Adam Schiff playing the "There will be no when" card after Republicans were denied witnesses is peak chutzpah.
How can you say you're not part of the profane but doubt the existence of Jesus? Who are you kidding?
I don't give a shit about the Freemasonic cult. But if you say you "have not been convinced by historical evidence that Jesus exists", you fly in the face of every ancient historian alive.
So, pray tell, what evidence do you have that makes you such an expert, and the experts wrong? What, pray tell, have you discovered that you could write up in a journal to convince the world you're right?
I'm going to guess a whole lot of fuck all, and you haven't done any research at all. But you can't change my mind, so what does it matter?
Fucking kek.
<Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
What a bunch of absolute gobblygook nonsense.
>All I can say is that man is faulty, god is not. All interpretations of god made by man is faulty, so is mine. I do not claim to know or be an expert, I want to know, but I cannot know. I can only guess.
What does this even mean? You don't claim to be an expert, but you know that Jesus didn't exist? What kind of stupid answer is this?
You really aren't half as smart as you think you are, which exactly why you can profess to be a Mason. You're a fool.
>All ancient historians have been of man. They can be faulty. If god were to speak to me I might know. So far god has not spoken to me.
So all ancient historians are wrong, and you're right, because they're men and you're not? What kind of bizarro world (((logic))) is this? Are you for real?
You're a fool. Learn something. Get out of your echo chamber. It will do you well. You are not intelligent. You must humble yourself, or you will never find God, because you are not searching for Him.
Your can't find because you don't want to find. Grow up, child.
>I don't know that jesus didnd't exist. I have not been convinced that jesus existed. I do not deny the possibility of Jesus existance.
What evidence have you seen, oh wise one?
>I am of man. I can make faults. But I refuse to make assumptions.
Like the assumption that Jesus didn't exist in spite of every historian claiming He did? Like that assumption?
Do you think Mohammad existed out of curiosity?
>Call me a fool all you want. It does not affect me or my understanding of the truth.
That is the problem. You don't seek wisdom, you are arrogant and cocksure, when you should not be. Learn.
>I might be a child. I can accept that. But I cannot accept assumptions.
You're making so many assumptions in your day-to-day life that it's insane. You have such an ignorant view of "assumptions" that will be exploited by anyone who comes into contact with you for their purpose.
This is the problem with fools, they are used by evil because they don't know better. Gain some wisdom, child, and stop being led astray.
>Do you want me to write down all the investigations I have made? That would take a long time. Time I do not have.
Considering every single ancient historian disagrees with you? Yeah. Kinda? You could be famous for your knowledge. But you're not. Because you have no knowledge, you have assumptions.
>It would be an assumption that Jesus existed, unless he spoke to you. Jesus has no spoken to me, I cannot assume his existance.
Did George Washington exist? You are inconsistently skeptical, and that makes you a fool, because you don't even understand your own assumptions.
>The person Mohammed might have existed, I do not know, but the idea of Mohammed that is alive today, certainly is faulty.
According to historical evidence, Mohammad didn't exist. So how could "the idea of Mohammad that is alive today, certainly is faulty" if he didn't exist? If the purpose of Mohammad was to create an Abrahamic religion to bring together the Arabs to fight the Christians?
Working as intended, Masons would say.
>If you can point me in the right direction then please do. But calling me a fool or a child only shows your own ineptitude and childishness
Link related for anons who actually want to learn some history.
>I cannot understand your anger about another mans understanding of the truth. It is baffling to me
I don't get angry at fools, I laugh at them. Especially ones professing to be wise and knowledgeable and holier than thou. It's pathetic and embarrassing, and the reason why Masons can be used by evil, because they're too stupid to understand the truth.
You come here acting like you're a font of knowledge and wonder why people are laughing at you when you demonstrate you're a fool? Am I supposed to quote you and say "I can't change how you think of me"? One of the most moronic things a human can say? Because it means they're incapable of detecting flaws in their behavior and they will keep bashing their head against the wall committing the same sins they've always committed because they're hell bent on not learning a thing?
What a sad world you live in.
This is exactly the response of someone who doesn't seek the truth, but considers himself wise. You dodged every point I made, and retreat to your motte when your bailey was overrun.
I had you pegged right off the bat.
<Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,