A girl in a Santa hat stared, wide-eyed. Other children shot confused looks at their moms and dads
He must be a GAFer
I'm sorry but this is just hilarious.
Jesus was a real person that existed. Whether he had spiritual powers and was the Son of God is what is disputed.
Jesus was a real person that existed. Whether he had spiritual powers and was the Son of God is what is disputed.
This is the same asshole who got my shit city on the news for setting up a Quran burning a few years back.Of course it's Amarillo.
OF COURSE
lol. pretty much.but god is real, trust me!
It's certainly not a historical fact that Jesus (even ignoring the spiritual elements) existed. I don't mean that as an insult to religious people at all obviously, just giving the factual historical perspective. There is no way we could ever know as it is simply impossible to proveat this point.
There are theories that several prophets from over the years got mashed together in the Jesus figure we know from the bible and other religious texts (Jesus's existence is also acknowledged in the Quran for example), with obviously the mythological aspects added later. But evem that is simply a theory - there is simply no way of proving whether Jesus was a real person, several people, if he was always a myth or simply a parable intended merely as a figure to live up to that over time was transformed into 'the truth' according to some religious institutions. There is even interesting historical support for the idea that Jesus was simply a transformation/collection of various stories and legends that predate the origin of the Jesus myth by centuries.
The only thing we can say for certain is that nobody knows if Jesus (the man, not even necesarilly the son of god) existed. All we can say is that it's very likely he didn't, given the proof we have.
Of course, everyone is free to believe otherwise and I don't mean to insult anyone with this. That is why it's called faith - and while I do not share that faith I do think it's powerful. The message of Jesus and how you interpret it matters, not the man.
Also Santa is definitely real. I met him once.
The consensus from historians is that there was a historical Jesus who preached during that timeframe.
"In a related event, a pagan stood next to the evangelical street preacher and shouted that 'Christmas isn't about Christ either' and proceeded to explain that the entire celebration was a wholesale rip off of the pagan winter solstice feast of Saturnalia that was co-opted by the early Church in order to smooth the transition from paganism to Christianity."
Yes but the actual evidence is completely absent. Inference is what that consensus is based on. If there were any hard evidence we'd hear about it nonstop. Historical inference is a normal scholarly tradition. But it is not evidence. And the Josephus mention is highly questionable.
I personally assume he was real but the current version is an amalgam of people and ideas.
I guess Ill speak my Catholic perspective.
I know and everyone knows in my church that Jesus wasnt born in December. The church uses is sort of as a remembrance day for when Jesus was born in a manger. We know he wasnt born on Christmas, also the whole point of christmas is good will towards others anyway and this isnt good will. Jesus would never do that.
This really tarnishes Christianity as a whole and why I dislike these radical evangelicals/Christians for trying to assume the common Christian role.
I stil believe In you though Jesus.
Also how come we aint celebrating this shit in October when he was actually born?
You work with what you got. As far as I know and am aware with, there's the Josephus mention and another. Generally, unless you were an emperor or someone of note, there wouldn't be much in the way of anything referencing you.I think all things considered, with the amount of information we have about that time along with the inference as you say, occams razor suggests that the simplest answer is that a historical Jesus existed.
EDIT: I'd also go so far as to say that the idea of a radical Jewish priest, upset with the established order is probably the most non-radical claim about anything, and I'm not sure I understand why it would be hard to believe that someone like that could have existed 2000 years ago.
Because there were a lot of those people as well as Yeshua being a very popular name at the time.
This is the same asshole who got my shit city on the news for setting up a Quran burning a few years back.
http://www.newschannel10.com/story/13138589/quran-not-burned-in-amarillo-city-park
Dumbass failed, lol, someone stole his Quran before he could burn it.
"I snook up behind him and took his Quran. He said something about burning the Quran. I said 'dude you have no Quran' and ran off," Jacob Isom tells NewsChannel 10.
I don't agree with the guy's views and he's definitely expressing them in a dickish way, but I can't get outraged about this. Like the arguments sound exactly like "how am I supposed to talk to my kids about gay people" but with crazy/evangelical people instead. If some loon is spouting off about Jesus when I'm in line with my daughter and she asks me what he's on about, I'll have a calm conversation with her that some people believe different things and we need to be respectful of their beliefs even if they present them in unorthodox or potentially rude ways. Or, you know, some people are just crazy assholes, let's ignore him and afterwards we'll get ice cream. Whatever. But I don't think it's fair to jump straight to the "HE MADE ME HAVE AN UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION WITH MY KIDS" argument because you really shouldn't have that hard a time talking to your kids about the fact that people exist who you might not otherwise interact with and have views that you personally don't share.
Well, yeah. I'm not exactly sure what your point is. The extra number of people just adds to the probability of the historical Jesus existing. I'm not saying anything crazy
It depends. Define historical Jesus.
Read my other post?
I've read them, I still don't see a post explicitly detailing what historical Jesus is. You simply said a "radical Jewish priest, upset with the established order". If that's enough to define Historical Jesus then I'd argue it really isn't THE Jesus, given the amount of people that fit that, and the popularity of the name Yeshua.
I'm not exactly sure what else you me to say. That a rabbi teaching about a radical change from the what people were used to at the time, could be deified and become a religious figure. What exactly do you want? When it comes to the historical Jesus you have, what he preached, how the religion formed around him, his followers and crucifixion.
The details unfortunately come from religious sources decades after his "death".
St. Nick and Jesus were real people. They just weren't beings with divine capabilities.Um
But Jesus isn't real either, so...
Anyone know to repair a busted irony meter?
He must be a GAFer
You work with what you got. As far as I know and am aware with, there's the Josephus mention and another. Generally, unless you were an emperor or someone of note, there wouldn't be much in the way of anything referencing you.I think all things considered, with the amount of information we have about that time along with the inference as you say, occams razor suggests that the simplest answer is that a historical Jesus existed.
EDIT: I'd also go so far as to say that the idea of a radical Jewish rabbi, upset with the established order is probably the most non-radical claim about anything, and I'm not sure I understand why it would be hard to believe that someone like that could have existed 2000 years ago. Also, in the absence of the hard evidence you want, logic/reason and inference are also tools you can use.
So even if one were to agree with his message, you don't fucking yell at people in the mall about your beliefs and how to parent their children. You're not going to successfully convince anyone that you're anything but an asshole.
OP compares believing in God to believing in Santa.
Okay.