What is the very first reference to Jews in the Bible? Hint: the entire region of the Levant, and Arabia, uses the same word for "Jew" that they have for thousands of years - "Yehud/Yehudi/Yehudim".
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the [Jewish Torah] Law or the [Jewish] Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
As to the rest, ask yourself on what basis Jesus has a claim to be God? It's all based on claims specifically made in the OT, which the NT claims that Jesus satisfied all the requirements of. He's only the [Jewish] Messiah, because he fulfils the [Jewish] prophesies.
As to Savior figures, and God-Men, Pagans have countless examples, none of them mutually exclusive. But if you want me to believe that Jesus is a Pagan God, you'll need to provide even a shred of evidence that his claim to Godhood is based on Pagan claims to that effect rather than Jewish ones.
"He literally claimed to be YHVH, the God of the Jews" -- Before I opine further, could you provide a source for this? I have read the Bible in various forms several times, and don't recall seeing this claim...
He literally claimed to be YHVH, the God of the Jews, who came to fulfil the Torah laws. Just say'n. You'd have to be pretty fucking retarded to think Christinanity isn't directly derived from and dependent on Jewish mythology. He sure as hell isn't the Pagan messiah.
What. Is the first. Reference to Jews. In the Bible.
2 Kings 16, where King Rezin of Syria expels the Jews (Yehudim) from Eilat (which is still there, btw). The Israelites, and the Hebrews, are not Jews. The Jews (Yehudim) are the Jews.
This is the greatest gaslighting in history and it has been going on for 1000 years.
The entire claim to his Godhood is based on Jewish religion, not Paganism. If you think you're not worshipping a Jewish übermensch, I don't know what to tell you bud. You're doing some really fucking retarded mental contortions to come to that conclusion. There's literally no basis for Christinanity (NT) in the absence of Judaism (OT). It sure as hell isn't a Pagan belief system.
FFS you haven't actually read the whole story, have you. Who called Jesus "King of the Jews"? He, did not. Pilate called him that, mocking him. It was a slur, not a statement. Context matters. Yikes.
Then under what pretext do you regard Jesus as the prophesied saviour? Why do Christians specifically use the OT instead of Homer's Odyssey or some other spiritual literature? Why is it called an "Abrahamic" religion? Are you really that wilfully deluded? It's time for you to pick one, either you hate Jews, or you worship a Jew on a stick. You can't have it both ways.
I am under no obligation to justify anything to you. I have been stating facts. You present questions, meant to feed your own confirmation bias. You only read articles which affirm your own confirmation bias. May I recommend you stop for a moment and read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, to be found in "The Republic"? It should help some.
It was a slur because he was claimed to be (((the Messiah))). Where else would they have gotten that idea? Again, which Pagan scripture or religion prophesied the coming of Jesus? Name it or gtfo.
Logic fallacy: forcing the answer. I never said a word about Jesus being pagan. This is your requirement. For record, in Bethlehem alone there were 24 religions practiced, only one of which was Judaism. The claims of the Bible for Jesus' education are most likely specious in that he would have been exposed to all of those religions, there, and in Nazareth.
Stop doing internet searches. Read books. You're welcome to come visit my rather interesting library of 100-yr old + books.
Because they're irrelevant. Nobody said Jesus was Pagan. He was a complete and utter break from talmudism and the torah. Name one Christian church that teaches torah. As to the OT, everybody comes from somewhere. Half the people in the Bible are of other religions, nitwit.
> No irony
Nope, not really. Nice try though.
> I've already read plenty
It does not show. You appear to be unable to reference anything but that which supports your very thin argument. David was King of who, again? Hint: it wasn't the Jews, and I've already told you why. Your problem is, you're starting from entirely the wrong place, and assumption.
Which you just deflect from using a bunch of etymological fallacies instead of answering because you can't answer those questions without demonstrating your astronomical level of self delusion.
> ... feed your own confirmation bias.
No irony.
> ...read Plato...
I've already read plenty, and lots more besides.
Maybe you should reread the first chapter of Matthew whose whole purpose is to establish the lineage of Jesus as a direct descendant of David, King of the Jews, and therefore the legitimacy of his claim to being the Jewish Messiah.
1:1 "This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: ..."
If you're going to point to the legitimacy of the text, then I'm afraid the entire religion is gonna fall to shreds on the floor by the time all the scholars have weighed in. There certain won't be any more evidence that Jesus is the saviour of mankind nor the supreme deity than there is that Spiderman spins a web of any size.
Normally, I would avoid getting involved in a thread like this, but I feel the need to interject:
The so-called "lineage of Jesus from King David" was added to the Book of Matthew at one of the Councils of Nicea. There is no other supporting evidence, which if Jesus were such a descendant, would have been recorded by multiple sources.