Poll of the Day > Do you think Jesus was married or had kids?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Metalsonic66 11/30/21 10:22:15 PM #51:	https://youtu.be/xuCn8ux2gbs --- PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69 Big bombs go kabang. <cite>Metalsonic66 posted [p:960508183] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>https://youtu.be/xuCn8ux2gbs </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 12/01/21 2:52:47 AM #52:	OhhhJa posted... Well, you are currently posting and your posts are definitely beyond the A.I. tech that exists for bots. But as far as ancient texts go, especially religious texts, it's safe to assume none of these people were real. I know it's cliche and "edgy" but these texts were used to control populations with limited education Exists as far as you know... And I could still be babies in a trench coat. And that's not really 'proof', just speculation on your part. And yea. It is edgy and cliche. You're basically automatically assuming the worst possible outcome from a pessimistic viewpoint to sculpt a world view dependent on a personal narrative. Wanna know something? Rome was a powerful empire. They regularly squashed rebellions of a multitude of types with practiced ease. Their Hellenistic religion was dominate as well. They had plenty of other people like Egyptians and Gauls who followed their own pantheons and it wasn't an issue. They wouldn't have needed a religion to control the populace because they had the boots of the imperial legions to do it already. Following the collapse of Rome there were still ample revolts and the like but they were kept mostly under control by the nobility and the like. They didn't NEED religion to serve as a means to 'control populations with limited education'. They had the nobles and the knights to deal with that (as well as near-constant wars happening among other things to make it so that the focus was elsewhere anyways). You're basically assuming an all-powerful, malicious, cabal of religious elites existed that was obsessed with obtaining power because they're afraid that some peasants who probably couldn't even consider leaving their local village in the first place unless they were lucky enough to have a horse will revolt and overthrow an entire system of government unless they're sedated with stories of a magic man who loves them that they'd see through in an instant if their knowledge didn't cap out at the best implementation of fertilizer. That's not even skeptical. That's flat-out irrational conspiracy theory. <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:960513513] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>Well, you are currently posting and your posts are definitely beyond the A.I. tech that exists for bots. But as far as ancient texts go, especially religious texts, it's safe to assume none of these people were real. I know it's cliche and "edgy" but these texts were used to control populations with limited education</quote> Exists as far as you know... And I could still be babies in a trench coat. And that's not really 'proof', just speculation on your part. And yea. It is edgy and cliche. You're basically automatically assuming the worst possible outcome from a pessimistic viewpoint to sculpt a world view dependent on a personal narrative. Wanna know something? Rome was a powerful empire. They regularly squashed rebellions of a multitude of types with practiced ease. Their Hellenistic religion was dominate as well. They had plenty of other people like Egyptians and Gauls who followed their own pantheons and it wasn't an issue. They wouldn't have needed a religion to control the populace because they had the boots of the imperial legions to do it already. Following the collapse of Rome there were still ample revolts and the like but they were kept mostly under control by the nobility and the like. They didn't NEED religion to serve as a means to 'control populations with limited education'. They had the nobles and the knights to deal with that (as well as near-constant wars happening among other things to make it so that the focus was elsewhere anyways). You're basically assuming an all-powerful, malicious, cabal of religious elites existed that was obsessed with obtaining power because they're afraid that some peasants who probably couldn't even consider leaving their local village in the first place unless they were lucky enough to have a horse will revolt and overthrow an entire system of government unless they're sedated with stories of a magic man who loves them that they'd see through in an instant if their knowledge didn't cap out at the best implementation of fertilizer. That's not even skeptical. That's flat-out irrational conspiracy theory. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/01/21 8:25:19 AM #53:	Unbridled9 posted... sigh NO. It's neither. The Bible is divided up into a series of multiple, smaller, books (you may have noticed that). Each one having a different origin and purpose. For example, a lot of the New Testament consists of Paul's letters to the various churches that were being established. Psalms is, quite literally, just a song/poem book written by David. Song of Solomon is basically a compellation of love letters/poems shared between Solomon and a lover (I forget who). Saying that they're religious or historical is like saying all video games are RPGs'/Shooters. While there may be some that fit the criteria (like Genesis being religious) others simply are not that. They may all have a religious PURPOSE but that's not the same as being a religious BOOK. We have four books that exist which detail first-hand accounts with the person. Multiple people who were directly antagonistic to Jesus though not once doubting that he exists (remember: Saul was antagonistic to the new religion and did his best to undermine it before being converted). The Catholic Church was founded by Peter who was Jesus's BFF. I can understand doubting that Jesus was the son of God. But doubting that he EXISTS? We know more about him than we do some kings. And I don't see how it's not hypocritical to say that some other figure from ancient history, like Leonidus, existed but then IMMEDIATELY nope out when someone implies Jesus did. That seems utterly hypocritical and non-sensical to me. Apparently the Bible only talks about Jesus. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:960517022] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote> sigh NO. It's neither. The Bible is divided up into a series of multiple, smaller, books (you may have noticed that). Each one having a different origin and purpose. For example, a lot of the New Testament consists of Paul's letters to the various churches that were being established. Psalms is, quite literally, just a song/poem book written by David. Song of Solomon is basically a compellation of love letters/poems shared between Solomon and a lover (I forget who). Saying that they're religious or historical is like saying all video games are RPGs'/Shooters. While there may be some that fit the criteria (like Genesis being religious) others simply are not that. They may all have a religious PURPOSE but that's not the same as being a religious BOOK. We have four books that exist which detail first-hand accounts with the person. Multiple people who were directly antagonistic to Jesus though not once doubting that he exists (remember: Saul was antagonistic to the new religion and did his best to undermine it before being converted). The Catholic Church was founded by Peter who was Jesus's BFF. I can understand doubting that Jesus was the son of God. But doubting that he EXISTS? We know more about him than we do some kings. And I don't see how it's not hypocritical to say that some other figure from ancient history, like Leonidus, existed but then IMMEDIATELY nope out when someone implies Jesus did. That seems utterly hypocritical and non-sensical to me. </quote> Apparently the Bible only talks about Jesus.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 12/01/21 9:10:13 AM #54:	Unbridled9 posted... Exists as far as you know... And I could still be babies in a trench coat. And that's not really 'proof', just speculation on your part. And yea. It is edgy and cliche. You're basically automatically assuming the worst possible outcome from a pessimistic viewpoint to sculpt a world view dependent on a personal narrative. Wanna know something? Rome was a powerful empire. They regularly squashed rebellions of a multitude of types with practiced ease. Their Hellenistic religion was dominate as well. They had plenty of other people like Egyptians and Gauls who followed their own pantheons and it wasn't an issue. They wouldn't have needed a religion to control the populace because they had the boots of the imperial legions to do it already. Following the collapse of Rome there were still ample revolts and the like but they were kept mostly under control by the nobility and the like. They didn't NEED religion to serve as a means to 'control populations with limited education'. They had the nobles and the knights to deal with that (as well as near-constant wars happening among other things to make it so that the focus was elsewhere anyways). You're basically assuming an all-powerful, malicious, cabal of religious elites existed that was obsessed with obtaining power because they're afraid that some peasants who probably couldn't even consider leaving their local village in the first place unless they were lucky enough to have a horse will revolt and overthrow an entire system of government unless they're sedated with stories of a magic man who loves them that they'd see through in an instant if their knowledge didn't cap out at the best implementation of fertilizer. That's not even skeptical. That's flat-out irrational conspiracy theory. Oops I think I punched someone in their religious feels. You can tell me probably nothing about Rome I don't already know. I listened to the entire famous history of Rome podcast (an absolute shitload of info more than any textbook has). Also, holy strawman arguments. What can't be explained as using it as a form of control can be explained as making up a skyman and fairy tales to cope with death. I don't know if you've read the Bible but everything in it is "slightly" far fetched <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:960517834] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted... </cite> <quote>Exists as far as you know... And I could still be babies in a trench coat. And that's not really 'proof', just speculation on your part. And yea. It is edgy and cliche. You're basically automatically assuming the worst possible outcome from a pessimistic viewpoint to sculpt a world view dependent on a personal narrative. Wanna know something? Rome was a powerful empire. They regularly squashed rebellions of a multitude of types with practiced ease. Their Hellenistic religion was dominate as well. They had plenty of other people like Egyptians and Gauls who followed their own pantheons and it wasn't an issue. They wouldn't have needed a religion to control the populace because they had the boots of the imperial legions to do it already. Following the collapse of Rome there were still ample revolts and the like but they were kept mostly under control by the nobility and the like. They didn't NEED religion to serve as a means to 'control populations with limited education'. They had the nobles and the knights to deal with that (as well as near-constant wars happening among other things to make it so that the focus was elsewhere anyways). You're basically assuming an all-powerful, malicious, cabal of religious elites existed that was obsessed with obtaining power because they're afraid that some peasants who probably couldn't even consider leaving their local village in the first place unless they were lucky enough to have a horse will revolt and overthrow an entire system of government unless they're sedated with stories of a magic man who loves them that they'd see through in an instant if their knowledge didn't cap out at the best implementation of fertilizer. That's not even skeptical. That's flat-out irrational conspiracy theory.</quote>Oops I think I punched someone in their religious feels. You can tell me probably nothing about Rome I don't already know. I listened to the entire famous history of Rome podcast (an absolute shitload of info more than any textbook has). Also, holy strawman arguments. What can't be explained as using it as a form of control can be explained as making up a skyman and fairy tales to cope with death. I don't know if you've read the Bible but everything in it is "slightly" far fetched </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnMead 12/01/21 9:14:24 AM #55:	i heard Rome got sacked by some big TIDDY goth girlfriends --- Trying. We'll see. <cite>UnMead posted [p:960517933] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>i heard Rome got sacked by some big TIDDY goth girlfriends </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 12/01/21 11:09:18 AM #56:	I've read through the Bible multiple times. It's why I find your claim ridiculous. Because you seem to be arbitrary deciding if something exists or not based upon a massively pessimistic and self-serving world view. <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:960520426] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>I've read through the Bible multiple times. It's why I find your claim ridiculous. Because you seem to be arbitrary deciding if something exists or not based upon a massively pessimistic and self-serving world view. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 12/01/21 11:51:24 AM #57:	Unbridled9 posted... massively pessimistic and self-serving world view. You can keep repeating this but it won't make it true. Seems like something holier than thou brainwashed religious types regurgitate <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:960521495] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted... </cite> <quote>massively pessimistic and self-serving world view.</quote>You can keep repeating this but it won't make it true. Seems like something holier than thou brainwashed religious types regurgitate </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KodyKeir 12/01/21 5:29:05 PM #58:	Zikten posted... I don't think he ever existed. I'm not convinced. I have this theory that maybe he is based on an amalgamation of several people. Apparently there were a lot of prophets running around Judea then. Possibly a bunch of individuals had their stories mixed up, combined and exaggerated until one legendary figure was invented MeadCore posted... I dont think it matters if he existed or not. Because he exists now in the minds of so many. He exists to them more than most humans that actually existed. So who is more real in the end? For me it comes down to, If you are asking me if the man, Joshua of Galilee existed, and had a wife and children, I would say yes. If you are asking me if Jesus The Christ exists, I would say in the hearts and minds of those that believe in him. --- Why didn't you DODGE‽‽‽ Quoting me will trigger the profanity filter, Not Joking. I've been Scunthorped! Consider yourself warned. <cite>KodyKeir posted [p:960531581] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Zikten posted... </cite> <quote>I don't think he ever existed. I'm not convinced. I have this theory that maybe he is based on an amalgamation of several people. Apparently there were a lot of prophets running around Judea then. Possibly a bunch of individuals had their stories mixed up, combined and exaggerated until one legendary figure was invented</quote> MeadCore posted... </cite> <quote>I dont think it matters if he existed or not. Because he exists now in the minds of so many. He exists to them more than most humans that actually existed. So who is more real in the end?</quote> For me it comes down to, If you are asking me if the man, Joshua of Galilee existed, and had a wife and children, I would say yes. If you are asking me if Jesus The Christ exists, I would say in the hearts and minds of those that believe in him. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 12/01/21 5:37:17 PM #59:	captpackrat posted... There are numerous references to Jesus in ancient writings, such as the works of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus. Nice. I read that part of the wiki word for word as well. <cite>Cacciato posted [p:960531820] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>captpackrat posted... </cite> <quote>There are numerous references to Jesus in ancient writings, such as the works of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.</quote>Nice. I read that part of the wiki word for word as well. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 12/01/21 6:29:38 PM #60:	OhhhJa posted... You can keep repeating this but it won't make it true. Seems like something holier than thou brainwashed religious types regurgitate You can keep repeating this but it won't be true. Seems like something holier than thou, brainwashed, atheist types regurgitate. Honestly, I've seen far more braindead, close-minded, fanatical, holier-than-thou types on the atheist side than the theist side in these arguments. Not really much point in continuing this though since I'm no longer convinced you aren't just a sock puppet controlled by Dawkins. <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:960533337] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>You can keep repeating this but it won't make it true. Seems like something holier than thou brainwashed religious types regurgitate</quote> You can keep repeating this but it won't be true. Seems like something holier than thou, brainwashed, atheist types regurgitate. Honestly, I've seen far more braindead, close-minded, fanatical, holier-than-thou types on the atheist side than the theist side in these arguments. Not really much point in continuing this though since I'm no longer convinced you aren't just a sock puppet controlled by Dawkins. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 12/01/21 7:06:05 PM #61:	Unbridled9 posted... You can keep repeating this but it won't be true. Seems like something holier than thou, brainwashed, atheist types regurgitate. Honestly, I've seen far more braindead, close-minded, fanatical, holier-than-thou types on the atheist side than the theist side in these arguments. Not really much point in continuing this though since I'm no longer convinced you aren't just a sock puppet controlled by Dawkins. Lol you mad <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:960534408] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted... </cite> <quote>You can keep repeating this but it won't be true. Seems like something holier than thou, brainwashed, atheist types regurgitate. Honestly, I've seen far more braindead, close-minded, fanatical, holier-than-thou types on the atheist side than the theist side in these arguments. Not really much point in continuing this though since I'm no longer convinced you aren't just a sock puppet controlled by Dawkins.</quote>Lol you mad </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 12/01/21 7:07:53 PM #62:	What's funny though is that I'm not even as atheist nor am I really that familiar with Dawkins. Just shows how close-minded you are. You're either radical Christian or atheist I guess <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:960534452] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>What's funny though is that I'm not even as atheist nor am I really that familiar with Dawkins. Just shows how close-minded you are. You're either radical Christian or atheist I guess </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 12/01/21 7:10:06 PM #63:	Damn, he missed an opportunity to use the phrase Dawk puppet <cite>Cacciato posted [p:960534516] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Damn, he missed an opportunity to use the phrase Dawk puppet </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66 12/01/21 7:41:22 PM #64:	Unbridled9 posted... I've seen far more braindead, close-minded, fanatical, holier-than-thou types on the atheist side than the theist side in these arguments iBelieveYou.gif --- PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69 Big bombs go kabang. <cite>Metalsonic66 posted [p:960535349] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted... </cite> <quote>I've seen far more braindead, close-minded, fanatical, holier-than-thou types on the atheist side than the theist side in these arguments</quote>iBelieveYou.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/02/21 12:44:40 AM #65:	Unbridled9 posted... You can keep repeating this but it won't be true. Seems like something holier than thou, brainwashed, atheist types regurgitate. Honestly, I've seen far more braindead, close-minded, fanatical, holier-than-thou types on the atheist side than the theist side in these arguments. Not really much point in continuing this though since I'm no longer convinced you aren't just a sock puppet controlled by Dawkins. Posts like this are ridiculous considering you use the bible as a "historical source" then claim that it's completely valid while not citing any external sources. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:960543084] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote> You can keep repeating this but it won't be true. Seems like something holier than thou, brainwashed, atheist types regurgitate. Honestly, I've seen far more braindead, close-minded, fanatical, holier-than-thou types on the atheist side than the theist side in these arguments. Not really much point in continuing this though since I'm no longer convinced you aren't just a sock puppet controlled by Dawkins. </quote> Posts like this are ridiculous considering you use the bible as a "historical source" then claim that it's completely valid while not citing any external sources.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 12/02/21 2:02:34 AM #66:	jesus came --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:960544270] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>jesus came </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 12/02/21 2:12:13 AM #67:	Revelation34 posted... Posts like this are ridiculous considering you use the bible as a "historical source" then claim that it's completely valid while not citing any external sources. I seem to recall saying that the Bible wasn't a historical source but, rather, a collection of various documents, organized into books, with varying intentions. But that's sort of irrelevant here. The question being asked is not if Christianity is true or not. It's if Jesus existed or not. For that the Bible has a compilation of four first-hand accounts that he did, in fact, exist. The faith didn't slowly form over centuries or anything of the sort but, rather, sprung up swiftly with a clear centralized message revolving around the actions of a single individual. A single individual who was only in the limelight for a relatively short timeframe in a small region of the world before his death. It would be next to impossible to have an outside source confirm his existence before his death because they would have such a small timeframe to even take note of it. There are some accounts from non-Christian sources such as Tacitus referencing that Christ had been executed by Pilate. However even this account came about AFTER his death meaning that, even if it was 100% accurate and factual, Tacitus did not meet Jesus and thusly didn't have a first-hand account of him. And, really, think about it. Who WOULD have written about it? If you were in India you wouldn't have even known he was around. Few Romans would have cared about the religious dealings of a subjugated people causing problems in a faith they weren't a part of. I wish I knew what reasonable burden of proof could even be given in a situation like this because, if four first hand accounts combined with an entire religion springing up around a very specific individual aren't proof that said individual existed, I don't know what proof could even be asked. <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:960544393] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>Posts like this are ridiculous considering you use the bible as a "historical source" then claim that it's completely valid while not citing any external sources.</quote> I seem to recall saying that the Bible wasn't a historical source but, rather, a collection of various documents, organized into books, with varying intentions. But that's sort of irrelevant here. The question being asked is not if Christianity is true or not. It's if Jesus existed or not. For that the Bible has a compilation of four first-hand accounts that he did, in fact, exist. The faith didn't slowly form over centuries or anything of the sort but, rather, sprung up swiftly with a clear centralized message revolving around the actions of a single individual. A single individual who was only in the limelight for a relatively short timeframe in a small region of the world before his death. It would be next to impossible to have an outside source confirm his existence before his death because they would have such a small timeframe to even take note of it. There are some accounts from non-Christian sources such as Tacitus referencing that Christ had been executed by Pilate. However even this account came about AFTER his death meaning that, even if it was 100% accurate and factual, Tacitus did not meet Jesus and thusly didn't have a first-hand account of him. And, really, think about it. Who WOULD have written about it? If you were in India you wouldn't have even known he was around. Few Romans would have cared about the religious dealings of a subjugated people causing problems in a faith they weren't a part of. I wish I knew what reasonable burden of proof could even be given in a situation like this because, if four first hand accounts combined with an entire religion springing up around a very specific individual aren't proof that said individual existed, I don't know what proof could even be asked. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/02/21 2:15:04 AM #68:	Unbridled9 posted... I seem to recall saying that the Bible wasn't a historical source but, rather, a collection of various documents, organized into books, with varying intentions. But that's sort of irrelevant here. The question being asked is not if Christianity is true or not. It's if Jesus existed or not. For that the Bible has a compilation of four first-hand accounts that he did, in fact, exist. The faith didn't slowly form over centuries or anything of the sort but, rather, sprung up swiftly with a clear centralized message revolving around the actions of a single individual. A single individual who was only in the limelight for a relatively short timeframe in a small region of the world before his death. It would be next to impossible to have an outside source confirm his existence before his death because they would have such a small timeframe to even take note of it. There are some accounts from non-Christian sources such as Tacitus referencing that Christ had been executed by Pilate. However even this account came about AFTER his death meaning that, even if it was 100% accurate and factual, Tacitus did not meet Jesus and thusly didn't have a first-hand account of him. And, really, think about it. Who WOULD have written about it? If you were in India you wouldn't have even known he was around. Few Romans would have cared about the religious dealings of a subjugated people causing problems in a faith they weren't a part of. I wish I knew what reasonable burden of proof could even be given in a situation like this because, if four first hand accounts combined with an entire religion springing up around a very specific individual aren't proof that said individual existed, I don't know what proof could even be asked. You said it multiple times including this post. Jesus existed only because external accounts say so. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:960544432] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote> I seem to recall saying that the Bible wasn't a historical source but, rather, a collection of various documents, organized into books, with varying intentions. But that's sort of irrelevant here. The question being asked is not if Christianity is true or not. It's if Jesus existed or not. For that the Bible has a compilation of four first-hand accounts that he did, in fact, exist. The faith didn't slowly form over centuries or anything of the sort but, rather, sprung up swiftly with a clear centralized message revolving around the actions of a single individual. A single individual who was only in the limelight for a relatively short timeframe in a small region of the world before his death. It would be next to impossible to have an outside source confirm his existence before his death because they would have such a small timeframe to even take note of it. There are some accounts from non-Christian sources such as Tacitus referencing that Christ had been executed by Pilate. However even this account came about AFTER his death meaning that, even if it was 100% accurate and factual, Tacitus did not meet Jesus and thusly didn't have a first-hand account of him. And, really, think about it. Who WOULD have written about it? If you were in India you wouldn't have even known he was around. Few Romans would have cared about the religious dealings of a subjugated people causing problems in a faith they weren't a part of. I wish I knew what reasonable burden of proof could even be given in a situation like this because, if four first hand accounts combined with an entire religion springing up around a very specific individual aren't proof that said individual existed, I don't know what proof could even be asked. </quote> You said it multiple times including this post. Jesus existed only because external accounts say so.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnMead 12/02/21 2:16:40 AM #69:	Revelation34 posted... You said it multiple times including this post. Jesus existed only because external accounts say so. thats quite clearly a logical fallacy, really evaluate it, I think it would benefit you --- Trying. We'll see. <cite>UnMead posted [p:960544453] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>You said it multiple times including this post. Jesus existed only because external accounts say so.</quote> thats quite clearly a logical fallacy, really evaluate it, I think it would benefit you </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/02/21 2:17:26 AM #70:	UnMead posted... thats quite clearly a logical fallacy, really evaluate it, I think it would benefit you Prove it's a fallacy then. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:960544471] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>UnMead posted...</cite> <quote> thats quite clearly a logical fallacy, really evaluate it, I think it would benefit you </quote> Prove it's a fallacy then.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnMead 12/02/21 2:21:20 AM #71:	Revelation34 posted... Prove it's a fallacy then. make me --- Trying. We'll see. <cite>UnMead posted [p:960544522] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>Prove it's a fallacy then.</quote> make me </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GGuirao13 12/03/21 3:11:09 AM #72:	No. --- Donald J. Trump--proof against government intelligence. <cite>GGuirao13 posted [p:960576502] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>No. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Conner4REAL 12/03/21 6:46:24 AM #73:	Was Jesus the one that married tge 9 year old? Or was that Moses? maybe it was Muhammad or Buddha? i know it was one of the super best friends but I have trouble keeping my fictional characters right. --- "I pet my dog I don't eat it" ~ Lemone <cite>Conner4REAL posted [p:960578814] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Was Jesus the one that married tge 9 year old? Or was that Moses? maybe it was Muhammad or Buddha? i know it was one of the super best friends but I have trouble keeping my fictional characters right. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Conner4REAL 12/03/21 6:52:26 AM #74:	Spider-Man also has first hand accounts of Spider-Man existing.... the only historical mention of a historical Jesus is allegedly roman writings. however. Given the times the mythology comes from anyone could be the basis for the stories. A wandering preacher would not be uncommon. But whether they were nammed Jesus or even fit the rest of the check boxes of christian mythology is another story. who is to say the mythology isnt based on a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time nammed Brian? --- "I pet my dog I don't eat it" ~ Lemone <cite>Conner4REAL posted [p:960578876] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Spider-Man also has first hand accounts of Spider-Man existing.... the only historical mention of a historical Jesus is allegedly roman writings. however. Given the times the mythology comes from anyone could be the basis for the stories. A wandering preacher would not be uncommon. But whether they were nammed Jesus or even fit the rest of the check boxes of christian mythology is another story. who is to say the mythology isnt based on a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time nammed Brian? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 12/03/21 11:45:53 PM #75:	Conner4REAL posted... Was Jesus the one that married tge 9 year old? Or was that Moses? maybe it was Muhammad or Buddha? i know it was one of the super best friends but I have trouble keeping my fictional characters right. I'm pretty sure it was Muhammad. Jesus never married, Moses's wives (I think he had two) were both adults as far as we can tell and Buddha married Yaodhar when they were both 16. <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:960604460] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Conner4REAL posted... </cite> <quote>Was Jesus the one that married tge 9 year old? Or was that Moses? maybe it was Muhammad or Buddha? i know it was one of the super best friends but I have trouble keeping my fictional characters right.</quote> I'm pretty sure it was Muhammad. Jesus never married, Moses's wives (I think he had two) were both adults as far as we can tell and Buddha married Yaodhar when they were both 16. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 12/03/21 11:47:14 PM #76:	Conner4REAL posted... I have trouble keeping my fictional characters right. Hmmmmm. You know. I think this may be trolling. <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:960604500] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Conner4REAL posted... </cite> <quote>I have trouble keeping my fictional characters right.</quote> Hmmmmm. You know. I think this may be trolling. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MeadCore 12/03/21 11:49:28 PM #77:	Jesus probably had a wife but she was probably like a 4 and people were just trying to be nice --- Mead alt. It's fine. <cite>MeadCore posted [p:960604540] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>Jesus probably had a wife but she was probably like a 4 and people were just trying to be nice </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Teenaged_Jesus 12/04/21 12:15:36 AM #78:	girls are ucky --- no one ever talks about jesus when he was a teenager it's always baby jesus then straight to adult jesus <cite>Teenaged_Jesus posted [p:960605148] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>girls are ucky</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan 12/04/21 12:52:43 AM #79:	I dunno and I'm not going to pretend that I do, but I'm pretty sure this is relevant somehow. https://twitter.com/ThinkAtheist/status/1466166806083784705?fbclid=IwAR2ihCjYxTA2LoyPpR5oDxhJX0e9eDEoPklBHvTqLCB_LcFjc1DiEKtO48w --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:960605773] in Do you thi... [t:79785683]...</cite> <quote>I dunno and I'm not going to pretend that I do, but I'm pretty sure this is relevant somehow. https://twitter.com/ThinkAtheist/status/1466166806083784705?fbclid=IwAR2ihCjYxTA2LoyPpR5oDxhJX0e9eDEoPklBHvTqLCB_LcFjc1DiEKtO48w </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Do you think Jesus was married or had kids? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Do you think Jesus was married or had kids?