What's this about? It's clear as day the druid worshippers never took the shot.
Sure, that's why they killed Him, because he was all about the jews /s
Gal. 3
[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Yes but it's even worse for secularists because it's the other way around - God is the necessary precondition for all knowledge, meaning, logic, regularity of nature, identity, etc which are fundamental to science. They can't justify and ground any of these metaphysical concepts that they appeal to in their materialist and determinist worldview.
It's a shitshow and they can't even realize the entailment of what they believe in (or reject the existence of). Zero philosophical knowledge and analytical thought.
Ok I grant you Henry VIII and anyone who has written about events he directly witnessed (although even that's not a 100% assurance because a) their account of the events could be wrong or b) they could be lying).
What do you believe in? What's your worldview? Why are faggots and queers bad in your worldview?
Let's see:
cult, usually small group devoted to a person, idea, or philosophy. The term cult is often applied to a religious movement that exists in some degree of tension with the dominant religious or cultural inclination of a society.
Is Christianity a "small group" and does it exist in "tension with the dominant religious or cultural inclination of a society"?
They could but it seems redundant. They need a couple of hours to get to their bunkers - why orchestrating an elaborate ruse adding more steps to the plan? Also, wouldn't having 100 clips of celebrities announcing cancers in a short timespan raise unwanted suspicion? Normies are dumb, but even they'll start asking wtf is going on?
The Christian religion must have had a founder. And if the religion claims it's founder was Jesus, then it is logical to assume someone by that name actually existed in order to gather the original followers of this religion.
It's not that great of a steel man as you think. If I'm as bad faith as you and view everything through an extremely skeptical lens, I'd say Christianity could have been started by a rouge group of pharisees who spread the rumors about Christ and His teachings. There's even motivation for that. Have you red 1984? Remember when it was revealed to Winston that the whole liberation movement and its leader was a psy op made up by the party? The Wizard of Oz is another good analogy.
The best argument is a transcendental logical argument and I served it to you. If you are skeptical about Christ's historicity and you apply the same standard, you have no reason to believe most of what you assume to know about ancient and medieval history because much of it was not written at the time of the events by people who witnessed them - rather it was a retelling of events based on testimony or sources that were eventually lost (what most likely happened win Tacitus' case).
And you're not? I can easily demonstrate your worldview, whatever it is, is based on blind faith. Not only that, it also can't justify your presuppositions.
Based and Christpilled.
Christians today have poor knowledge of the doctrines of Christianity. Many think it's a feel-good self-help "Jesus is my buddy/boyfriend" hippy religion. This subversion of the true faith is all by design. We all saw the superbowl "Jesus washed feet of unrepented degenerates" blasphemous ad recently.
How would anyone know if he was a tall tale or not if by the time anyone ever heard his name he was already dead for 60 years?
Because that's not how it happened. As already mentioned, there were people who were alive to remember. There were testimonies. People have been hearing His name all around the civilized world in the years after His resurrection. There were Churches established in major cities founded by the apostles in that period.
It's all been said and argued already. Both positions are presented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
It's how people's subconsciousness works. It's not a rational proposition. This is how behaviors and ideas are normalized - by example of well-esteemed individuals in society. Remember when the Royal family all "took" the jabby jabs? Ads work that way too. Read Edward Bernays - Propaganda.
It's way too much logistics for that - every major public figure needs to feign a disease as an excuse and make official announcements, this would get ridiculous quickly. They have plenty of time to get to their bunkers without withdrawing from the public eye. They'll just quietly retreat the day before shtf and no one will even know. So I'd apply Occam's razor to that.
I can't because it's lost. You'd have to trust the historians as you do in many other accounts. There's not a single source saying Christ's existence was a tall tale. I'd go with common sense on that.
I bet he's an atheist and he's not even aware of the satanic pact he's entered his soul into. At least some of the NWO gang know who they're serving ultimately and expect he'll be grateful for their service (spoiler alert: he won't be).
They probably had written documents about it. Roman historians were no slouches. If they weren't sure of His existence they'd say it's hearsay.
Sodom and Gomorrah. Prepare for God's wrath.
God will judge him for his sins. His days are numbered.
I can't stop you from being deluded but try answering this: Why would Roman historians and jewish rabbis of the time, who were against Christianity and its spreading, attest to Jesus' existence instead of professing the "truth" He never existed?
That's my go to theory too.
As I said - if you don't accept the historic attestation of Jesus as a historical figure because it was written 60 years after His death, you should reevaluate almost everything you assume to know about the distant past.
You're a sophist. Multiple non-Christian historians wrote about Him and their account confirms the account of the evangelists (not including supernatural claims).
As I said - if you don't accept the historic attestation of Jesus as a historical figure because it was written 60 years after His death, you should reevaluate almost everything you assume to know about the distant past. And yet here you are arguing about the jews having historical claim on the land as if the account supporting that is not problematic.
That's a fair point.
Could be all carefully engineered PR for all we know. Or maybe he started off organic and was propped up in the process. I'm 100% there are several NGOs behind his political degenerate shilling and NWO corporate bootlicking. Lefty millennials and zoomers love this cucked soyman.
King Solomon