are christians the first virtue signaling snowflake tards?

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere.

You attempt to prove, not prove. Adding the word attempt is the correct context. Saying you prove, assumes that you have proven. We are not there yet.

I can admit that I may attempt to prove something but may not be successful. This is a factual and logical statement, and that applies to both of us. Correct? Can we agree to that?

Now, cutting through all the nonsense, the real issue here is not the NT. The issue is the man Jesus Christ. Or, as we would say in hebrew, yeshua.

This man, yeshua, did exist, and that is a fact. The dispute is who was/is he. He claimed to be God in the flesh and that is historically documented by sources other than the NT.

You say this particular yeshua was an imposter, the Christian says he is God in the flesh manifest on earth. You say he is not our messiah, the Christian says that he is.

And, there you have it. The NT is not the source of division between the Christian and the j-w. The division is about the claimed divinity of the man yeshua. The Christian does not claim yeshua is the Messiah, the man yeshua does.

The Christian accepts the word of this man, the j-w does not.

Very simple.

no a judge has to find the person GUILTY before he applies the verdict.

he has to figure if the witness is telling the truth before he decides guilty or innocent.

do you even justice bro?

Again, God is the judge. NO MAN !!

mmm the problem is christians NOT accepting clear OT verses that rebuke everything they believe in.

and no, jesus is not mentioned by anyone outside the NT.
the only place he is mentioned is in the testomonial of josephus which is proven a fraud inserted into the text by a church father.

when there is no court G-d judges in heaven and the punishment comes down through karma.

when there is a court G-d entrusted human judges to judge.

do you deny G-d DELEGATED human judges to judge???

If you are unable to judge according God you are not qualitied anymore.

Wait, what?

So, are you saying that the man yeshua never even existed historically? (regardless of his claims or status)

If you are saying that this man is fictional, then we are unable to discuss anything. If you deny a basic historical fact, there is nowhere we can go from there and I will gracefully exit this conversation.

when we cant establish such court if the government busts them down (its called exile) then yes, there is a problem of qualification if you wanna call it this way.

but you still accused us for no reason, and you still havent showed how the Talmud contradicts Moses.

Jesus cannot be a fiction, for he and his mother are well enough discussed in torah as a real person who was judged and put to deathband exists in the lower levels of hell, for even suggesting that everyone can access god, not just one corrupt group of doctrine salesmen

cite the OT passages which mention jesus and his mother.

Wait, what?

So, are you saying that the man yeshua never even existed historically? (regardless of his claims or status)

If you are saying that this man is fictional, then we are unable to discuss anything. If you deny a basic historical fact, there is nowhere we can go from there and I will gracefully exit this conversation.

it is my opinion which I base on a lot of research that he is a fictional character made up by rome.

but ok, lets say he did exist.
go on prove whatever you want to prove about him considering he existed.

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere.

You attempt to prove, not prove. Adding the word attempt is the correct context. Saying you prove, assumes that you have proven. We are not there yet.

I can admit that I may attempt to prove something but may not be successful. This is a factual and logical statement, and that applies to both of us. Correct? Can we agree to that?

Now, cutting through all the nonsense, the real issue here is not the NT. The issue is the man Jesus Christ. Or, as we would say in hebrew, yeshua.

This man, yeshua, did exist, and that is a fact. The dispute is who was/is he. He claimed to be God in the flesh and that is historically documented by sources other than the NT.

You say this particular yeshua was an imposter, the Christian says he is God in the flesh manifest on earth. You say he is not our messiah, the Christian says that he is.

And, there you have it. The NT is not the source of division between the Christian and the j-w. The division is about the claimed divinity of the man yeshua. The Christian does not claim yeshua is the Messiah, the man yeshua does.

The Christian accepts the word of this man, the j-w does not.

Very simple.

mmm the problem is christians NOT accepting clear OT verses that rebuke everything they believe in.

and no, jesus is not mentioned by anyone outside the NT.
the only place he is mentioned is in the testomonial of josephus which is proven a fraud inserted into the text by a church father.

Well, here's the thing. If it is your opinion that this man never existed historically, we are at an impasse. Discussion of an historical figure that you think is make believe, would be akin to me arguing a case for Santa Claus.

I am sure that you acknowledge the impossibility. If the basis of arguing history is absent a mutual understanding of the historical facts, then it becomes a feudal effort.

First, the burden would be upon me to prove historically that the man ysehua existed before we could advance any further in a discussion. To do otherwise would be to put the cart before the horse.

I am not going to attempt to prove what I believe is so obviously historical fact in that this man did exist. There are very few people who do not acknowledge this man's historical existence.

The vast majority of j-ws admit this man yeshua existed. It's a rare fringe that do not. They say he is not the Messiah, but they do believe he was a real historical figure.

That is a fact.

So, seems like we are done?

Well, here's the thing. If it is your opinion that this man never existed historically, we are at an impasse. Discussion of an historical figure that you think is make believe, would be akin to me arguing a case for Santa Claus.

I am sure that you acknowledge the impossibility. If the basis of arguing history is absent a mutual understanding of the historical facts, then it becomes a feudal effort.

First, the burden would be upon me to prove historically that the man ysehua existed before we could advance any further in a discussion. To do otherwise would be to put the cart before the horse.

I am not going to attempt to prove what I believe is so obviously historical fact in that this man did exist. There are very few people who do not acknowledge this man's historical existence.

The vast majority of j-ws admit this man yeshua existed. It's a rare fringe that do not. They say he is not the Messiah, but they do believe he was a real historical figure.

That is a fact.

So, seems like we are done?

for the sake of argument, I HAD ALREADY conceded he existed.

now argue from the point he existed, prove he is the Messiah and I promise I wont use inexistence argument against your claims.