>>172104>Than again the bible truly is whatever you want it to be.It's pretty crazy how Emanuel Swedenborg, John Humphrey Noyes, Corneliu Codreanu, and Pope Leo XIV have all shared the same religion. With enough intellectual elbow grease, you can easily make the Bible into your own personal ventriloquist dummy.
That doesn't mean you'll have a cogent interpretation congruous with what the writers of the Bible and early Christians actually believed though. Trying to make Christianity "based" is definitely pissing into the wind.
>>172109>That's not what that fallacy means and no assumption was made.Yes, it is. You're starting from the conclusion that your premise is true without providing any solid evidence for it and then citing it as evidence. Even granting the idea that there was a historical guy who inspired the Jesus character, that doesn't mean there was a Jewish wizard who existed prior to the creation of the physical universe.
>It says right there that Jesus existed before even the predecessor of the Jews.And he was also supposed to have been fully human and born from the seed of David.
>Why are you expecting people to believe in anachronistic Jewry, rabbi?Why are you calling me "rabbi" for not worshiping Rabbi Yeshua Hamashiach, the "King of the Jews"?
>This means he's Jewish… how? That whole bit stopped when he rose from the dead and ascended back to God.In conventional Christian thought he's supposed to have permanently retained his nature with a resurrected body. If he wasn't Jewish, he couldn't have been the messiah. Was he the messiah or not?
>You're a funny guy. Trinitarians aren't on my side. They are to Christianity as Flat Earthers are to physicists. Their understanding of this thing is fundamentally wrong.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.