keeps the goyim from massacring the vermin

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#44003146)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism#Karaism_in_Rabbinic_Jewish_opinion

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43976726)

*reads ethnic heritage of both sides unironically, calling it "infallible"*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43977248)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43977258)

So any historical account we have of jesus today comes from these written attestations that appear to have had wholly different authors writing about different aspects of a man's life from different perspectives. All of the attestations are quirky in their own way, and they betray their authors' biases in certain ways at times.

But there are also points where they agree. For example, they all agree that this nigga told a man that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Multiple people, coming writing at totally different times, coming at this from multiple perspectives, all attest that this nigga said that. So you have that to deal with.

Then you have what textual critics call the Criterion of Embarrassment. This follows from the same logic that makes statements against legal/pecuniary interest admissible hearsay exceptions: the person wouldn't have said that shit if it wasn't true. So for example, when Jesus disowns his mom in Mark, that's not something you put in there if you were inventing a story about a fictional character who's mom is literally the virgin Mary. The same is true with the story that this shorty was born in NAZARETH. Nazareth was like the Arkansas of its time, not a place where KANGZ is supposed to be born, which is why they had to invent this absurd story about a census that requires you to travel to the place where your ancestors lived centuries ago. If they were inventing the whole character of Jesus from whole cloth, they would have made it MUCH easier to trace his lineage to King David.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43979022)

Furthermore, the number of such manuscripts is virtually nothing for most of these works. We have like 800 bible manuscripts at maybe 6 of the Republic, which I think is #2 or something for most manuscripts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#44001892)

The earliest date any one can plausibly put forth for the authorship of the earliest gospel is ~60 years after Jesus died. Imagine being told to write a biography of LBJ today, without making reference to any other historical source about LBJ. That's what the authors of the gospel were doing. They could have easily been educated pagans who converted to Christianity and devoted themselves to making an academic study of it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43977367)

On the other hand, we can infer from the very fact that these books exist, that Jesus existed and was an influential figure in his own lifetime. Only someone who truly left a mark on people would have inspired these books to have been written about him a good 60-250 years after he died. You try having that kind of impact on people.

By the time these books were written, this man had a very large following. I mean people who never knew this dude, never saw the bible (because it hadn't been written), were getting together and doing all kinds of sick ritualistic shit in service of this one guy. This got so big that these literate doods who couldn't just write Greek, but could write very very well in Greek, sat down and did their best to write it all down. We don't know who they were, or for whom they were writing. They could have been the ancient equivalent of McKinsey consultants.

We KNOW it isn't like these doods named John, Mark, Matthew and Luke were all pals of Jesus, and after he died they all wrote their memoirs and passed them on.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43979130)

if youre asking me why some people wrote love letters to a dead jew, its probably because they were barbaric retards

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43979175)

Any one person with the talent and skill to write these gospels would have been expected to be in the service of elites, one way or another. It's very far fetched to think early churches could have commissioned this sort of thing, and it's also hard to imagine that someone capable of writing Mark in 70AD would have spent his entire adult life as a Christian.

Finally, why isn't there ANYTHING about this recorded in Jewish texts of any sort? Why were all of the gospels written in Greek?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43980673)

i wouldnt expect someone with a reddit-tier understanding of Christianity to be able to meaningfully understand this, though

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43979167)

do better, saul

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43979205)

i roughly imagine you as this (youre on the left):

https://postimg.cc/gLqBxVd2

protip: Jesus is neither dead nor "Jewish" in the same sense you are, saul, kinda the whole point of the religion lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43979278)

Author: cabal

im going to kill myself

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033545&forum_id=2#43978991)

why wait? PROVE me wrong

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43979316)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43979338)

Do I really know if this d00d is ethnically Jewish? No, but he's certainly acting like a big yid. The idea is to draw a a distinction between Jesus's historical status as a Jew and what modern Jewishness entails.

I am sorry I got you and Postradumbass confused in that other thread and called you one of the worst poasters here. That was my mistake. You're a pretty CR poaster on most stuff. You see the insanity of modern shitliberalism and I respect that. Wish you weren't an atheist but I can let bygones be bygones on these squabbles we've had.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#43981769)

First, let's start with the "agreed upon facts" as it were. You might think that's hard to do but it's not. Here are some facts:

1. The nigga was born in Nazareth. We know that because no one would make it up (criterion of embarassment). Also, it satisfies the criterion of multiple attestation, because it appears in multiple gospels with different source material.

2. The nigga thought you had to be broke af to enter the kingdom of God. The story of the rich young ruler satisfies both of the above criteria. In addition, it satisfies the criterion of embarassment: it cuts against official church doctrine, and the church has had to do a lot of tap dancing over the centuries when people ask about it.

3. Nigga had 12 followers and was called king of the jews. We don't know why they put that on the cross, but it satisfies all of the above listed criteria (incl. criterion of embarassment. I'll return to this in a bit.

4. Nigga was crucified. Satisfies all the above listed criteria (and yes, incl. criterion of embarassment).

5. If we didn't multiple attestation but go with strict criterion of embarassment, there's a lot of other embarassing stuff that pops up, like Jesus giving his mom the cold shoulder and admitting that people in his home town think he's crazy. Also, there's nothing in the text to indicate that Jesus thought judgment day was some far off remote event that could occur at any time in the next 10k years. He can be much more plausibly read to being telling his followers that judgment day is coming soon. You need to hurry up and ditch all your money and your belongings NOW.

From this we can surmise a few things:

A. Jesus was almost certainly some sort of commie who was against property ownership. The thing everyone remembers about this nigga more than anything is that he was from nowhere, was broke af and didn't own anything, and was telling others to give up all their shit too.

B. The money changing thing wasn't about money or lending or any of that, but most likely about the fact that jews who were coming to sacrifice animals at that time could buy one at the temple instead of bringing it all the way from home. The money changers were there to make sure people with random types of money could still buy goats and whatnot to sacrifice, and Jesus was probably the type of jew who thought it wasn't a real sacrifice unless you copped the animal back home and brought it all the way to Jerusalem (this also lines up with what we know about the Essenes and their beef with the "pharisees").

C. Jesus was probably trying to stage an overthrow of the temple leadership. He had 12 disciples, one for each of the tribes of Israel ready to go. He had a beef with these doods about jewish law, some Essene shit that is mostly really boring. If you get into all the things these niggas argue about it's really absurd. Like they both agreed that if you pour purified oil from a purified contained into an impure container, the oil became un-purified. But Essenes thought the impurity from the receiving vessel also traveled upstream, contaminated the rest of the purified oil and made the purified vessel impure as well.

D. Judas probably ratted out Jesus to the temple authorities. The official story makes no sense, because no one would have needed Judas to identify Jesus after the ruckus Jesus had just caused at the money tables. More likely, Judas revealed Jesus' intention to stage a coup.

E. "King of the Jews" was mostly likely a taunt. HJICs were making fun of this nigga for thinking he could get away with it. Of course the killt him in the most gruesome and humiliating way possible.

The resurrection and miracles were added later to sell him to jews. Maybe Jesus early on had a big cult following among jews that somehow roped in a bunch of gentiles. There is a line of thought that Jesus converted most of the non-satanic jews

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5033248&forum_id=2#44001192)