Your opinion.
Again, all specualtion, opinion, no facts coming from you all.
And none of it is speculation on your part? Just because something has been written at some point in the distant past doesn't make it any more valid than anything else. So many specifics about when the books of the bible were written, who wrote them, and references to date and time for biblical events, and what the translations and language from the period really meant is under dispute by so many people. So how do you make the claim that what you have to day and what is interpreted from that is in any way the genuine article?
With all this hate in your post for Christians and the Bible, why bother? Im not going through the trouble of finding this for you and you will dismiss whatever I post because you are a hatemonger. Thats the old game you hatemongers play. :|
Don't confuse hatred with logical scrutiny.
I'll start paying attention to Christ's teachings when Christians start to.
If more people did this, the world would be a much better place.
Yep, everytime someone brings something to the table, it's a "trick" or "generous interpretation", or "Forgery" or [insert statement of denial here].. all done under the false premise of what's in there can't be true becasue I said it isn't, while not offering one shred of solid evidence to back the claim that is absent of speculation.
Not a trick, just a rational explanation.
Many historians mentioned him. If he wasn't a legend in his time how do you explain the incredibly rapid spread of Christianity?
there are non biblical historical accounts of Jesus at approximately that time period. And given the fact that there were many prophets and that Jeshua (Aramaic for Jesus) was a common given name at that time, sugget a probability that there was a Prophet by the name of Jeshua around the 1st century AD. However claims such as walking on water resurrection etc. Can easily be chalked up to embellishments by the Council of Nicea, and The Council of Ephesus in order to convert Rome to Christianity at the time.
That's an interesting hypothesis. So you actually think that a group of people deliberately met to craft a religion based entirely of pieces of myths and other religions. What is your rationale for holding this belief? Do you have any actual evidence of collusion and intent to deceive mankind?
LMAO!
Go learn some history because that is basically what happened.
Constantine converted Rome to Christianity in the 4th century. In the process, much of the doctrine was revised to include elements of Paganism and Mythology. Christmas, and Easter hold their origins in Pagan celebrations of the winter solstice and spring equinox.
Constantine is the man most directly responsible for the spread and dominance of Christianity throughout the west. He also gave the Catholic Church Authority at around that time. Prior to this Christianity was widely considered a cult with small underground sects throughout the empire and was banned until the early 4th century.
It's a huge stretch of the imagination! What evidence do you have other than idle speculation that you imagine might be true? Seriously.
Projection
🙂
