felixomor:
From centuries to centuries.
They just cant stop talking about Jesus......

Hallelujah

JackBizzle:



Felixomoron. Abeg shift

JackBizzle:


1. Jon snow died and came back to life
2. Jon was betrayed by one of his followers (thebyoung nightwatch boy)
3. Jon snow always talks about his Father, who is in heaven (Ned stark)
4. Jon snow has the long hair and beard just like Jesus.
5. Jon snow is going to have his second coming (probably in season to judge the living (cercei's army) and the dead (nightwalkers).
6. Like jesus, he is a lord (And a king).

butterflylion:



Hahahahahahahaha and Jumbo Dumbo loves Game of thrones because of Jon Snow the Jesus incarnate!

The irony

So GOT was modelled after Jesus and you lot just cannot get enough of it. Kikikikikikikikiki

Oh my lawdy lawd!

JackBizzle:


And so what? Jesus wasnt a bad guy. He was a cool hippie but sometimes a bit delusional.

butterflylion:



Hahahahahahahaha and Jumbo Dumbo loves Game of thrones because of Jon Snow the Jesus incarnate!

The irony

So GOT was modelled after Jesus and you lot just cannot get enough of it. Kikikikikikikikiki

Oh my lawdy lawd!

Ogbeni Jack can you fathom the kind of attention and appeal and love targeted at Jon Snow simply because of his character which was modelled after Jesus? Because of Jon Snow and his character GOT has gotten worldwide acclaim even among atheists. Oh what irony.

As you cheer Jon snow on you are actually cheering Jesus on!

Now that is mighty right hook and a double upper cut.


[img]https://usatthebiglead.files./2012/05/lavar-big-johnson-barry-ko.gif[/img]

butterflylion:


Did Jesus exist?

JackBizzle:


Yes. But not the exact bible Jesus. There was a Jesus but he didnt ressurect or ascend into heaven.

felixomor:


Hehehehe

butterflylion:


Can you show me your source?

butterflylion:


Can you show me your source?

felixomor:


You want to kill him ?

JackBizzle:



Historians agree that there was a historical jesus. I cant show a source now as im mobile. Maybe later.

butterflylion:


No na

I am truly curious to know how source. No knowledge is lost you know

So JackBizzle my main Jumbo Dumbo or Dumbo Jack as you prefer make I see your source joor.

butterflylion:


So historians believe there was a historical Jesus........ And then.......

Ogbeni you go show me verifiable source o. I am an atheist today and solely for this purpose so I wish to communicate as one with you.

You sabi our atheist language as my bother in atheism ba?

Show me verifiable proof
Show me verifiable proof
Show me verifiable proof
Show me verifiable proof
Show me verifiable proof



Na the work we dey do as atheists Abi Jack?

JackBizzle:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died




Shut up and read

butterflylion:



I just did and I must say that for some unfathomable reason you lacked the understanding of the reference site you posted. I suggest you read it again and this time with a dictionary beside you so you would understand words better.

Or do you want me to hell you break it down? If I do I go embarrass you openly o! Would you want that?

JackBizzle:

Pls embarass me with your stupidity

How confident can we be that Jesus Christ actually lived?

The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.



What do Christian writings tell us?

The value of this evidence is that it is both early and detailed. The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul, and scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place – under the aegis of the Roman empire – where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.


What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?
As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably turning Josephus’s negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious – a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.

About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?

Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.

How controversial is the existence of Jesus now?

In a recent book, the French philosopher Michel Onfray talks of Jesus as a mere hypothesis, his existence as an idea rather than as a historical figure. About 10 years ago, The Jesus Project was set up in the US; one of its main questions for discussion was that of whether or not Jesus existed. Some authors have even argued that Jesus of Nazareth was doubly non-existent, contending that both Jesus and Nazareth are Christian inventions. It is worth noting, though, that the two mainstream historians who have written most against these hypersceptical arguments are atheists: Maurice Casey (formerly of Nottingham University) and Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina). They have issued stinging criticisms of the “Jesus-myth” approach, branding it pseudo-scholarship. Nevertheless, a recent survey discovered that 40% of adults in England did not believe that Jesus was a real historical figure.

Is there any archaeological evidence for Jesus?
Part of the popular confusion around the historicity of Jesus may be caused by peculiar archaeological arguments raised in relation to him. Recently there have been claims that Jesus was a great-grandson of Cleopatra, complete with ancient coins allegedly showing Jesus wearing his crown of thorns. In some circles, there is still interest in the Shroud of Turin, supposedly Jesus’s burial shroud. Pope Benedict XVI stated that it was something that “no human artistry was capable of producing” and an “icon of Holy Saturday”.

It is hard to find historians who regard this material as serious archaeological data, however. The documents produced by Christian, Jewish and Roman writers form the most significant evidence.

These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question – which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived.

JackBizzle:


3. Jon snow always talks about his Father, who is in heaven (Ned stark)

AT LEAST,
THE FATHER OF JESUS CREATED HEAVEN, AND NED STARK, IF HE'S THERE, IS LIKE A TENANT.

THIS THREAD IS MEANINGLESS.

CAPSLOCKED:



AT LEAST,
THE FATHER OF JESUS CREATED HEAVEN, AND NED STARK, IF HE'S THERE, IS LIKE A TENANT.

THIS THREAD IS MEANINGLESS.

butterflylion:


Let me start by posting the entire article here.




Now let's break it down.

From the very first statement it ends with "The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur" which was put side by side as a comparison. Two supposed historical figures around the same period or so. Yet it was established that Arthur was expanded based on folklore unlike those of Jesus.

butterflylion:


Second paragraph


The detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place – under the aegis of the Roman empire – where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.

^^^^^
||||||||

That statement supports the Jesus claim and his works because it matches locations, culture and was documented within the lifetime of living witnesses.

butterflylion:



Third paragraph extract

but the other is not suspicious – a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.

About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

^^^^
||||||

Pliny was a Roman so an enemy to the gospel and even he testified in his own writing of the miraculous man named Jesus who was worshipped or adored by the Christians and termed them as destructive. Obviously because they were anti Rome.

butterflylion:

Fourth paragraph

Nobody ever objected to the existence of Jesus.

butterflylion:


Fifth paragraph

Comments from scholars

Alana nobbs

While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain

John Dominic Crossan

That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus [...] agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.

Otto Betz

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned


Ermann


Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine

^^^^
|||||||

Those are views about the Jesus myth theory

butterflylion:


Final paragraph


These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question – which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived

So they concluded that Jesus lived and died. yet also agreed that his biographical accounts are accurate.

Go check what biography entails

A biography, or simply bio, is a detailed description of a person's life. It involves more than just the basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death; it portrays a person's experience of these life events.

butterflylion:


^^^^^^^
||||||||||||

All of the above I have written confirms the title I knighted you with which is JUMBO DUMBO. You asked for it so you got it.

butterflylion:
^^^^^
|||||||

Jackbizzle they say your thread is meaningless and by inference, YOU ARE MEANINGLESS! afterall the thread is a well thought out one from your well of wisdom and "intelligence" so by extension, the thread is YOU!

JUMBO DUMBO

JackBizzle:



Brain dead

JackBizzle:


What crap are you talking? What the sentence means is that there is much more than folklore about Jesus as compared to King Arthur. There is folklore about Jesus. Do you believe the Jewish stories about Jesus in which they say that Jesus is the son of a sorcerer? Do you think the historians mostly accept the bible version of christ?





Stop exaggerating. There are many versions of Jesus from different witnesses. Even in the bible, there are differing accounts of Jesus.




Like I said, there was a Jesus but which version to believe?



Except for some atheist historians......
















You just confirmed that you are a clown. what most historians will tell you is that a Jesus existed but not all the stories, including the bible, about him are true.

butterflylion:



Read your article again and read my response which you begged for.

Sense fall on you.

butterflylion:



They already called you brain dead without any provocation from me. Plus I hope you loved the embarrassment I served you since you asked for it.

JackBizzle:


Satan's penis fall on you

JackBizzle:




You that are suspected to be the alternate handle for a well known liar?