Who are you talking to?
Thanks for being forthright Petros. Appreciated.Ummmm No!!!
1) Jesus identified himself and his associates as Israelites, and his mission was directed to the House of Israel. He was identified by other Israelite insiders according to his Israelite family and lineage and by his place of birth and upbringing, Nazareth and Galilee. He was Yeshua bar Yoseph, an 'Israelite', a 'Galilean', a 'Nazarene from Nazareth of Galilee, but not a 'Judean' resident in Judea.
(2) Jesus never called himself a Ioudaios and was never designated as such by fellow Israelites. He was called, or thought of as, a Ioudaios only by non-Israelite outsiders whose terminology was consistent with Hellenistic and Roman practice, designating as 'Judean' all residents of Judea, together with all those connected to Judea by blood relations, Torah allegiance, patriotism, and loyalty to Judea, the holy city of Jerusalem and the Temple.
(3) His first followers were identified by fellow Israelites also as 'Galileans', 'Nazarenes', or members of 'the Way', but never as 'Judeans'.
(4) They too, like Jesus, viewed themselves as Israelites. They preferred 'Israel' and 'Israelite' as self-identifiers when speaking to the ingroup Israel and when addressing fellow disciples.
jesus was fictious. He can be what ever anyone wants him to be.
Thanks for being forthright Petros. Appreciated.
jesus was fictious. He can be what ever anyone wants him to be.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,
According to a video. I saw that video too.
Sorry no. Archeology says otherwise.
well if they have proof of jesus, then they must have proof of god...
OR they have a man whom wondered about lying about his...father...or they simply had a schizophrenic wondering around.
Now you are really grasping. Your existence is all the proof of God needed.
Or they took what he said and changed it or its meaning to fit their own agenda
yeah, I'm grasping at straws...lol.
It looks to me that you really don't like Jews, Petros.
According to who?There are no first hand accounts of his existance. Only record of his existance is after his death...
There are no first hand accounts of his existance. Only record of his existance is after his death...
They also believed some pretty sketchy stuff way back then so...
I don't like inaccuracy.
There are people a lot smarter than you or I that say he existed so I can accept that on face value....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
...as for whether or not he was who some folks think he was, that's up for debate. I can't say for sure but what I can say is that, when I look at the majority of people in his camp, I tend to want to run the other way.
Don't be ridiculous. It's a circular argument, a mere tautology.Now you are really grasping. Your existence is all the proof of God needed.
Machjo; said:Swords into ploughshares... wasn't that Isiah?