Jesus' birth stories are very dubious and are Mostly derived from pagan myths and it very likely that all such beliefs were written retrospectively by the Roman gospel writers, or were assumed from the outset. There is no evidence or reason to believe that they actually occurred and i have 5 reasons to prove that the nativity story are all guess work and hearsay and hearsay means it cannot be substantiated what so ever and what ever is unsubstantiated is totally inadmissible and irrelevant:


1.  The Roman Census, Bethlehem and Nazareth

“When the gospels were written, many years after Jesus' death, nobody knew where he was born. But an Old Testament prophecy (Micah 5:2) had led Jews to expect that the long-awaited Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

In the light of this prophecy, John's gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem: 'Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ shall cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?'

Controversy number 1 amongst jesus disciples himself

Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all. But they get him there by different routes.

hmm are the disciples seeing double or what?

Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth only long after the birth of Jesus

Luke, by contrast, acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born. So how to get them to Bethlehem at the crucial moment, in order to fulfil the prophecy?

Whoever edited this piece of fiction ought to have been fired ever since for been a poor fictional proof reader

Luke says that, in the time when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governer of Syria, Caesar Augustus decreed a census for taxation purposes, and everybody had to go 'to his own city'. [, ]

Except that it is historical nonsense  David, if he existed, lived nearly a thousand years before Mary and Joseph.

Why on earth would the Romans have required Joseph to go to the city where a remote ancestor had lived a millenium earlier?

Am just as confused as the christians now, sigh!

Moreover, Luke screws up his dating by tactlessly mentioning events that historians are capable of independently checking.

There was indeed a census under Governor Quirinius - a local census, not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Empire as a whole - but it happened too late: in AD 6, long after Herod's death.”

So where did the fake census come from then as enuciated in the bible?


2. The roman census, Bethlehem

Within his nativity story Luke also tells us that Caesar, the famous Roman Emperor, called for a census and Joseph and Mary had to return to their town of origin, Bethlehem, until the census was complete.

By now we know this is not true but a pure fabrication. History doesnt lie

The Roman Empire is well documented, including documentation of the Romans taxation laws and system which was based on property and wealth. At no point did the Romans require people to return to their place of birth for a census. Luke was clearly wrong about the census, the reasons for Joseph and Mary being in Bethlehem, and wrong on his opinion that Jesus' birth was of a virgin.

Tut tut tut! What a shame and i was beginning to take Luke for his word, lol

Matthew, the only other gospel to include information on this, does not include any of these aspects of Jesus' birth, and merely states that he was born in Bethlehem, whilst Herod was king. All of Luke's insertions about singing angels, barns, mangers and virgin birth are not mentioned in Matthew's version.

Why are the disciples contradicting themselves now? They ate, slept, danced and played ten ten with each other so why the confusion, hmm i think either one of them is lying or all of them are liars

Despite the long-winded and desperate attempts to get Jesus from Nazareth into Bethlehem, it may be that they did not read Micah 5:2 correctly.

"Since the early Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, they automatically believed that he was born in Bethlehem. But why did the Christians believe that he lived in Nazareth? The answer is quite simple. The early Greek speaking Christians did not know what the word "Nazarene" meant. The earliest Greek form of this word is "Nazoraios," which is derived from "Natzoriya," the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "Notzri." (Recall that "Yeishu ha-Notzri" is the original Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene." The early Christians conjectured that "Nazarene" meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Even today, Christians blithely confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" (_Nazarene_, _Christian_), "Natzrati" _Nazarethite_) and "nazir" (_nazarite_), all of which have completely different meanings." 

Bottom line there is no historical evidence to prove there was a town, village or city ever in the history of mankind called Nazareth. What were the disciples thinking? That nobody would verify their claims? If jesus was born in nazareth and there is no history of any nazareth till date, what does that tell you about jesus. Simple, He never existed to say the least. He has no birth place of note and the bible so brazenly says it time and time again "Jesus christ of Nazareth". A leader without no home or birthplace? Gimme a break!


3. When was Jesus Born?

Further problems exist in the contrasting Luke/Matthew accounts of Jesus' birth.

More problems from Luke and Matthew?, heeehehee! This is too good to be true!

Luke claims that Jesus was born when Quirinius, a roman official, was the governor of Syria. This happened during or shortly after 6ad.

Confusion number 2 again

Matthew however, claims that Jesus was born whilst Herod the Great reigned over Judea, and Herod died in 5 or 4 BC.

Please can somebody tell these two knuckle heads to get their stories right for once. Haba! Am sure jesus must have told them the real thing now!

There is a huge 10/11 year gap between these two dates, and either Luke or Matthew were wrong. Given Luke's track record, and that fact that historians accept the date of 4ad for Jesus' birth, it is likely that Luke was (once again) wrong.

How come? 10/11 years gap is a very wide margin to fabricate imaginary stories, but lets move on, it gets more interesting

4. Christians for a few hundred years did not celebrate Christmas. Early Christian fathers note that only pagan sun-worshippers celebrate on the 25th of December (by our calendar).

Sun worshipping religions have worshipped on Sundays, and on the Winter Solstice, for many hundreds of years before Christianity took up the practice. Jesus was not born in December, or in January.

Luke 2:8 states that shephards were out watching their flocks by night. No flocks would have been out, during winter! The average winter temperature in Israel is 5 or 6 degrees celsius. Farmers in Israel did not allow their flocks out during such cold nights.

Common this is just plain logic now. Who watches his sheep or flock at night during the winter period? 


5. King Herod: The Killing of Every Male Baby

The next part of Matthew, two, tells us of King Herod's anger at the three wise men and then of the killing of every child. Surely, the slaughter of every male child (Matthew 2:16-17 in Bethlehem, Ramah, and the surrounding area would have got mentioned in many places, such as Josephus' detailed accounts of the times, in fact it would likely cause the downfall of such an immoral, monstrous leader who issued such orders! Incidentally, the other 'great' leader in the Bible to issue such orders was Moses, Numbers 31:17-18, Joshua 6:21-24, in both cases killing all the women/young/old in a city in two separate occasions

But there is no historical evidence to verify such outrageously imaginary claims till date

Many other myths, including more ancient Roman ones, had an event where all the male children were killed, and the famous Romulus and Remus story is (once again) a good, famous example.

It is likely that Herod's orders to kill all those children, and the star that went noticed by all except three astrologers from "the East", did not actually happen. Both Luke and Matthew appear to, well, make things up, and none of these things are mentioned in the other two gospels, nor in the recovered Gospel of Thomas.

And lets not go into the gospel of thomas and newly discovered gospel according to Judas yet since i presume most of the christians world wide don't know it exists! 


Brief Conclusion

There are no birth records for Jesus, nor any first hand accounts of his life, so that these two contradictory and inaccurate accounts are the only snippets of information that we have.

It is possible that Matthew/Luke were referring to a myth when they talked of Jesus' and his early life. It seems highly likely that Luke, when writing of the events that surrounded Jesus' birth, was thinking of the famous Roman myth (that was around well before the Jesus' myth) of Romulus and Remus - who also were born by a virgin, and also had a king ordering the slaughter of all the other children in the same area.

Honestly how would christians try and untangle themselves from these embarassing knots! Surely no scholar or intelligent man would sanction such absurdities. It all goes to show that the bible is written by primitive people who had no idea that their fallacies would be cross checked in future. They just assumed since christians must believe it hook line and sinker, the logical and arational ones would never have the opportunity to investigate their myths. Sorry but we now know this is a farcade and it puts a hugh dent in christaina beliefs and the veracity of such a religion.

Dear Sun God, I have read the issues u have raised even the one concerning Noah's ark. Since its obvious everyone is entitledto thier opinion, it will not be fair to try and crucify u.
In the internet, there are so many people trying to dispute what others consider right or wrong, even the religion u seemingly believe is the true religion. U will be surprised if you check, just like u searched out the various information u are feeding nairalanders with.
My only impute on this issue is this, God's ways are not man's ways. The pot can never be smarter than the maker of the pot. The scripture is inspired by God for our perfection. If there are any issues you or anyone who seeks knowledge desire, pray to God for guidance because He said the things that men think there is wisdom in, God says its foolishness to Him. If we begin to question God and find faults in His doings and dealings, we are questioning His sovereignty.
Please note, I am neither defending nor supporting any of the claims you have pasted for nairalanders to read but hold on to your beliefs until the day u meet with God Almighty on the day of judgement and then we all can ask Him our biting questions like, God, why did u, or God, how come ,

@Sun God, QUOTES: Jesus' birth stories are very dubious and are Mostly derived from pagan myths


Sun god, Please Read without bias,

  ABOUT THE TRUE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST - THE ONLY TRUE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

Matthew 1:18 
[ The Birth of Jesus Christ ] This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:21 
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,  Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the LORD saves. because he will save his people from their sins."

Matthew 1:25  But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Luke 1:26 
[ The Birth of Jesus Foretold ] In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,

Luke 1:31 
You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

Luke 2:1 
[ The Birth of Jesus ] In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.

Luke 11:27 
As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."

1 Peter 1:3  [ Praise to God for a Living Hope ] Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Matthew 2:1 
[The Visit of the Magi] After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi [ Traditionally Wise Men] from the east came to Jerusalem

@Sun god, This is also for your persual

ABOUT King Herod And the BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST THE MESSIAH


Matthew 2:1 
[ The Visit of the Magi ] After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi [ Traditionally Wise Men] from the east came to Jerusalem

Matthew 2:3 
When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

Mark 6:14 
[ John the Baptist Beheaded ] King Herod heard about this, for Jesus' name had become well known. Some were saying, [ Some early manuscripts He was saying] "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him."

Luke 1:5 
[ The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold ] In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.

Acts 12:1 
[ Peter's Miraculous Escape From Prison ] It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them.

Acts 12:20 
[ Herod's Death ] Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there a while. He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. Having secured the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king's country for their food supply.

Sun God:

Jesus' birth stories are very dubious and are Mostly derived from pagan myths and it very likely that all such beliefs were written retrospectively by the Roman gospel writers, or were assumed from the outset. There is no evidence or reason to believe that they actually occurred

Confusion number 2 again for unbelievers

Brief Conclusion for unbelievers

There are no birth records for Jesus, nor any first hand accounts of his life, [s]so that these two contradictory and inaccurate accounts are the only snippets of information that we have. [/s]

There is no contradiction and confussion within the disciples of Jesus, rather YOU ARE THE CONFUSIONIST, YOU LACK KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING. Ask GOD WISDOM concerning HIS things.

@sun god - for your perusal.

Luke 2:5 ,
He took with him Mary, his fiancée, who was now obviously pregnant.

Luke 2:16 ,
They hurried to the village and found Mary and Joseph. And there was the baby, lying in the manger.

Luke 2:19 ,
but Mary kept all these things in her heart and thought about them often.

Luke 2:27 ,
That day the Spirit led him to the Temple. So when Mary and Joseph came to present the baby Jesus to the Lord as the law required,

Luke 2:34 ,
Then Simeon blessed them, and he said to Mary, the baby’s mother, “This child is destined to cause many in Israel to fall, but he will be a joy to many others. He has been sent as a sign from God, but many will oppose him.

Luke 2:38 ,
She came along just as Simeon was talking with Mary and Joseph, and she began praising God. She talked about the child to everyone who had been waiting expectantly for God to rescue Jerusalem.

[b]Matthew 1:16
Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Mary gave birth to Jesus, who is called the Messiah.

Matthew 1:18
[ The Birth of Jesus the Messiah ] This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:20
As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. “Joseph, son of David,” the angel said, “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:24
When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife.

Matthew 2:11
They entered the house and saw the child with his mother, Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure chests and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Matthew 2:14
That night Joseph left for Egypt with the child and Mary, his mother,

Matthew 13:55
Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph, [ Other manuscripts read Joses; still others read John.] Simon, and Judas. [/b]

Actually May kelly, you have done your self more harm than good and for calling me a confusionist, i am going to rip you to shreds in all totality concerning this issue.

I have seen all the passages you have so eloquently posted but you have to remember that for everything you write down, it is prone to scrutiny and nothing exists in isolation unless there is conclusive proof. If you really call this a defense to your hallucinations then, your not much of a debater or someone who uses that rational aspect of your brain to analyse things constructively.

Now lets get down to the real issues of the day:

There is no way you can talk about the existence of jesus without involving history as a guide. As long as you say jesus, mary and joseph lived as human beings with physical attributes which made them eat, sleep and shit, one way or the other, they must have been part of history. History guides the existence of a physical thing, structure or matter and the absence of historical facts makes it a pure mirage.

Once you can accept that jesus was born at so so time and lived during herods time and was cruxified under pilates era, then you cannot divorce the issue of issue following jesus where ever he went or what ever he did. And it is with historical facts that i am going to decimate this grand hoax called jesus.



[center][size=16pt]1[/size].[/center]


In order to understand what is meant by an "historical Jesus," consider King Midas in Greekmythology.

The story that King Midas turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this we knowthat there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his tomb and found his skeletal remains.

The Greeks who told the story of Midas and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact - the "historical Midas."

In the case of Jesus, their is however, no single person whose existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus.


[center][size=16pt]2[/size].[/center]


Normally when i am confronted with the existence of jesus i immediately point out that *the very existence of Jesus has not been proven*.

At this juncture when christian apologists begin to argue blindly, they usually appeal to emotions rather than to reason and they will attempt to make you feel embarrassed about denying the historicity of Jesus.

The usual daft response is something like _"Isn't denying the existence of Jesus just as silly as denying the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth?"_.

Rationals and Reasonable Men point out that there are ample historical sources confirming the existence of Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth or whoever else is named,while there is no corresponding evidence for Jesus.

The existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth etc, is accepted worldwide, the same is not true of Jesus. In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shintoism,Taoism and Confucism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor,Zeus and Osiris.

Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars or symbols of the Hindu god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of Muhammed. They explicitly deny that he was ever crucified.

To sum up, there is no story of Jesus which is uniformly accepted worldwide. It is this fact which puts Jesus on a
different level to established historical personalities. On the other hand, millions of honest people in Asia, who make up the majority of the world's population, have failed to be convinced by the Christian story of Jesus since there is no compelling evidence for its authenticity.

Christian Apologists will insist that the story of Jesus is a well-established documented fact and will argue that there is "plenty of evidence supporting the existence of jesus"

My usual response is that a Rational Being should then insist on seeing this evidence and refuse to listen any further until they produce it.


[center][size=16pt]3[/size].[/center]

[center][size=16pt]( THE NAZARETH CONFLICT AND CHRISTIAN PRONOUNCIATION MISTAKE)[/size].[/center]


Now this is a passage from the scriptures that May kelly eloquently posted to back up her point about the birth of jesus: I am going to help you trace the the history of the word "nazareth" and how christians have so blightly got it totally wrong over the ages. So i hope your ready for a little history lesson because history never lies but man does.

( Dont worry May Kelly, your not the only one. Your christian forefathers were almost massive victims of this fraud)

Luke 1:26
[ The Birth of Jesus Foretold ] In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,

Now, If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament story come from in the first place?

The Hebrew name for Christians has always been _Notzrim_. This name is derived from the Hebrew word _neitzer_ which means a shoot or sprout - an obvious Messianic symbol.

There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100 B.C.E.) ( A jewish Rabbi of note). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began with Yeishu.

The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.)

Contrary to the rubbish you wrote that jesus is joshua in greek! did you watch the passion of christ? What was jesus's name there?, Hmmm let me see, ah Joshua the greek, lol

To move on, It is important to note that Yeishu ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and moreover, parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical people besides Yeishu.

The early Christians believed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. This belief is based on a misunderstanding of Micah _ 5.2 which simply names Bethlehem as the town where the Davidic lineage began.

Since the early Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, they automatically believed that he was born in Bethlehem. But why did the Christians believe that he lived in Nazareth? The answer is quite simple.

The early Greek speaking Christians did not know what the word "Nazarene" meant. The earliest Greek form of this word is "Nazoraios," which is derived from "Natzoriya," the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "Notzri." (Recall that "Yeishu ha-Notzri" is the original Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene."

The early Christians conjectured that "Nazarene" meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Even today, Christians blithely confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" (_Nazarene_, Christian_), "Natzrati" _Nazarethite_) and "nazir" (_nazarite_), all of which have completely different meanings.


The Christians also claimed that the word "Notzri" means a person from Nazareth.

This is of course false since the original Hebrew for Nazareth is "Natzrat" and a person from Nazareth is a "Natzrati." The name "Notzri" lacks the letter tav from "Natzrat" as so it cannot be derived from it.

The Christians argue that perhaps the Aramaic name for Nazareth was "Natzarah" or "Natzirah" (like the modern Arabic name) which explains the missing tav in "Notzri." This is also nonsense since the Aramaic word for a person from Nazareth would then be "Natzaratiya" or "Natziratiya" (with a tav since the feminine ending "-ah" would become "-at-" when the suffix "-iya" is added), and besides, the Aramaic form would not be used in Hebrew.

The Christians also came up with various other arguments which can be ridiculously dismissed since they confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" and "nazir" or ignore the fact that "Notzri" is the earliest form of the word "Nazarene."

[center][size=22pt]PART 2 ( THE HEROD FALLACY AND THE RUBBISH CENUS FABRICATED BY CHRISTIANS)[/size][/center]

Mary Kelly quoted thus as a very very weak embarassing defence this passage:

Luke 2:1 
[ The Birth of Jesus ] In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.

ABOUT King Herod And the BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST THE MESSIAH


Matthew 2:1 
[ The Visit of the Magi ] After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi [ Traditionally Wise Men] from the east came to Jerusalem

Matthew 2:3 
When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

Mark 6:14 
[ John the Baptist Beheaded ] King Herod heard about this, for Jesus' name had become well known. Some were saying, [ Some early manuscripts He was saying] "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him."

Luke 1:5 
[ The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold ] In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.

Acts 12:1 
[ Peter's Miraculous Escape From Prison ] It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them.

Acts 12:20 
[ Herod's Death ] Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there a while. He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. Having secured the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king's country for their food supply.

I am going to break down your historical rubbish into smitterings:



The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history and has become a shameful embarassment to christians. 

The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E.  Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents.

However, Herod died before 12 April 4 B.C.E.  ( Fallacy number 1)

This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. ( Sharp thinking on the part of christians to correct their error)

However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius.  This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. ( Fallacy number 2)

There is no proof whatsoever to show that Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world at that time. Never! this is a historical lie of the highest proportion. It was simply Governor Quirinius of syria that ordered that cenus


Jesus was supposed to have been baptised by John soon after John had started baptising and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias i.e.  28 - 29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governer of Judaea i.e.  26 - 36 C.E. 

According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests.  But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus!  ( jesus couldnt have met john the baptist with these spurious dates)

Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas.

Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years.  Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas.  (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.)

Although the book of _Acts_ presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.).

Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book _Jewish Antiquities _which was used as reference by the author of _Luke_
and _Acts_.

May kelly, Please check your facts. Your giving Atheist too much ammunitions to tear you to shreds, Its simply not worth it with all these fantastic fables. This is just a summary of the above nonsense you tried to paint and to further compound your woes, i am going to actually sit down and para-phrase gospel by gospel accounts of the apostles Luke and matthew and explain the contradictory nonsense the world has been fed to believe.

Next time you want to prove me right, please don't use the bible as your reference point because it is definately going to be your waterloo.

In 1962, a 15 cm x 12 cm marble slab with four lines of inscription in Hebrew square character was found by Israeli archeologists in Caesarea, indicating that priests from Jerusalem were assigned to live in the village of Nazareth in Galilee. The slab bears the first non-Christian mention of Nazareth and is dated from the late 3rd or 4th century AD. This suggests that Nazareth at least existed around the time the Gospels started to be transcribed.
Dr. Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land has been conducting excavations in Nazareth since 1996, and claims to have found pottery dating from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD, associated with agricultural terraces and wine presses [1]. Based on this evidence, Dr. Pfann argues that in the 1st century, "Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over six acres (2.5 hectares)" [2].
(Wikepedia)

@Sun God
How would you explain the passage above about the existence of Nazareth?
You cannot deny the existence of Jesus based on the inconsistencies found in the Gospels. The Gospels are only written accounts. If you base your argument on the gospel then you might as well be a religious person. But I am of the opinion that you don't believe in the bible. If so, you should leave everything about it alone. You shouldn't use the Bible, which you don't believe in, to prove something IE that Jesus never existed.
A lot of people in history have inconstant versions of their lives and existence, does this mean that such people never existed. Read shakespears biography from different authors, you will see inconsistencies. Does this mean shakespear never existed. Even Hitler who lived less that a century ago, in his biography so many historians disagree and give divergent accounts of his childhood, upbringing, and lifestyle. Do these inconsistencies mean that Hitler never existed?
I have three different books on the life of Bob Marley, they all differ in so many things and these books were written by close associates of Bob Marley, even family members.

The boy from Nine mile -- written by Bob's mother
No woman no Cry    --- written by Bob's wife about three years ago
Marley and I -- written by Don Taylor. Bob's former manager
Catch a fire  -- written by Timothy white

Do the inconsistencies in these books about Bob Marley's character and lifestyle prove that Bob Marley never existed?

I concur.
@sun god
Why involve yourself in something you don't believe in? Leave it be for those that believe in the existence of Jesus. Because controversial history or not,He does exist. And though it saddens me that you don't believe in God,it is still a free world.So get rid of all that hate and channel it into something more productive.

@Cassiel

I am on the fringes of atheism myself, but I just leave each to their own.

On the other hand, you do get the ubiquitous and zealous Christian faithful
who seem to be on every corner or on every channel, trying to guilt trip the 'unfaithful'.

@doyin13
How did u get there?Fringes of atheism,i mean.That's a heavy fringe to be on,y'know.
I believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs though,and its not right to force your belief on others.As for the Christians that try to make atheists and non-Christians feel guilty,only thing i can say is that Jesus wouldn't have gone about it that way.Its supposed to be about love,not guilt trips.But then,perhaps that's the way they see fit to pass their message

Cassiel:

@doyin13
How did u get there?Fringes of atheism,i mean.That's a heavy fringe to be on,y'know.

@Cassiel

Na long story oo. . . .A whole load of Nieztsche and Marx.

Well about those guilt tripping Christians. . .well i reckon it is at the heart of each religion especially the Big Two
to conquer new grounds whichever way they can.

This might be out of context. . .but don't 'the violent take it by force'

@doyin13
lol Yep,the violent take it by force,but that phrase wasn't meant to be applied in this context.It doesn't involve literally forcing your beliefs on others or forcefully amassing people into your religion as if they're brain-dead zombies.God himself that gave us free-will and the ability to choose good or evil,right or wrong,knew what He was doing.
And of the Big Two,the violent theory can be more aptly identified with one than the other when it comes to religion-enforcement.
I'm truly intrigued though by whatever reason(s) drove you into the radars of Nieztsche and Marx

Philosophy ooo. . . .My Professor in University just happened to be an expert.

Walahi. . .the man had an answer for every question

justcool:

In 1962, a 15 cm x 12 cm marble slab with four lines of inscription in Hebrew square character was found by Israeli archeologists in Caesarea, indicating that priests from Jerusalem were assigned to live in the village of Nazareth in Galilee. The slab bears the first non-Christian mention of Nazareth and is dated from the late 3rd or 4th century AD. This suggests that Nazareth at least existed around the time the Gospels started to be transcribed.
Dr. Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land has been conducting excavations in Nazareth since 1996, and claims to have found pottery dating from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD, associated with agricultural terraces and wine presses [1]. Based on this evidence, Dr. Pfann argues that in the 1st century, "Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over six acres (2.5 hectares)" [2].
(Wikepedia)

@Sun God
How would you explain the passage above about the existence of Nazareth?

@justcool

1. I can safely tell you that the discovery of the slab you said was discovered has not been validated by historians in any way and until it has been validated it remains a ruse.

2. Even if i remotely believe the slab for one second, the slab doesnt point to any physical evidence apart from saying it directed priests to stay in Nazareth. It simply makes no sense at all. The question is does narzareth exist as enuciated in the bible? No! The scriptures doesnt talk about priests in that village or imaginary town and even after a very torrid investigation in the 1930s, Catholic scholars themselves noted with alarm that “no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement” was found in the venerated area of Nazareth (that is, where the Church of the Annunciation and nearby structures now stand)

3. Also your post from wikipedia argues it from the point of christian apologists but from the same page, this is what i also got:


Frank Zindler, editor of American Atheist Magazine, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[52] His arguments include the following:

No "ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD]."[53]
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages
Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).
Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.


So we are just back to square 1 which is even more damaging to christians because his arguments relates to the nazareth in the bible and the very existence of it.

4. To go back to your earlier point about the man who discovered pots, i just want to assure you that he's just one of the numerous "fakes" parading themselves as archeologists discovering this or that from Nazareth.

I have a classic article that exposes the shenigans of one of the so called respected archeologist who discovered a shell from nazareth and the contradictory claims that ended up being his water loo

[center][size=17pt]The dishonest shell game with the Nazareth evidence [/size] [/center]

Our eyes should be opened when the primary archaeologist at Nazareth (Bellarmino Bagatti) assigns an artefact on one page to the IRON AGE (c. 1200 BCE-c. 600 BCE), and a few pages later assigns the same artefact to the MIDDLE ROMAN PERIOD. The difference, of course, is 1000 years. . . Was the priest confused? Inattentive? Inebriated? Unfortunately, his error is hardly unique in the Nazareth literature, and points up the need for a wholesale reassessment of the primary data by neutral, objective archaeologists.

The main source for scholarly information on Nazareth is the 325-page book Excavations in Nazareth by the Fr. Bagatti (English edition 1969). This book is considered the definitive study of Nazareth archaeology and is repeatedly cited in the scholarly literature. It is no small thing, then, when one reveals Bagatti’s book to be full of blunders.

One could study Bagatti’s book for months and not realize anomalies such as the following example, which becomes apparent only if one makes a written itemization of the hundreds of artefacts in his work, as I have done while researching The Myth of Nazareth. The example I choose for this Scandal Sheet is the following:

(a) While discussing pottery of the Iron Period (1200-587 BCE) Bagatti comes to a v-shaped piece of pottery which he calls a “rim of the vase.” (For those with access to his book, it is on page 269, item 215:7.) He also diagrams this pottery shard in his figure 224.1. Bagatti continues his discussion, “Other elements of the Iron Period…” So, there is no question at all that the archaeologist considers this shard to be from the Iron Age.

(b) On page 282 of his book, in the section discussing “Pottery of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods,” Bagatti notes “fig. 224.1” and “fig. 215.7” (the same references as above, both referring to one artefact). Evidently he forgot that a dozen pages earlier he called the shard the rim of a vase, for he now calls it the neck of a “cooking pot.” More importantly, Bagatti is oblivious to the fact that he earlier assigned this artefact to the Iron Period. Now, on p. 285, he writes: “The oldest element of these cooking pots appears to be No. 1 of fig. 224… The neck, with the splayed mouth, recalls the Hellenistic-Roman custom for these artifacts.” So, we see that on one page the archaeologist assigns a shard to the Iron Age, and on another page he assigns it to the “Hellenistic-Roman” period.

Our confidence must be shaken in an archaeologist who ascribes the same material to two eras separated by up to a thousand years. Doesn’t Bagatti know what he is talking about? Or is there something more nefarious at play, something which goes beyond error? For we see that the priest’s use of the word “Hellenistic” on p. 285 is entirely inappropriate. He signals the typical Roman features of this jar, not Hellenistic ones! It would appear that the archaeologist has simply found another excuse to falsely introduce the word “Hellenistic” into his book.


For a village of Nazareth to have existed at the time of Christ, it had to come into existence before that time. That is why Hellenistic evidence from Nazareth is so important. It is also why Bagatti has, as seen in the above example, contrived to falsely introduce the word "Hellenistic" into his book. In fact, every one of his uses of that word is inappropriate, for there is no Hellenistic evidence from Nazareth! This is clearly shown in Part Three of my study.

In a subsequent Scandal Sheet, I will show how more Nazareth artefacts have been falsely called “Hellenistic,” thus furnishing more bogus evidence for a village at and before the time of Jesus. All those artefacts do not date before the time of Christ, but they are Middle Roman (second-third centuries after Christ).

Folks, we've all been spoofed!
—René Salm

from the above its not today we have been seeing fake and untrustworthy claims trying to prove the existence of nazareth. So sorry mate, your brief defence is largely unsubstantiated and it still remains a fable.


5. Also you stated that:

You cannot deny the existence of Jesus based on the inconsistencies found in the Gospels. The Gospels are only written accounts. If you base your argument on the gospel then you might as well be a religious person. But I am of the opinion that you don't believe in the bible. If so, you should leave everything about it alone. You shouldn't use the Bible, which you don't believe in, to prove something IE that Jesus never existed.

I think this quote is laughable because the bible is the central theme of this falsehood. If christians go around bamboozling people to believe the word of god and its the word of god and god is perfect and omiscent and all that crap and referring to the bible as its source of credibilty, doesnt it also make sense to investigate that source of knowledge?

For example imagine a senator fighting against exam malpractice amongst students and wages a terrible war and campaign against cheaters and tells the whole world that while he was in harvard he never cheated and because of his self righteousness, people end up finding out that he does have a record of cheating while he was in harvard, wont that be a reference point to shut him down and dump his campaign of calumny?

Thats what christians do everyday and every gaddam minute in our lives. Always bugging everyone to be a christian, always bugging everyone to follow the work of christ, always quoting one passage of the scripture or the other to convince you, always inviting or forcing you to prayer meetings or night virgils, always scaring you with frightening passages of the bible to follow god, always involving god in everything we do from our currency down to how we eat and shit, always condemning you if you dont become spiritually filled or being born again, The list goes on and on and on until you are fed up with all the barages of christian attacks and for the sake of peace and hypocrisy, you finally succumb till they get off your back temporarily.

When then shouldnt atheist unleash their own war and campaign to expose christians for the scammers they are? Why shouldnt we investigate the so called word of god to know whether any of it is actually true or worth while? Now that we have ventured into the taboo of questioning god, they all run away and scurry off like puppies into their kernels without any tangible defence to support the earlier "First attack".

So my friend, the scriptures will forever be a reference point to point out the contradictions and farcades being perpetuated by christians until we expose them for who they are.

A lot of people in history have inconstant versions of their lives and existence, does this mean that such people never existed. Read shakespears biography from different authors, you will see inconsistencies. Does this mean shakespear never existed. Even Hitler who lived less that a century ago, in his biography so many historians disagree and give divergent accounts of his childhood, upbringing, and lifestyle. Do these inconsistencies mean that Hitler never existed?
I have three different books on the life of Bob Marley, they all differ in so many things and these books were written by close associates of Bob Marley, even family members.

The boy from Nine mile -- written by Bob's mother
No woman no Cry --- written by Bob's wife about three years ago
Marley and I -- written by Don Taylor. Bob's former manager
Catch a fire -- written by Timothy white

Do the inconsistencies in these books about Bob Marley's character and lifestyle prove that Bob Marley never existed?

To summarize this point, all these people never claimed to be perfect, all knowing, ominiscent and demanded me to worship them and pray to them 24/7 lest i go to hell and burn there for eternity. The bible on the other hand makes allusions to all that. There is a big difference between attacking bob marley and attacking the imaginary jesus

@doyin13
Yeah,i've known a few people like that And its when your personal beliefs aren't strong that you get swayed by them.So its safe to assume yours weren't then,and its even less so now,right?
But one important fact is that his having an answer for everything doesn't mean those answers are correct.
@sun god
'Imaginary Jesus'? Lord have mercy. I'm not going to say anything more to you on that though because your mind is so obviously made up.But really,Jesus exists,and lives.

Cassiel:

@doyin13
Yeah,i've known a few people like that And its when your personal beliefs aren't strong that you get swayed by them.So its safe to assume yours weren't then,and its even less so now,right?
But one important fact is that his having an answer for everything doesn't mean those answers are correct.

Well I am always open to persuasion. . . . . . .Honestly Marx is old news now.

Nietzsche a bit of a drama queen. . . . .

Currently Wole Soyinka is the flavour of the month

Cassiel:

I concur.
@sun god
Why involve yourself in something you don't believe in? Leave it be for those that believe in the existence of Jesus. Because controversial history or not,He does exist. And though it saddens me that you don't believe in God,it is still a free world.So get rid of all that hate and channel it into something more productive.

hmm intelligent words but still missing the cardinal point. Atheists dont just wake up and start critizing people unduely. How many atheists do you know that bash hindu, buddist and to an extent islam the way we bash christianity?

Its because christians are the most irritaing and annoying of all the religions. Their get in your face attitude everytime makes it very very difficult for someone to be treated as an equal if you refuse to be born again or give ur life to christ.

They mock you, make fun of you, gossip at your back and threaten you with prayers and curses from the bible because god decreed it to be so and when you remotely tell them quietly that your not interested, damn, your the days topic for discuss where ever 2 or 3 people are gathered.

The sheer hypocrisy has led to a group called the Rational Response Squad to counter attack these claims and expose christians at every given opportunity we have. They have tormented and waged a calumnious battle against non believers for centuries till today and its time to shut them the hell up for good!

As to your funny statement that god exists, i just need to ask you back, "HOW DO YOU KNOW" ! There is no proof. Admit it and we are square.

Sun God:

hmm intelligent words but still missing the cardinal point. Atheists don't just wake up and start critizing people unduely. How many atheists do you know that bash hindu, buddist and to an extent the great religion the way we bash christianity?

Its because christians are the most irritaing and annoying of all the religions. Their get in your face attitude everytime makes it very very difficult for someone to be treated as an equal if you refuse to be born again or give your life to christ.

They mock you, make fun of you, gossip at your back and threaten you with prayers and curses from the bible because god decreed it to be so and when you remotely tell them quietly that your not interested, damn, your the days topic for discuss where ever 2 or 3 people are gathered.

I think you are spewing so much horse hockey,you must be reeking in it.Atheists that pick on Christians do so because most of them live in Christian dominated countries or traditionally Christian nations whose history of relative tolerance has allowed atheist literature to flourish.

None of these "brave" atheists will try such nonsense in Saudi Arabia,Pakistan,Burma or even India.If the M'uslims don't get them,Hindu or Buddhist nationalists will perform some emergency amputation on them.

@sun god
I'm really sorry that the Christians you've come across are those that threatened and treated you forcefully and wrongly.But its not right for you to judge all Christians by the ones you've been in contact with.Also considering the fact that Christians are a nicer and more tolerant set of people.I think you should try going to a fully hijab-populated country to criticize them,and see how fast your tongue gets ripped out of your mouth.Or India to criticize Buddha for that matter.This war you speak of,the one between Christians and un-believers,this is the first i'm hearing of it my brother.For real?
Come on,there is no such war.If there is,its between Christians and demons.So if you're calling yourself a demon,that's a different matter entirely.
As for how i know God exists,i see it in the little things around me.Waking up every morning healthy(can u explain that?) The elaborateness,complexity and perfection of my entire genetic and body system(can u explain that?) The way everything in nature is planned out to balance and complement each other(can you explain that?) The conviction i feel in my heart every time i sing a love song to Jesus(of course you can never explain that).And a whole lot more that you will not understand.So i'm not going to spend time arguing with you about whether God exists or not because one,its a ridiculous argument,and two,your mind is made up.Arguing with you would be a lost cause.But as long as you're happy with being an atheist,its ok.I'm not criticizing or condemning you.I find it sad,that's all.

Look at the 20th century.More theists have died at the hands of atheists in Communist nations, for no other reason than believing in the supernatural ,than atheists who have died in the hands of theists for their beliefs throughout the history of humanity.

Maybe some atheists need to educate themselves on history before trying to spread ignorance.

4 Play:

I think you are spewing so much horse hockey,you must be reeking in it.Atheists that pick on Christians do so because most of them live in Christian dominated countries or traditionally Christian nations whose history of relative tolerance has allowed atheist literature to flourish.

None of these "brave" atheists will try such nonsense in Saudi Arabia,Pakistan,Burma or even India.If the M'uslims don't get them,Hindu or Buddhist nationalists will perform some emergency amputation on them.

Rubbish!

How many atheists have come out to denounce either buddism, hindu or islam? The truth is that most of them feel comfortable with what they believe in and they very much believe it and whenever they question the doctrines, it just a repugnant part of it that generates public outcry and the authorities do their best to settle it either rationally or foolishly, but the fact remains that a large percentage of them believe in it and am fine with that.

The other religions are not as nauseating as christianity that tries to force outsiders to compulsory believe in them and stage countless evangelical rallies world wide to induce converts.

Compare such horse shit with western christians that infiltrate the air waves, neighbourhood, schools, government and what have you to ram rod this pile of horse shit down your throat. You dont see buddist going to Europe en mass to propagate buddism in all totality, you dont see hindus screaming out of their throat going from continent to continent to scream "Come join us and be saved by jesus"

But with christianity, you see it everywhere. From the missionaries taking over the world to george bush starting his unholy crusade to try someway to infuse christianity through western education, culture and politics in the middle east.

Christians have always been the harbingers of religious domination by force. Its either you accept jesus christ or your an outcast.

Dont you see the reasons islamist fundamentalists are trying to preserve their religion by taking it to the western countries with violence so as to halt that western controlled media of propagating christianity into their homes?

It has nothing to do with were i was born and from what i can tell about Nigeria, the 2 major religions include islam and christianity and i dont see the islamic movement rushing to Enugu or Calabar to start an Islamic campaign to dominate them there and hold religious rallies there.

But it is very easy for christians to rush to kano, kaduna and a host of northern states to preach the word of god there and invite reinhard bonnke or benny hill to stage grossly unbelievable christian miracle healing rallies there so as to convert more muslims to christians.

I attended a islamic secondary school for a while in Lagos Nigeria and i was suprised that despite the school being predominately muslims, apart from the early morning islamic prayers, they didnt force non muslims to part take in any thing islamic and did things quietly on their own.

Compared to the catholic primary school i attended that would force all students whether hindu, islamic or pagan worshippers to part take in the ash wednesday ritual ceremony on your forehead compulsorily, make sure all students participated in the baptism classes or catheism classes, force everyone to recite at least a decade of the hail maries before and after school hours and enjoin all students to partake in the nativity play. The most annoying aspect was when the bishop came, he would organize a mass for every student and sprinkle holy water on everybody.

That aspect of being considerate about other peoples faith is totally lacking in christianity, hence the sudden bias to research and know whether this unprovoked christian conquest is worth it.
So your argument doesnt hold water and as you said, its a just a pack of horse hockey!

Fellow Nairalanders,

Why do you bother engaging with losers in unprofitable arguments. Abeg ignore this Sun god and let him rot in hell if that is what he wants. No use trying to convince a cynic. When he dies he will find out albeit too late that Jesus really exists. Let him talk all the trash he wants to talk here. Answering him is like giving him recognition. I think he should just be ignored.

@ Sun God
The only reason why I contributed to this thread is that you appeared logical and had scientific knowledge. But from your replies I see that you are overwhelmingly emotional against Christans. I don't get into religious fights, I have always said that I don't have a religion. Religion and God/Jesus are very different things. God is not religious, neither was Jesus.
The theme of this thread is wheather Jesus existed or not. Lets not deviate from the topic.

Sun God:

@justcool

1. I can safely tell you that the discovery of the slab you said was discovered has not been validated by historians in any way and until it has been validated it remains a ruse.

2. Even if i remotely believe the slab for one second, the slab doesn't point to any physical evidence apart from saying it directed priests to stay in Nazareth. It simply makes no sense at all. The question is does Nazareth exist as enuciated in the bible? No! The scriptures doesnt talk about priests in that village or imaginary town and even after a very torrid investigation in the 1930s, Catholic scholars themselves noted with alarm that “no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement” was found in the venerated area of Nazareth (that is, where the Church of the Annunciation and nearby structures now stand)

3. Also your post from wikipedia argues it from the point of christian apologists but from the same page, this is what i also got:


Frank Zindler, editor of American Atheist Magazine, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[52] His arguments include the following:

No "ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD]."[53]
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages
Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).
Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.


So we are just back to square 1 which is even more damaging to christians because his arguments relates to the nazareth in the bible and the very existence of it.

4. To go back to your earlier point about the man who discovered pots, i just want to assure you that he's just one of the numerous "fakes" parading themselves as archeologists discovering this or that from Nazareth.

I have a classic article that exposes the shenigans of one of the so called respected archeologist who discovered a shell from nazareth and the contradictory claims that ended up being his water loo


from the above its not today we have been seeing fake and untrustworthy claims trying to prove the existence of nazareth. So sorry mate, your brief defence is largely unsubstantiated and it still remains a fable.

Your mistake is that you base your arguments on the opinions of historians and aceologists. If you think that the slab issue has not been validated by historians then tell me how historians validate findings. What is the formal procedure for this. And show me where they validated any of your claims. Historians report their findings which seldom conclusively prove anything thing. An educated historian or an archaeologist in his report will always say: "Based on the most recent discoveries, Nazareth not been or has been found.  This does not mean that Nazareth existed nor does it comfirm that it exisisted. This is how educated poeple approach such issues -they don't make bugus claims about something based on excavations. A few centuries ago no dinosaurs fossil was yet found, but that does not mean that dinosaurs never exsisted.

Sun God:

I think this quote is laughable because the bible is the central theme of this falsehood. If chriChristiansaround bamboozling people to believe the word of god and its the word of god and god is perfect and omiscent and all that crap and referring to the bible as its source of credibilty, doesnt it also make sense to investigate that source of knowledge?

This is a "Logical and Factual Error" you cannot validate an issue based on something the exisistence/validity of which you deny. If I go to court and tell them that Mr X never existed. Then when I am asked to provide a witness to an issue, I cannot use Mr X as a witness because I don't believe his existstance. You cannot base you arguments that Jesus never existeted on the inconsistencies of the Bible. You should not even bring the Bible in your arguments because you already stated that the bible is false. Also, the bible should not be a source of knowledge, the bible is only a written acount. The Bible and Jesus are two diffdifferent things, and the fact that the bible is incoinconsistent does not prove that Jesus never exsiexisted. Like I said, the incoinconsistency of the bible should not validate your argument because you don't consider the bible a valid witness.

Sun God:

To summarize this point, all these people never claimed to be perfect, all knowing, ominiscent and demanded me to worship them and pray to them 24/7 lest i go to hell and burn there for eternity. The bible on the other hand makes allusions to all that. There is a big difference between attacking bob marley and attacking the imaginary jesus

Here you are missing the point again. The issue is not wheather Bob Marley claimed to be perfect or not. I used Bob Marley as an example because both Bob Marley and Jesus have the same case-- the case of having many divergent recorded accounts of their lifes and actions. If the fact that the divergent and incoinconsistencies in the different accounts of Bob Marley's life does not disprove the fact that he existed then the same should be applied to Jesus. The inconsistencies in the different stories and accounts of Jesus' life is not a prove that Jesus never exsiexisted

Posted by: 4 Play  
Insert Quote
Look at the 20th century.More theists have died at the hands of atheists in Communist nations, for no other reason than believing in the supernatural ,than atheists who have died in the hands of theists for their beliefs throughout the history of humanity.

Maybe some atheists need to educate themselves on history before trying to spread ignorance

Rubbish again!

This post is even sillier than the other one.

1. hitler was a catholic and he was the architect of the holocaust and the worst crime ever known to man this 20 century

2. Charles taylor is a christian and we all know what he did in liberia and sierra leone

3. George bush, nuff said

4. Gowon and Ojukwu, biafra war

On the islamic side

1. Osama bin ladin

2. Idi amin

3. the sudanese government and somalian govt

4.Abacha

5. saddam hussein

The list goes on and on and on

How can you compare the atrocities of atheists to the massacres commited by people who believe in a silly religion?

Maybe they got their vote of blessings from god and allah who was also mass murder. So like father like son!


@ cassiel

Also considering the fact that Christians are a nicer and more tolerant set of people.I think you should try going to a fully hijab-populated country to criticize them,and see how fast your tongue gets ripped out of your mouth.Or India to criticize Buddha for that

1. Thats a bloody lie. What tolerant? Do you think tolerance deals with only violence or tongue ripping? What about you being termed a second class citizen? What about you being demonized by every one around you because you wont part take in the "Our father" prayer at dinner? What about you being segregated because you dont really believe that jesus rose from the dead? What about you being in a worse of situation than gays and ever one treats you like a pariah or leper? Who would stand up today and say he is running for office and declare "am an atheist" and would win that election?

So please dont preach tolerance upside down and assume it means killing me or stoning me because i blasphemed. killing me ends up making me a matyr for a worthy cause but looking down on me for the rest of my life is even worse and thats why atheists are fighting back to regain that honor.

Tell me how many atheists friends you have that say it openly without being reprimanded in some way? Tell me if you end up having an atheist boyfriend and you intend to marry him, you would feel comfortable bringing in to a largely religious home?

Please spare me that emotional jack! Its time to stand toe to toe with human beings and if we are to be respected, we must expose and attack that institution that has made us second class citizens for a very very long time.

2. Anyway as for your explanation god that exists, lol, this is the funniest defense i have ever heard but it still doesnt prove that god exists.

Its just like saying i see father christmas all around me and last night the god zeus and god venus helped me change my life, oh! look i saw god posiedon riding on pegasus in a chariot of fire and he came into my heart and i sang to him and he told me that god osiris made the heavens and earth and i should worship him because his son Horus would soon come and die for my original sin, lol,

Just the way this story sounds ridiculously silly to you is the way i relate with the story you just told me about god, lol They both dont make sense!        

Anyway just like you concluded, i find it sad that you believe in all this hocus pocus. But someday i hope rationality will give way to delusion

@just cool

First thing first, please sort out your key board malfunction. The only reason i am replying this post is because i believe you have been rational in your discuss that is why i have also refrained from using profanities to address you unlike the other posters here.

Now from the little i can gather from your posts, you said the basis of the argument was whether god exists or not. I have been explicitly clear that i dont believe in god and especially the christian god and i remember in your earlier post you tried to make me understand that i shouldnt use the bible as a basis to denounce the existence of god.

I later replied back that there was no way i can denounce the existence of god if i dont refer to the fallacies in the bible or koran and i explicitly said i have a terrible bias fro the christian god because 80% of my research has been basically on the fallacies of the bible and why?

Because its what i was brought up to believe and it was shoved down my throat from birth.

You later on brought the issue of the slab and i respectfully refuted the allegation of the slab and told you why it doesnt hold water in the mist of atheists and gave a classic example of a leading archeologist in nazarian matters that has been exposed as a fraud.

Now your basing your arguments on various issues most notable the slab and i would gladly denounce them again one by one and with reasoning as a basis for it.

Your mistake is that you bassBaser agumargumentsopinions and discdiscoverieshisthistoriansearcheologist's_If you think that the slab issue has not been validated by histhistoriansn tell me how historians validate findings. What is the formal procedure for this. And show me where they validated any of your claims. Historians report thietheirdings which seldom conclusively prove anything thing. An educated historian or an achearchaeologisthis report will always say: "BassBasedthe most recent discoveries, NassNazareth not been or has been forufoundhis does not mean that NassNazarether existed nor does it comfirm that it exisexistedis is how educated poeppeopleoapproachh issues -they dontdon'te bugubogusims about something bassbasedexcaexcavationsfew centcenturies no dinadinosaursfossil yet found, but that does not mean that dinedinosaursndidn'tst.

From what i can gather, you would like to know the procedure for validating the work of a historian.

Generally when a discovery has been made or accredited to a historian, it generates a buzz media wise and people talk about it. Up till that moment, it doesnt have any credibility except on the hearsay rule amongst scholars.

The discoverer must then present his work to a group of esteemed historian scholars or archeologists who would then engage in a long and brutal rigourous research to validate the claims.

It includes but not limited to the following:

1. Tracing the year the object is deemed to belong (Which takes a lot of time and energy)

2. Tracing the history and characteristics of the discoverer

3. Subjecting the object to rigourous scientific tests which might include carbon dating and so on

4. Exposing the object to geologists to discover and investigate the soil or waters or whatever where it has been found

5. Try to discover what the object has in connection with other pieces of history and what culture used them and why it hasn been found till date.

6. Exposing the object to intense criticisms from skeptics so as to come to a final conclusion

And a host of many things that i cant remember right now.

The last piece of evidence that underwent such scrutiny that i can vividly remember was the "Scroll and gospel according to judas". For almost 4 years or so, scientists, historians, geologist, archeologists and critics from all works of life converged in switzerland in a lab to each verify its authencity till the scroll passed the test of time and is widely accepted as being an original piece ( Though not as a writing of judas per say but as an origianal work of a pseudepigraphic).

What was generally accepted by all was that it is an old scroll and it can be traced to a certain century and the kind of people that were living at that time including the style of writing. The message still remains unvalidated but it can be regarded as an archeolgical find.

I have gone through this procedure to show you what goes on in determining whether something is historically relevant and acceptable to historians and works that can be deemed as mere spoofs.

Therefore the slab has not gone through this rigourous process by scholars to verify its authencity and until it has been published in a highly credible historical journal, it remains and continues to remain an unsubstianted discovery and should be dismissed summarily.

Also your allusion to dinosaurs is still on shaky grounds because its not everyone that has bought the story of dinosaurs and thats why scientists have problems forcing the world to believe they really existed because the proof is not yet conclusive.

Although its still sketchy in some ways, they have at least tried to document their discoveries with some reasonable proof but as i said, its still early days to sing hurray for them. Even evolutionists have a theory which is still widely unsubstantiated but everyday, they are out on the streets looking for more physical proof to nail home their point. Compared to the religious theory that god just came out from no where. Common!

This makes the evolutionists more credible than the religious creationists. Why shouldnt i query such a fallacy more than the evolutionists?

Going back to the issue of Nazareth, My reference to the bible to query its existence comes directly from the bible itself. The basis of christianity starts with the birth of jesus in Nazareth. Now, if the bible hadnt made allusions to Nazareth, why should atheists bother to wonder where such a place exists? It still leads back to me using the bible as a reference point for my argument.

Imagine a christian coming up to say, god was born in planet Uranus and he created the other 8 planets and so on and so forth, uranus will definately be on the radar to discover its authencity. Just the way scientists talk about the big bang, critics and biblical creationists will forever question the source of where that big bang came from especially from the point of view of the scientist who first claimed it occured in that way.

So Nazareth has become a widely debated topic and up till now, no body has given any rational answer to why nazareth wasnt in existence at the time jesus was born which in turn questions the nativity story.

Here you're commcommittingnder in your logic. This is a "Logical and Factual Error" you cannot validate an issue bassbasedsomtsomethingt you dontdon'tieve ever exsiexisted I go to court and tell them that Mr X never existed. Then when I am asked to provide a withwitnessan issue, I cannot use Mr X as a witness because I dontdon'tieve his existstance. You cannot base you agurargumentt Jesus never exsiexistedthe inconsistencies of the Bible. You should not even bring the Bible in your arguments because you already stated that the bible is false. Also, the bible should not be a source of knowknowledgee bible is only a written acouaccounte Bible and Jesus are two diffdifferentngs, and the fact that the bible is incoinconsistents not prove that Jesus never exsiexistedke I said, the incoinconsistencythe bible should not validate your argument because you dontdon'tsider the bible a valid witness.

Once again your very wrong in your choice of argument.

1. Before i say something doesnt exist, there must be a form or name of an object which i am de bunking as non existent.

If i say snufflejoyagus taro doesnt exist, the first thing you have to wonder at first is " what the hell is snufflejoyagus taro". You dont have to engage me in an endless debate over something that is nonsensical to you and has no meaning or shape or form to begin with.

2. But if i say Shakespear didnt exist, Then the burden of proof is on me to expatitate more, because shakespear is well known to alot of people and they have heard or seen him at some point or read his book somehow.

3. Because Shakespear lived and has some historical statistics to back up his existence, my argument must fail. because for everytime i say somthing to denounce his person, reference would be made to how he lived, the type of clothes he wore, his school, friends, colleagues and poems he wrote or read either in the prescence of people or hobbies he engaged in.

All references will definately come from a source either personally or through an eye witness account that has been verified over the years.

Remember, i wont have brought up Shakespear if i havent heard of him someway either by sight or sound.

4. Now compare it to the existence of zeus. Roman pagans refered to him as the ultimate god. He was attributed with all the goodness of life and maker of life.

5. Some people began to ask questions over the years over the existence of zeus in real life. Alot of arguments ensued and counter arguments but it ultimately had to fail at the end because it couldnt be substantiated by fact, reason or logic. It was just mere belief in something imaginary.

6. In this situation, all the pessimist had to do was say, "Zeus doesnt exist, his story is a myth" and the burden of proof shifts to him to denounce such existence and he would lay most of his evidence through the existing evidence of zeus worshippers that contradict themselves.

7. Just like you said, in law, the burden of proof lies on whom alledges such a fact and the evidence to be pleaded must come from the source he is alledging to be untrue or the fact that he is trying to disprove.

8. Now coming to christian god, the bible says god created this and did that. ( christians have made a fact and it remains a fact until it has been deemed to be untrue)

9. atheists have come out to challenge that fact asserted by christians that god exists. Definately, the rational thing to do is to investigate that fact that has remained a fact all these years and has been judicially noticed by the court and generally accepted by man.

10. If in the process of validating that fact, you end up finding contradictory and illogical reasonings in it that doesnt make sense in the mordern day era, then that fact begins to lose its flavour until it has been expunged as a fact.

E.g the 6th commandment in the bible says thou shall not kill. christians held on to that commandment for centuries until mordern day times when killing could be justified as either self defence, manslaughter or aggrevated murder and just plain murder. Now by changing the laws to suit the needs of time, a rational man would say, why are the christians not obeying the commandments hook line and sinker? As long as its gods law, it should be followed by the book.

The moment someone chose to query the usefulness of that law, it began to lose its flavour and relevance in mordern day society

11. The same rule applies in our everyday lives in court , "Innocent until proven guilty"

12. All this while the biblical facts have been termed as innocent. Not there is total proof to show that its is mostly untrue and in the eyes of atheist, christians are guilty of this farce.

13. Now whose duty is it to convince me that is true? Me or them?

Here you are missing the point again. The issue is not wheather Bob Marley claimed to be perfect or not. I used Bob MaleMarleyan example because both Bob Marley and Jesus share the same problem-- the problem of having many divergent acouaccountsthietheires and actions. If the fact that the divergent and incoinconsistentuaccountsBob MareMarley'se does not disprove the fact that he exsiexisteden the same should be applied to Jesus. The inconsistencies and different stories and acouaccountsJesus life is not a prove that Jesus never exsiexisted

This is still not an issue. bob marley existed. Plain simple. The biographies may be diverse and controversial but no body on this planet would argue that bob marley never existed. jesus is another story entirely.

Its a plain Hoax!

No eye witness accounts that can be verified

No historical records that make sense

Convoluted stories that are side splitters

Widely unimaginable things that christians said he did

The list is endless abeg!

Anyway, thumbs up for a respectful and brain stimulating debate. I appreciate it. thats what rationals do. Ask questions and query them till they get it right!


@ziontrain

Fellow Nairalanders,

Why do you bother engaging with losers in unprofitable arguments. Abeg ignore this Sun god and let him rot in hell if that is what he wants. No use trying to convince a cynic. When he dies he will find out albeit too late that Jesus really exists. Let him talk all the trash he wants to talk here. Answering him is like giving him recognition. I think he should just be ignored.

Coming from a zionist, i am not suprised. You reek of the delusional mentality that your fellow christian apologists shamefully smell off. You dont offer any form of excuse or debate to exchange ideas instead you resort to what you and your christian cohorts know best, emotional responses to a pitiful and widely disgusting defense.

Just cool and I have been having a respectful debate. In as much as we disagree in our views, he has shown to be someone of class that i respect and has shown to be a worthy debater which i definately would learn from.

Unlike you, a morose empty barrel that carries a stigma of a religion he cant even define or place on a solid footing but can only rely on the stupidity of emotions and hallucinations of hell.

By the way, have you ever thought of it that if the reward for doing gods work is going to heaven, definately if i am doing devils work, i also should get a reward. At least according to the christian fable, they are both royalties in some way. King of hosts and prince of darkness.

In fact you should be more worried about the devil because your not doing his work and if god ends up rejecting you from heaven, Damn, The Devil will be all over your ass in a jiffy!

Hello nairalanders,
This whole issue of the birth of Christ and all other issues that tend to question the life and beliefs of the christian is practically no one's call to make except the individual involved. If I choose a particular sect or life, its my life. I keep saying at the end of our lives here on earth, then and only then will we know for sure if God created the world by just saying words. Only then will we know if God can just call things that are not as if they are and they come into being. Only then will we find out if we were created by someone whose actions and deeds seem senceless and unreasonable to mere humans.
If all the energy used in starting this thread is converted to something that can bless the day of everyone who reads it, then you people would have done a great job rather than engaging in an issue that at the end of the day, nothing is achieved. NOTHING WILL BE ACHIEVED RATHER THAN JUST COPYING AND PASTING FINDINGS FROM SOMEONE'S ELSE WEBPAGE.
Though you should stand up for what you believe but also know when to back out of a senseless argument.

Specially made for you - sun god.

Take Note


Psalm 92:6 ,
The senseless man does not know, fools do not understand,

Psalm 94:8 ,
Take heed, you senseless ones among the people; you fools, when will you become wise?

Proverbs 1:7 ,
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Proverbs 12:15 ,
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 1:22 ,
"? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 3:35 ,
The wise inherit honor, but fools he holds up to shame.

Proverbs 10:14 ,
Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.

Proverbs 10:23 ,
A fool finds pleasure in evil conduct, but a man of understanding delights in wisdom.

Proverbs 13:16 ,
Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly.

Proverbs 14:7 ,
Stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.

I think all sungod simply needs is a hug

side bar: I suspect you are therationa/tpaine/etc re-incarnated - am I right?

JeSoul:

[b] I think all sungod simply needs is a hug [/b]

side bar: I suspect you are therationa/tpaine/etc re-incarnated - am I right?

Me I need a hug ooo. . . .a snug Bostonian one

May kelly:

Specially made for you - sun god.

Take Note


Psalm 92:6 ,
The senseless man does not know, fools do not understand,

Psalm 94:8 ,
Take heed, you senseless ones among the people; you fools, when will you become wise?

Proverbs 1:7 ,
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Proverbs 12:15 ,
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 1:22 ,
"? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 3:35 ,
The wise inherit honor, but fools he holds up to shame.

Proverbs 10:14 ,
Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.

Proverbs 10:23 ,
A fool finds pleasure in evil conduct, but a man of understanding delights in wisdom.

Proverbs 13:16 ,
Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly.

Proverbs 14:7 ,
Stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.

heeeeeeeee! Another typical emotional response from a christian apologist that has nothing to say but rain curses all ordained by the almighty god, lol

Have you for once thought of the foolishness of your quotes and the silliness of the "god is perfect" SYNDROME?

How can one so merciful, kind, loving, wonderful and humble, be so vile, bitter, angry and wallow in the comfort of insults and takes so much pride in insulting and raining curses at every chance he gets

There is no difference between a mad man i see on the road that arbitrarily insults and curses people and god because they both share the same thing!

THEY ARE BOTH INSANE!  

Like i told you earlier on Mary kelly, you have been disgraced and dishonorably dismissed. Dont make life any harder for your self by concluding with empty threats and raining insults as a last resort.

You ought to have known that: Who ever gets into a debate must be armed with concrete facts to prove a point. The fact that i destroyed all your silly arguments and made you look like a sheep doesnt mean you have to conclude with something so irrational as selecting biblical verses that makes me even know further that only primitive Albanian goat herders can write this sort of bullocks.

Anyway for a final comment, dont ever step on any Athiests toes and engage in a debate, (EVER IN YOUR LIFE) because they wont be as moderate and kind as i have been with you.

P:S: Since we are on the topic of quoting silly biblical verses, i'll help shame you and you bible more in the other thread concerning noah and his imaginary ark, lol!

So go over there and recieve your present gleefully