You're going to have to elaborate on how this entity is both divine and human.

By virtue of God assuming human nature in the person of Christ. This is crucial for Christianity. Christ is equally divine and equally human.

How do you know someone named Jesus actually established it? Were you there? Did God tell you that or show you that? Are the people that are telling you this Church thing is special the ones controlling the books that they derive that from? That's rather convenient.

It's well attested to historically. The Church itself is a testament. There are many records and circumstantial evidences to the historicity of the Jesus Christ and the early Church. As for the radical skepticism of anything outside your empirical observation - Were you there when you were born? Maybe you weren't actually born of your parents and you were lab grown as a clone by a secret DARPA program? Are your parents and the government the ones controlling the records and feeding you their story? That's rather convenient.

Do you have the receipts to prove an uninterrupted apostolic succession?

As if that would mean something to you? If the Church held such a record (and it does actually) you'd instantly say it's made up. The veracity of the system is not proven a single way - it's a holistic system that justifies its claims by internal consistency, historicity, explanatory power and justification for metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and logic. It's a package deal.

How do you know that those events actually occurred in around 33 AD when the texts you use to derive that from were written decades later? Besides, Luke 24 presents the ascension happening on the same days as the resurrection, while Acts 1 says it happened 40 days later. They both can't be historically accurate. Looks like allegory with deeper meaning and not historical accounts.

By historical analysis and writings describing historical figures and events at the time. The epistles were written around 20 years after the Resurrection - people generally tend to know what happened 20 years ago, especially within a very tightly-knit movement and community. Luke's account of the Resurrection in 24 is summarized. Acts 1 is the correct timeframe. How do I know that? That's what the early Church Fathers taught.

You hold a guy to be an apostle of Jesus that just claimed himself to be an apostle and never actually met Jesus. In Galatians, Paul said he got all his stuff from visions of Jesus. How does anyone verify that? It's a trust me bro situation. In other words, could've easily made it up. There's obvious tension in a literal face value reading of the NT between Paul's group and those who actually were around Jesus.

That's a common one. Paul was received by Peter, John and James (Jesus' brother). Considering they trusted him there's no reason to doubt Paul, if one believes the Gospels. There's no tension between Paul and other parts of NT unless one misinterprets his letters.

Historically, those who lived with Jesus rejected Paul. In the Clementine Homilies, the Simon Magus guy is obviously Paul.

So we're supposed to believe the Clementine Homilies produced by judaizing sect in the 4th c. now? I thought you were skeptical?

What do you make of the Ebionites? They were the ones that actually would've lived with Jesus. You think they'd be stupid and wanting to practice some type of Pharisee or Sadducee form of Judaism, just changing everything Jesus would've instituted? Jesus was an Essene. The Ebionites weren't Judaizers. They were a mystical sect. Look at Eusebius quoting Philo in Ecclesiastical History. He considered the Essenes in Egypt to be Christians before Jesus was around, and said they interpreted their sacred texts allegorically.

They were an early Jewish-Christian sect and not part of Jesus' disciples. They didn't even exist during His time and weren't witness to the events, nor were they in any way connected to the apostles. Their theology is influenced by 2-3c debates. Their Christology is less primitive than Paul's (who wrote around 50AD). They rely on edited gospels and not on early oral tradition and the lexicons (how the Early Church operated). And the stupidest part is their criticism of Paul presupposes his already established authority. Why would you distrust Paul but trust them, when they came after him and didn't even knew the apostles?

Here, I gave you plenty of reasons. I could just do what you did and be unreasonably incredulous: But how do you know what they were? Were you there? Maybe the Church made them up along with making up their own history?

This of course exposes your double standard when looking back at history - you willingly accept the narrative you like and are extremely skeptical of the opposite. This is something all gnostics do because all authority of the past is under suspicion and only they (and their preferred obscure sect) have the hidden knowledge of the true history and nature of things. It's always about rebelliousness and going against authority.

I think that's enough deboonking for today.

You're going to have to elaborate on how this entity is both divine and human.

By virtue of God assuming human nature in the person of Christ. This is crucial for Christianity. Christ is equally divine and equally human.

How do you know someone named Jesus actually established it? Were you there? Did God tell you that or show you that? Are the people that are telling you this Church thing is special the ones controlling the books that they derive that from? That's rather convenient.

It's well attested to historically. The Church itself is a testament. There are many records and circumstantial evidences to the historicity of the Jesus Christ and the early Church. As for the radical skepticism of anything outside your empirical observation - Were you there when you were born? Maybe you weren't actually born of your parents and you were lab grown as a clone by a secret DARPA program? Are your parents and the government the ones controlling the records and feeding you their story? That's rather convenient.

Do you have the receipts to prove an uninterrupted apostolic succession?

As if that would mean something to you? If the Church held such a record (and it does actually) you'd instantly say it's made up. The veracity of the system is not proven a single way - it's a holistic system that justifies its claims by internal consistency, historicity, explanatory power and justification for metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and logic. It's a package deal.

How do you know that those events actually occurred in around 33 AD when the texts you use to derive that from were written decades later? Besides, Luke 24 presents the ascension happening on the same days as the resurrection, while Acts 1 says it happened 40 days later. They both can't be historically accurate. Looks like allegory with deeper meaning and not historical accounts.

By historical analysis and writings describing historical figures and events at the time. The epistles were written around 20 years after the Resurrection - people generally tend to know what happened 20 years ago, especially within a very tightly-knit movement and community. Luke's account of the Resurrection in 24 is summarized. Acts 1 is the correct timeframe. How do I know that? That's what the early Church Fathers taught.

You hold a guy to be an apostle of Jesus that just claimed himself to be an apostle and never actually met Jesus. In Galatians, Paul said he got all his stuff from visions of Jesus. How does anyone verify that? It's a trust me bro situation. In other words, could've easily made it up. There's obvious tension in a literal face value reading of the NT between Paul's group and those who actually were around Jesus.

That's a common one. Paul was received by Peter, John and James (Jesus' brother). Considering they trusted him there's no reason to doubt Paul, if one believes the Gospels. There's no tension between Paul and other parts of NT unless one misinterprets his letters.

Historically, those who lived with Jesus rejected Paul. In the Clementine Homilies, the Simon Magus guy is obviously Paul.

So we're supposed to believe the Clementine Homilies produced by judaizing sect in the 4th c. now? I thought you were skeptical?

What do you make of the Ebionites? They were the ones that actually would've lived with Jesus. You think they'd be stupid and wanting to practice some type of Pharisee or Sadducee form of Judaism, just changing everything Jesus would've instituted? Jesus was an Essene. The Ebionites weren't Judaizers. They were a mystical sect. Look at Eusebius quoting Philo in Ecclesiastical History. He considered the Essenes in Egypt to be Christians before Jesus was around, and said they interpreted their sacred texts allegorically.

They were an early Jewish-Christian sect and not part of Jesus' disciples. They didn't even exist during His time and weren't witness to the events, nor were they in any way connected to the apostles. Their theology is influenced by 2-3c debates. Their Christology is less primitive than Paul's (who wrote around 50AD). They rely on edited gospels and not on early oral tradition and the lexicons (how the Early Church operated). And the stupidest part is their criticism of Paul presupposes his already established authority. Why would you distrust Paul but trust them, when they came after him and didn't even knew the apostles?

Here, I gave you plenty of reasons. I could just do what you did and be unreasonably incredulous: But how do you know what they were? Were you there? Maybe the Church made them up along with making up their own history?

This of course exposes your double standard when looking back at history - you willingly accept the narrative you like and are extremely skeptical of the opposite. This is something all gnostics do because all authority of the past is under suspicion and only they have the hidden knowledge of the true history and nature of things.

I think that's enough deboonking for today.

You're going to have to elaborate on how this entity is both divine and human.

By virtue of God assuming human nature in the person of Christ. This is crucial for Christianity. Christ is equally divine and equally human.

How do you know someone named Jesus actually established it? Were you there? Did God tell you that or show you that? Are the people that are telling you this Church thing is special the ones controlling the books that they derive that from? That's rather convenient.

It's well attested to historically. The Church itself is a testament. There are many records and circumstantial evidences to the historicity of the Jesus Christ and the early Church. As for the radical skepticism of anything outside your empirical observation - Were you there when you were born? Maybe you weren't actually born of your parents and you were lab grown as a clone by a secret DARPA program? Are your parents and the government the ones controlling the records and feeding you their story? That's rather convenient.

Do you have the receipts to prove an uninterrupted apostolic succession?

As if that would mean something to you? If the Church held such a record (and it does actually) you'd instantly say it's made up. The veracity of the system is not proven a single way - it's a holistic system that justifies its claims by internal consistency, historicity, explanatory power and justification for metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and logic. It's a package deal.

How do you know that those events actually occurred in around 33 AD when the texts you use to derive that from were written decades later? Besides, Luke 24 presents the ascension happening on the same days as the resurrection, while Acts 1 says it happened 40 days later. They both can't be historically accurate. Looks like allegory with deeper meaning and not historical accounts.

By historical analysis and writings describing historical figures and events at the time. The epistles were written around 20 years after the Resurrection - people generally tend to know what happened 20 years ago, especially within a very tightly-knit movement and community. Luke's account of the Resurrection in 24 is summarized. Acts 1 is the correct timeframe. How do I know that? That's what the early Church Father taught.

You hold a guy to be an apostle of Jesus that just claimed himself to be an apostle and never actually met Jesus. In Galatians, Paul said he got all his stuff from visions of Jesus. How does anyone verify that? It's a trust me bro situation. In other words, could've easily made it up. There's obvious tension in a literal face value reading of the NT between Paul's group and those who actually were around Jesus.

That's a common one. Paul was received by Peter, John and James (Jesus' brother). Considering they trusted him there's no reason to doubt Paul, if one believes the Gospels. There's no tension between Paul and other parts of NT unless one misinterprets his letters.

Historically, those who lived with Jesus rejected Paul. In the Clementine Homilies, the Simon Magus guy is obviously Paul.

So we're supposed to believe the Clementine Homilies produced by judaizing sect in the 4th c. now? I thought you were skeptical?

What do you make of the Ebionites? They were the ones that actually would've lived with Jesus. You think they'd be stupid and wanting to practice some type of Pharisee or Sadducee form of Judaism, just changing everything Jesus would've instituted? Jesus was an Essene. The Ebionites weren't Judaizers. They were a mystical sect. Look at Eusebius quoting Philo in Ecclesiastical History. He considered the Essenes in Egypt to be Christians before Jesus was around, and said they interpreted their sacred texts allegorically.

They were an early Jewish-Christian sect and not part of Jesus' disciples. They didn't even exist during His time and weren't witness to the events, nor were they in any way connected to the apostles. Their theology is influenced by 2-3c debates. Their Christology is less primitive than Paul's (who wrote around 50AD). They rely on edited gospels and not on early oral tradition and the lexicons (how the Early Church operated). And the stupidest part is their criticism of Paul presupposes his already established authority. Why would you distrust Paul but trust them, when they came after him and didn't even knew the apostles?

Here, I gave you plenty of reasons. I could just do what you did and be unreasonably incredulous: But how do you know what they were? Were you there? Maybe the Church made them up along with making up their own history?

This of course exposes your double standard when looking back at history - you willingly accept the narrative you like and are extremely skeptical of the opposite. This is something all gnostics do because all authority of the past is under suspicion and only they have the hidden knowledge of the true history and nature of things.

I think that's enough deboonking for today.