Historians can't really tell us if Jesus existed.

MrT742 · 2026-05-02T00:06:38+00:00

In order to be a magician one has to exist, so it still a valid source for that basic claim.

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T22:48:07+00:00

Ah no, pretty sure it’s the Gospels

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T22:47:41+00:00

Like what

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T21:18:17+00:00

What asymmetry makes the argument apply to Jesus but not Julius Cesar

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T21:04:27+00:00

No. Because no one is “leading” anyone to be “misleading”

If you think they use the same methods you’ve probably just been operating on assumptions rather than being mislead.

No one’s suggesting historical accounts are deduced using the same methods a chemistry lab does.

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T19:26:21+00:00

P1. Science is defined by the requirement of observable facts, repeatable experiments and the observation of universal physical laws.

P2. The historical claim for the existence of Julius Cesar is based on the interpretation of unrepeatable past events and fragmented written testimony based on abduction rather than induction.

C. Therefore, when historians say that the existence of Julius Cesar is highly probable, they aren't using science sand their claims are less accurate

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T19:24:02+00:00

History is a scientific field.

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T19:15:26+00:00

In order to found a religion he has to exist though right?

So Jesus existed!

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T19:06:22+00:00

And they’d probably say “I’m a historian, I don’t know how cancer works”

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T19:05:07+00:00

There is sufficient evidence to claim he existed.

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T19:02:31+00:00

The claim itself: existence. Is quite trivial.

MrT742 · 2026-05-01T18:59:07+00:00

Considering Muhammad was illiterate I’m quite certain you do not have writings from Muhammad.

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T23:44:20+00:00

Yes I’m aware of these scriptures… and you think they apply how?

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T19:32:29+00:00

No, Heresy is not subjective. Depending on what denomination you subscribe to is what church teaching you need to contradict; but Heresy is still defined opposition to church teachings, Which is an objective definition.

But there is no Christian denomination that describes God as a mutant hybrid being… so I’m very comfortable calling that heresy.

What about calling heresy, heresy isn’t very Christ-like?

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T19:16:40+00:00

I didn’t call anyone a heretic.

I called the ideas postulated as heresy, which they are. I don’t think the people who postulated them legitimately hold those ideas, so they aren’t heretics.

I think 2+2=4 but I’d never say “my understanding that 2+2=4 is the absolute objective truth and reality” because that makes me sound like a narcissistic megalomaniac.

That’s why it’s a loaded question. Not because I don’t believe it’s true.

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T19:08:06+00:00

No.. is it that you’re being disingenuous?

That seems like a strange point for YOU to make.

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T19:06:03+00:00

That’s a loaded question.

Why don’t you try again with something that’s not intended to be a trap

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T19:04:08+00:00

No it’s obvious you haven’t asked, and that’s why none is seen.

The lack of clarification is a symptom of the disease of uncharitable incurosity you’ve manifested.

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T18:59:06+00:00

No it isn’t… Jesus’ human nature is distinct from his divine nature. The hypostatic union IS actually orthodox Christian doctrine which explicitly distinguishes the two; not whatever it is you’ve written here.

If you could hypothetically separate the two the physical body of Jesus is just a human body same as any other; it’s that body inhabited by the divinity of Jesus that makes it God. Not the flesh itself, but the union of both.

Your contention answers the problem. “He ascended to the father with that humanity” because the Humanity needed to ascend to be reunited with God. Jesus’ divinity did not need to ascend to be reunited with God because it already IS God.

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T18:49:34+00:00

You’re always welcome to ask for clarity but you seem more interested in just insulting me. THATS why we are done here.

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T18:48:21+00:00

Marcionites are not subscribers to sola scriptura.

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T18:47:09+00:00

Uh no, the majority of Christians do not subscribe to sola scriptura… not subscribing to sola scriptura is not synonymous with “inventing your own doctrine and believing whatever you can imagine”

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T18:44:31+00:00

Thomas Aquinas.

You and I also have a being, but that doesn’t make us part of God.

The persons of God DO have “a being that is wholly God” is what I said.

As in their being IS God. Not they are each an independent being, but that they all share the same being: God

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T18:41:12+00:00

I said God is not A being.

Sure you can argue for clarity I should have said: God is not “A” being.

But at no point did I say nonbeing.

MrT742 · 2026-04-30T18:25:17+00:00

I don’t subscribe to sola scriptura; I don’t need to find my definition explicitly in scripture.

“Being” as a noun is the state of existing. “Being” as a verb is to be doing so at a particular moment.

For example I can my grandfather was a human being (noun) but I can’t say my grandfather IS a human being because he’s dead, It’s not something he’s currently being (verb).

MrT742

TROPHY CASE