Jesus' Birth Stories Are Very Fraudulent, Dubious And Historically Untrue

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.

@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

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.

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.






 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.





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.







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) 




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."   

   

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?

@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'.

@Cassiel

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

Well about those guilt tripping Christianswell 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 contextbut don't 'the violent take it by force'

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

Walahithe man had an answer for every question

@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.

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 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 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.

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
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.

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 don't see buddist going to Europe en mass to propagate buddism in all totality, you don't 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 don't 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!

@ 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.


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.


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.



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