pliny the Younger - (61 AD – ca. 112 AD
Pliny the elder was a contemporary but he wrote nothing.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 Man you really are dumb. Alex was a powerful king, with a decade long career. Jesus was a man from Nazareth with only a 3 year career. Coins and statues are part of a kings legacy. But a man of religion and spiritual Philosophy builds his legacy through the people who he taught. The historian argument given is on the subject of what and when Christians believed in Jesus, and historians have shown the belief to start before paul and rome. You didn't even understand the argument.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 The Jewish Jesus and his followers, later called Ebionites were practicing Jews. A man-god to Jews would be idolatry. They believed he was a man.. The Christian Jesus, 30 years later, was a man-god. Two completely different bodies of thought, then and now.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 As said many times. research on their death records because it says something else. The Book of Acts says they worshiped Jesus, and Acts is considered a historical document to every scholar. Please stop making up your own arguments please, because anybody who went to history class knows you are just throwing out random arguments of no basis.
Worshiping Jesus wouldn't be idolitary because his followers believed Jesus to be the God of Abraham made man.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Origen gives the testimony that all Judæo-Christians were called "Ebionites." The Christians that fled to the trans-Jordanic land (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iii. 5, 3), remaining true to their Judean traditions, were afterward regarded as a heretic sect of the Ebionites. They believed Jesus to be a man and that the God of Abraham was one and indivisible. By elevating Jesus to God status as the Pauline Christians did was breaking of the first commandment and idolatry.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 . Acts is considered to have been written late in the 90s or more probably early in the 2nd century CE, because of its apparent reliance on Josephus' history, Antiquities of the Jews. While not a historical document per se. it is probably the most accurate of the texts but it also differs from the earliest copies of Acts and shows a good deal of interpolation and addition. What history class deals with Acts - aside from those in religious schools .
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 Please stop making arguments because it doesn't work, you just made yourself look more ignorant. The book of acts is considered by scholars to be before AD 70 because there is no mention of Jerusalem's destruction, Paul is being arrested at the end of the book (and Paul is killed by Nero at the 70's), and Luke died at AD 84. LOL at you making up that it was considered to be made at AD 90.. as said millions of times, do your research.
Acts says they all worshiped Jesus.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 The dating of the deaths of Paul and Luke are by tradition only, cisco. You must be aware that as a Roman citizen, Paul could not be executed - just exiled. Not so re: the dating of Acts. This is what I read: "There is considerable evidence that Acts of the Apostles used, as one of its sources, Jewish Antiquities, published by Flavius Josephus in 93 CE. Thus Acts would have been written some time later than the year 93, probably early in the second century." Want the rest?
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@cisco19 Acts says they all worshiped Jesus"
Not possible. The apostles were practicing Jews who believed Jesus to be a fully human leader/messiah. There are no man-gods in Judaism. Worshipping Jesus would be idolatry as has been already explained to you..
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 2) The gentile followers of Paul, called Pauline Christians were the ones who worshipped Jesus, cisco - not the Jewish Christians. Pagan based Pauline Christianity is what you believe in today.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 So Peter, Luke, John, Mary, where Pauline Christians? Stop already, the sources have shown that Christians believed in Jesus before Paul became a christian. You were already refuted on that and you couldn't give any answer concerning the book of acts. The only thing you did as a counter was make up the date of the book of acts, when ever single history based site (including wiki) shows that Acts was written before AD 70.
you are hilarious.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat - The living Mary was a Jewess and had nothing to do with Pauline Christianity. Peter was also a Jewish Christian - not a Pauline Christian. Two kinds of Christians - remember? Jewish Christians believed him to be a man. Pauline christians 30 years later made him into a god. Modern Scholars affirm a date of authorship of Acts after 70 A.D., some even after 100 A.D. Those who want an earlier date, like you, are more concerned about making the bible story "work".
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 @cisco19 LOL, but you said before that the Christianity today started from Rome-Constantine? But i guess since you found out that the Rome argument you gave was dumb, you are going to still stick with the Paul one and just ignore every academic source and logistics that show the whole "Pauline Christians" have have so many historical holes.
The first Christians where Jesus' contemporaries and the book of Acts, to even their Death Records all say they worshiped Jesus. You Failed
cisco19 4 months ago
@cisco19 but you said before that the Christianity today started from Rome-Constantine? Pauline Christianity became organized and took the earlier form of belief that we have today, after Constantine made it legal. Are you home schooled or did you go to a religious school that fed you dogmatized "history"?
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 lol, but wasn't this already shown to you to be 100% false? You keep on repeating the Pauline Christianity, while ignoring the basic points of history that has been already shown to you. You are considering scholar history as dogmatic and that is because you are uneducated, you even made the claim that Acts is around 90 AD, with constant different arguments that are all incoherent with each other. Jesus' followers he was god, we already gave you historians. Stop being a moron.
cisco19 4 months ago
@cisco19 The first Christians where Jesus' contemporaries and the book of Acts, to even their Death Records all say they worshiped Jesus. You Failed
"
The first "Christians" who WERE Jesus' contemporaries were Judeo-Christians (Ebionites) who believed that Jesus was a man. The book of Acts was written long after Jesus death and by this time Paul's gentile Christians believed he was a God.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 You are getting tiring to argue with, you are just ignoring everything that is posted and refuse to use logic. As said MILLIONS OF TIMES, the apostles death records record that they where worshiped Jesus. If you say they believed him to be a man, then why where they executed/persecuted with in early Palestine?
Why do you ignore the book of acts when it says that they all worshiped Jesus as God? Shut up already.. you really don't want except failure, do you? start reading.
cisco19 4 months ago
@cisco19 -Why do you ignore the book of acts"
Because history contradicts it.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@cisco19 The book of acts is considered by scholars to be before AD 70 "
Name the scholars, cisco.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 Richard Carrier, Michael Grant, William Durrant, FM Bruce. It's common sense, Luke died at AD 84, and the contents in acts predate the ad 70 destruction and Nero. You are a waste of time already, you are just replying random false arguments for the sake of not losing. The fact that you think Acts was made around the 90's shows you are just forcing it already, You've been done a long time ago, you couldn't even decide on what to argue about awhile ago.
cisco19 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 The book of Acts was made around 90 AD? So from what you said, Luke wrote acts after he died? I think you actually know deep down that your arguments have been going down hill for a long time ago... and you are actually in need of scholars for the time line of Acts?
You confirm over and over again that you don't know what you've talking about, it's like you make up random arguments with out even checking if it's right. I think you should stop and take the loss..
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat - The only apostle whose death the Bible records is James (Acts 12:2). King Herod had James “put to death with the sword,” likely a reference to beheading. The circumstances of the deaths of the other apostles are related through church tradition, so you should not put too much weight on any of the other accounts.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 So what if James was the only Apostle recorded in the bible to die? You think the Bible is the only source of the Apostles? You are not going to stop with this nonsense of yours are, you just can't take the fact that you have been false since the beginning?
The deaths of the apostles are historically accepted, there isn't any scholar who denies their martyrdom records, we've given you proof by citing famous Historians and up to now, you still are forcing it.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat The deaths of the apostles are historically accepted"
The deaths of the apostles is TRADITIONALLY accepted. There is no contemporary writing that descrbes their deaths. In any case, they weren't preaching Pauline dogma because they broke with Paul at Antioch and were not Pauline Christians.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 You are still over this? I already gave you sources and even references to show you that Christianity's doctrine existed before Paul. Why are you ignoring the book of acts that records the practices of the first christians, none of them where followers of Paul. You are barely ignoring every post and just replying with the same refuted and baseless garbage that has been answered reply after reply.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 No, they are historically accepted, please read the works of the Scholars Cisco listed. If they where not preaching "Pauline Christianity", then what where they preaching and where is the proof? Because sadly, you have about 15 dominant scholars cited here that have all said that Jesus' followers lived and died under the same christian faith. We gave you the proof, and right now you have not given anything to support you nonsense.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hybridwhat If they where not preaching "Pauline Christianity", then what where they preaching and where is the proof?"
The Ebionites were practicing Jews who called Paul a liar and heretic. Why would they be preaching his brand of Christianity. Epiphanius and Origin give a good record - why don't you try reading it?
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@hybridwhat So from what you said, Luke wrote acts after he died?"
Early Church Fathers, like Eusebius, passed down a tradition that Paul was martyred in Rome, although there is no reference to Paul's martyrdom in the New Testament..
"But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Eusebius, Church History, book VIII ch. 2 )
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 You never attended History class have you? Of course there is no reference to Paul's death in the Bible because the NT was written before the Apostles died. The apostles are recorded in other sources, not just in the bible. Have you ever heard of Nero? Because the documentations of Nero's time record Paul's death, he was killed by Nero. You really are just arguing for the sake of not losing.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat Other scholars hold that the Romans released Paul, who briefly visited some churches he had planted and then turned west to evangelize Spain, a long-standing dream of his. Paul's Letter to Philemon, written when he was under house arrest, shows he expected acquittal: "Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers" ( And in Clement's letter to the Corinthians, he said that Paul "went to the limit of the West." This points to Spain.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Yeah, the Romans released Paul but as history shows, Paul was in and out of Prison. The book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest, So thanks for banking up our points. Your whole analogy is also invalid, please do better research because their is allot of historical holes,
You are getting annoying. You are replying with out even reading, because as i can see here, you've been replying the same arguments and ignoring the references
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat Is there a way to put this Troll on ignore? It's already getting tiring arguing with him. It's like no matter how many citations or scholar references you give him, he just argues with the same argument. He does not see how many invalid historical claims he made.
Matthew, you need to do your research. Google some of the books those scholars made, i even was generous enough to give you non-christian scholars. It's like you don't even understand english.
cisco19 4 months ago
@cisco19 Is there a way to put this Troll on ignore?"
Easy. Leave. This is not a Christian channel anyway.
.....................
It's like no matter how many citations or scholar references you give him"
Try some of the writings of people like Origin, Justin Martyr and Eusabius.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Why? What is wrong with the citations that date or talk about things that date before them, Is it because it doesn't support your argument? We don't need to look into Justin Martyr or the rest you mentioned because historical references before them have been said and academically supported here.
There is no serious scholar who supports the Pauline argument because of certain references of the apostles, who pre-date Paul... and over all, the book of Acts which was before 70AD.
cisco19 4 months ago
@cisco19 Wrong.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 No. It's you who is wrong and does not want to accept he is wrong and far out full of ignorance. Look how many citations where given to show you Christianity started as a Jesus Worshiping-trinity believing religion. You had historical pin points that all date earlier before any of the things you argued about, and you just ran in circles giving the same old unsupported garbage.
You where wrong when you said Acts was made in the 90's, and everything else.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat I know, i just received a LONG PM from him, and nothing in it pertains to the argument of Christianity's "original" faith.
Anyway, why don't you impress us Matt by showing a reference of Jesus' disciples actually preaching that Jesus was just a man and not lord, if you still want to insist that they never worshiped him regardless of the countless citations/references from scholars, anti-christians, death records, and the Book of Acts? Please don't give something incoherent again
cisco19 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cisco19 Matt by showing a reference of Jesus' disciples actually preaching that Jesus was just a man and not lord
Read Epiphaneus treatise on the Ebionites, the first followers of Jesus.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@hybridwhat Look how many citations where given to show you Christianity started as a Jesus Worshiping-trinity believing religion"
In order to have a "trinity", you need a man god. The man-god wasn't invented until at least 30 years after Jesus death. He was not worshipped as a God during his lifetime and CERTAINLY NOT by his Jewish followers because Jewish belief is that God does not become a man and a man does not become a God. Check out the OT.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@cisco19 You know, i have no idea why some people just can't admit they are wrong regardless of so much proof that has been posted. If this guy wants to ignore the scholar and historic references that where given, there is nothing you can do.
Every single argument he gave was all academically fallacious and he couldn 't even show a source that shows Paul preached the doctrine first, Instead he goes out saying, Acts and all that is wrong when clearly every famous scholar has been posted.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat wrote: "Paul preached the doctrine first"
Jesus was dead for thirty years BEFORE Paul was on the scene. Remember? - Origen (l.c. ii. 1), gives the testimony that all Judæo-Christians were called "Ebionites." The Jewish Christians that fled to the trans-Jordanic land (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iii. 5, 3), remaining true to their Judean traditions, were afterward regarded by Catholics as a heretic sect of Ebionites and in history, were later hunted down and killed by the RCC
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 @Matthew1944 What? Paul came 30 years after Jesus? Jesus died at 30-33 AD Paul died at 67 AD, so you are saying that Paul became a Christian at 60-63 AD, therefore having a 4 year career? When there are Prison records around the 50 AD, and Christian creeds dating at 34 AD?
LOL I'm sorry, i really don't want to start flaming, but you are really bad at this. You are making yourself look ignorant at every post..
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat Paul came 30 years after Jesus?"
Jesus was already dead when Paul came along and his writings begin in 59AD. Paul died in 67AD by tradition. Paul broke with the Jewish Christians (practicing Jews) and went on to invent his own version of Christianity (Pauline Christianity) in which Jesus became a man god. He never knew Jesus nor did he study under the apostles. Check out Pauline Christianity - because Paul is the father of it.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944
Paul's writings doesn't mean he came on the scene during that time. Paul was arrested allot, and he wrote letters during his times in prison/house arrest. Please study history.
Paul never knew Jesus personally, yes. As it shows in Acts. Infact he persecuted Jesus' followers because they claimed him to be God, as in Acts. But you're ignoring that and just forcing around random quotes of 2nd century as if it matters to early AD sources. I'm ignoring you, you are stupid.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat As it shows in Acts. Infact he persecuted Jesus' followers because they claimed him to be God,"
Jews would not proclaim a man to be a god.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 They did. Peter, John, James, Judas, Matt, all believed and preached Jesus was God, it's even in the book of Isiah "He be called Immanuel - God with us.. Ever lasting father, Mighty God..". Paul was not the first or the only one because we see the writings of the Apostles, and also their Death records. Luke documents the practices of the early church in Acts, and every scholar mentioned said they DID.
Stop ignoring the evidence shown to you and shut up.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 The Book of Acts proclaims jesus to be God, it even says Peter, thomas, john etc believed him to be God. The book is written by Luke, who was Jew who used Matt and Mark as a reference for his Gospel. So apparently, there where Jews who did. Why do you ignore this with out showing us actual/other books of his Apostles?
You can't even argue coherently and you are just ignoring every single source whether biblical or academical. You are done and a complete waste of time.
cisco19 4 months ago
@cisco19 There is no serious scholar who supports the Pauline argument because of certain references of the apostles, who pre-date Paul..."
Like the Ebionites?
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 Are you a Jew or a Muslim? Anyway, The Ebionites means "poor". The Ebionites rejected ALLOT of things that Paul never first/only thought, even beliefs of Muslims concerning Jesus. They rejected the Virgin birth, they believe that Jesus became the Christ during his baptism, etc..
Paul's laws for the Church are shown to be referenced by OT verses and the Gospels, which books he never wrote. Do your research.
hybridwhat 4 months ago
@hybridwhat they believe that Jesus became the Christ during his baptism"
Hardly. Read Josephus description of John's baptizing and what it meant. "immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions." It had nothing to do with becoming a "Christian".
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@cisco19 Matthew, you need to do your research."
It is YOU who needs to research cis. Try something outside of your own dogmatic little box.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944
So Celsus, Richard Carrier, Michael Grant, Durrant are all dogmatic? Aren't these names of non-christian scholars? You really like making a fool out of yourself do you? Get over it, there is no academics in the world that supports your argument. There is no evidence that Paul started the christian faith because all the evidence and all the academics show that he didn't. You are a moron if you think it's dogmatic. Stop being in denial and go away.
cisco19 4 months ago
@cisco19 "There is no evidence that Paul started the christian faith because all the evidence "
Really. Is even something as simple as Wiki beyond your ability?
"Pauline Christianity is a term used to refer to the Christianity associated with the beliefs and doctrines espoused by Paul of Tarsus through his writings. Most of orthodox Christianity relies heavily on these teachings and considers them to be amplifications and explanations of the teachings of Jesus. "
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@hybridwhat -The book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest"
Acts is a pretty long way from being absolute history and that is what you are drawing on primarily.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@hybridwhat "Because the documentations of Nero's time record Paul's death, he was killed by Nero"
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275–339) was the first to write that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hybridwhat So from what you said, Luke wrote acts after he died?"
The author of Luke is anonymous. Look it up.
Matthew1944 4 months ago
@Matthew1944 There are Christian writings and Non-Christian historian writings of early AD. The Christian Writings preach Jesus was Christ and God, while the Non-Christian historians told that Christian' worshipped Jesus. I think you are confused now, because you made the statement that the trinity doctrine was invented by Rome or Paul, and the historian references given are to show you that you are wrong. Christians always believed in the trinity. stop switching arguments, please.
hybridwhat 5 months ago
@hybridwhat GENTILE PAULINE CHRISTIANS may have believed in a trinity but to have a trinity in the first place, Jesus would have to be a man-god. That doesn't come from Judaism at the time of Jesus or for thirty years afterward. YOU are confused because you seem to think that the Jewish Christians of the Jerusalem temple are the same as Pauline Christians that came along thirty years later. Remember Paul got hauled up for preaching heresy at Antioch, denied it but was caught.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@hybridwhat 2) He was eventually saved by the Romans by declaring himself to be a Roman Citizen ( 150 years before Jews were granted Roman citizenship by Caracella) and his ties with the apostles were permanently cut because of it. He never knew Jesus and never studied under the apostles. His story was strictly his own invention. Presumably he returned to Rome where your kind of Christianity really got its start in the form of early Catholicism.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 As said before. The only people who believed Jesus to be God where the people who followed him. The historians who don't believe where not there. No one just believes a poor Man is the almighty God in the flesh with out serious evidence or experiencing evidence, that's logic. The non christian historians wrote that Christians believed in Jesus, which is something you where arguing mainly against first. You are not worth the time, you don't even understand your own arguments.
hybridwhat 5 months ago
@hybridwhat The only people who believed Jesus to be God where the people who followed him. "
Jesus and the people who followed him were practicing Jews, hyb. None of them believed him to be a god and certainly not God himself in the flesh. Only the fundies of today believe that he was God himself.
There were two kinds of Christians - not at all the same and that is where your confusion lies. There is no direct line of Pauline Christians going back to the time of the living Jesus.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@hybridwhat Research Cornerstones: How Long Is a Generation? Science Provides an Answer -"- Archive October 2005 Vol. 23 / No. 5
"As a matter of common knowledge, we know that a generation averages about 25 years—from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child—although it varies case by case. We also generally accept that the length of a generation was closer to 20 years in earlier times when humans mated younger and life expectancies were shorter."
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 That is familial generation, the generation being talked about is CULTURAL GENERATION.. Cultural Generations took more than 50 years. It is sociology not genetics. i have no idea why you are using Familial Generation as an argument when the topic is with in Ancient Palestine to early Rome. If you don't or didn't know the difference, then i'm starting to feel sorry for you.
hybridwhat 5 months ago
@hybridwhat i'm starting to feel sorry for you."
Well, that's might white of you, hyb. In thirty years, the story was spread orally. Most of the population was illiterate. After six or so re-tellings, the story changed completely and a man became a god. The Jews were expecting a fully human messiah. Paul's gentile Christians inherited a god-man.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 One generation is 25 years? So a 25 year old man is a generation old. You really are trolling now, and you are just plain ignorant. You can read the works of any classical scholar or historian, 150 years is not long enough for stories of early AD to evolve into Myths. Take a look at Alexander the great, his written sources date 500 years after he died, yet it is still credible. Jesus' references date no less than 10-20 years after he died.
cisco19 5 months ago
@cisco19 Take a look at Alexander the great, his written sources date 500 years after he died, yet it is still credible"
Take a look at the coins inscribed with his profile and his name as well as ancient maps that chart the territories he conquered. Got anything like that for Jesus. I have no doubt that a man lived upon whom this legend is based but he certainly wasn't a God.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944
Acts debunks the argument about Paul creating the Trinity doctrine, and Acts is favored more by historians than any book in the bible. This was told to you repeatedly, and you couldn't give a legit response other than attacking my videos and pretending that various academic sources and historian quotes are voided. You have made so many different arguments already for your case, and each of them contradicts or has no relevance to your past arguments. Go away troll.
cisco19 5 months ago