Mr anony:

My response:

Number 1. Why do you think that the Sahendrin didn't have such power? They had the power to arrest Jesus, try him and then hand him over to the Romans to be crucified. They also had the power to arrest Stephen, try him and then stone him to death. They also had the power to arrest and flog Peter and John

Not written any where except in the gospel stories which was written by gentile christians who do not even know much about the Jews and how their judiciary operate. . . .

Here is an excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The extant references to the Sanhedrin are not sufficient to give an exact and detailed idea of its functions and of the position which it occupied. It is certain, however, that the extent of its power varied at different times, and that the sphere of its functions was restricted in various ways by the Roman government. One of these restrictions was Gabinius' above-mentioned division of the Jewish territory into five provinces, each with a sanhedrin of its own, whereby the authority and the functions of the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem were materially diminished. Its power was insignificant under Herod and Archelaus. After the death of these rulers its authority again increased, the internal government of the country being largely in its hands. It administered the criminal law, and had independent powers of police, and hence the right to make arrests through its own officers of justice. It was also empowered to judge cases that did not involve the death penalty, only capital cases requiring the confirmation of the procurator.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13178-sanhedrin#anchor5

From the above we can see that Jewish lands were under control of the Roman government and basically, the power of the Sanhendrin rose and fell depending on who was in power and how friendly he was to the Jews.
We also learn that after the death of Herod and Archelaus, the Sanhendrin increased in power including having the power to make arrests and hold trials and pass judgment. They were only withheld from carrying out capital punishment without the permission of the city's procurator.
Herod died in 4 BC, Archelaus died in 18 AD. [size=15pt]The time of Paul persecuting Christians (about 30 AD) would fit perfectly with the time when the Sanhendrin had powers to make arrests, hold trials and pass judgment[/size]. It would also explain why Christ had two trials: one before the Sanhendrin and one before Pilate because the Jews wanted him dead.
What it might not explain is the death of Stephen but Stephen's then death didn't have an explicit pronouncement of judgment rather he was killed in a fit of rage as he spoke in his trial. Or maybe they could have obtained the permission of the city head. We are not told.

There were NO christains in AD 30 any where. . .Jesus himself we are told died some where around AD 33, the cult of Jesus followers started after Jesus died, there were NO christians any where in AD 30, so what exactly are you talking about?. . .The accounts in the gospel of Mark(which is the first gospel and which all other gospels were copied from and embellished) about Jesus's trial by the sanhendrin remains very questionable and has been disputed by many scholars, the writer of Mark, clearly a gentile does not know how the Jewish legal system functioned. . . Mark's account is questionable in that had a trial before the Sanhedrin taken place as he described, it most likely would have been illegal under Jewish law. . . According to Jeiwhs scholars like Robert Maddox, Kelhoffer, and Rabbi Wilson the trial could not have taken place at night and would have required two separate hearings. Because that how was the sanhendrin functioned at that time. . .The gospel of Mark indicates that Jesus faced the charge of blasphemy, but nothing in Mark indicates that Jesus said anything that would actually constitute blasphemy under Jewish law Scolars like Rabbi Boteach have stated that the sanhindrin did not have the powers to persecute people based on what the gospels wrote about them. . .The early christians were not violating any Jewish laws as such could not be arrested by the sanhidrin. . .As for the trail before Pilate, no followers of Jesus were believed to have been present at any such trial, so the dialogues recorded in gospel accounts (which range from the few words in Mark to a more extensive dialogue between Pilate and Jesus in John's version) are almost certainly fictitious. . . .

Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep. Acts7:54-60

So what am I to do with this propaganda?. . .This is pure fiction because the sanhendrin had no power to execute anybody as you rightly pointed out yourself. . .

So once again, other than "Rabbi Boteach said so", why are you convinced the Sanhendrin did not have such power?

One more thing, the Rabbi said that Paul was not even a member of the Sanhendrin. . . "And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). But it is fairly clear that Paul wasn't actually a member. So Paul going about persecuting christians is a myth. . .He had no such powers. . .

3. Could you point out the two accounts of Paul's conversion in the book of Acts and tell us why they you think they are contradictory?

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

4. You missed the point I was making by comparing Paul vs the Christians to GEJ vs Boko Haram. The point I was making is that it is ridiculous to suggest that a person who already has the political upper hand as the persecutor of a certain sect will leave his position because he envies the political clout of someone he has more authority than.
It makes no sense for Paul to become a Christian for reasons of fame because Christians at that time were despised by many and by Paul especially.



To be continued some more.....

GEJ has the power to go after BH, Paul was a no body he was not a member of the sanhendrin as such does not have the power to prosecute any body. . .It made a lot of sense for him to be a christians because he wanted to teach his own theology to the gentiles. . .He even called himself the apostle of the gentiles. . .He wanted the gentile to follow his ways. . .Christian persecution in the hands of Jews in Jerusalem as I have stated was embellished according to historians. . .

Just because of what Anony said...I respond to this.

mazaje:

He was talking about Paul and Peter as the founders of the religion who suffered for their faith, had nothing to gain, died for it etc. . .No of which is true. . .Historically during that time Christians were persecuted under Nero because he accused them of burning a building when people accused him or arson. . .

1) Paul has a lot of financial benefit to gain from preaching the gospel but instead of focusing on the 'reward' what did he do instead?

1 Corinthians 9:13-15
New International Version (NIV)

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. 15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast.

He deprives himself of such privileges. I am very sure that a number of our business men who go by the name MoG would consider Paul crazy for rejecting this golden opportunity.

2) Paul and Peter did suffer for their faith and I don't need to quote any bit of Sacred scriptures to affirm this.

mazaje:
Acts is one reason for a lot of the confusion about early christian history. . . . It pretends to describe the immediate years after Christ's death but it's clearly not a good historical source, being written many decades later and including a lot of mythologizing.

Not sure what you mean by mythologizing but you should know that a number of ancient biographies we accept today were written many years after the actual event occurred.

The book of Acts was written no more than 70 years after the death of Christ...in comparison to the history of Alexander that was written over 200 years after the fellow died, I would say the book of Acts was written early enough.

mazaje:
Paul is one of the main characters, but at times it contradicts Paul's own accounts of events in his letters

It's no surprize that Paul is one of the major characters in the Acts of the Apostles considering the role he played at the time, both for and against Christianity.

I bet the contradictions you refer to has to do with his conversion...check the meaning of the root word akouō (ἀκούω) in Greek and get back to me on your findings.

mazaje:
. . . . .It clearly has an agenda , it wants people to believe that all the problems between Paul and the Jewish Christians were smoothed over and resolved (in Paul's favor) and christian unity was achieved. . . . .

Why would Luke or any member of the Apostle have this agenda with Paul?

mazaje:
Paul's letters make it clear that James (who he calls the brother of Jesus) was the unquestioned leader of the early Christian movement, and that they were at odds , he criticizes both James and Peter pretty viciously. . . .

Let me get this straight...you mean Paul criticized Peter viciously and still went back to have this hidden agenda with him?

mazaje:
Acts practically writes James out of the picture. . . He's not mentioned at all in the early sections, then suddenly pops up to issue a command at the "Jerusalem council" with Paul. If he was such an important figure that he could make decisions that were binding on Peter and Paul, how is it that Acts tells nothing about him except for that one brief appearance?

Luke wrote James out of the picture in the book of Acts and then re-introduced him? Note that Acts is not a book about James but about the Apostles as a whole and how God used them to convert unbelievers...James got little mention because he was based in Jerusalem and that was why the duty of issuing the 'command' fell to him.

If Paul had not converted that many Gentiles he wouldn't have been mentioned in the book of Acts. His role was special because he was called specifically to preach to the Gentiles and the council at Jerusalem was convened because of this same Gentiles...small wonder why Paul got the lion's share in Acts as against James.

mazaje:
Acts also contains a lot of myth-making and unbelievable magical acts by the apostles. There are stories of apostles winning duels with magicians, and Peter striking dead a Christian couple who didn't turn over all their income to the church etc. . .

The bold is your opinion...now you agree that other Apostles got mentioned too for their roles in the work of conversion? So why all this talk because Paul was mentioned for his role?

mazaje:
We also find out that Peter insisted on following Jewish dietary laws, until god sent him a vision of a magic "tablecloth" covered with all kinds of food and told him they were all "clean". (i.e. Paul's position). This would seem to prove that Jesus taught nothing of the kind. If Jesus had really proclaimed all foods to be clean, wouldn't Peter have known? Why would God need to send this vision to his No. 1 apostle? This seems to be a perfect example of fabricating scriptures,

Christ did not teach the Apostles everything they needed to know and that was why he promised them the Holy spirit who he said would lead them to the truth. What you have up there is a classic case of the Spirit revealing a truth to Peter just as Christ promised.

John 14:26
New International Version (NIV)
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

mazaje:
in this case to put god's stamp of approval on Paul's pro-gentile teaching. After all Paul claims he is the apostle of the gentiles. . . .

I still do not understand the logic here...you say that Paul has a beef against Peter hence he criticized Peter viciously but Peter repays Paul by confirming that his teachings are genuine? What am I missing here?

mazaje:
The point of Acts is to establish Paul as the successor to Jesus (to the detriment of Peter and James) and Luke as the successor to Paul (to the detriment of John Mark and Barnabas). It's pure propaganda. . . .These books were all brought to us by gentiles like Papias, Polycarp, Irenueus etc. . .

The book of Acts is a form of coup d'etat against Peter and James but instead of them fighting against Paul, they were busy telling people how authentic Paul's teachings and works were?

mazaje:
I repeat Paul was NOT tortured and killed any where. . .Stories came very long after he died by the church fathers who did not know him or have ever meet him that he was killed. No one knows how he died. . .Paul is a liar and as such he has little credibility even he himself admits that he lies and uses trick. .

Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!2 Corinthians 12:16

Lol, this bit made me laugh for a few moments as usual, let us review 2 Corinthians 12:16 in context.

First of all you quoted from the NIV translation
[i]Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.
So I will very gladly spend for you everything I have and expend myself as well. If I love you more, will you love me less?
Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!
Did I exploit you through any of the men I sent you?
I urged Titus to go to you and I sent our brother with him. Titus did not exploit you, did he? Did we not act in the same spirit and follow the same course?[/i]2Corinthians 12:14-18

Notice what Paul is saying. That verse you quoted was in the context of defending his innocence and asking the Corinthians rhetorical questions to show he is guiltless and has done nothing against them. The part you quote mined is Paul quoting what the Corinthians said against him but you quote mined it to sound as if Paul was bragging about his trickster abilities.
How else would you explain Paul starting a sentence with "I was never a burden on you". . .yet I am a trickster. . .and then he continues with "Have I ever exploited you?"

The ESV translation paints for us a a much clearer picture

"But granting that I myself did not burden you, I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by deceit. Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you?" 2 Cor 12:16-17. ESV

You accusation against Paul is false.

First of all you personally do NOT know if Paul wrote any letters, church father like Polycarp, Ireneaus etc claimed the letters were written by Paul. No one knows Paul as a historical figure any where. . .No Roman document mentions him any where, ONLY the church fathers and their biased writings mention him and claimed he wrote those letters. . .Scholars use the style of writing and other things to determine if he actually wrote some of them himself or not. . .Some of the Pauline letters like many books in the bible have been shown by some scholars to be the wroks of more than one author based on the writing styles and many other factors. . .For example Polycarp ALONE in the second century said Paul wrote the book of Corinthians, He did not give any reason as to why he believed it was Paul he just said it was him and that was all. . .

Erhm....this was not what I required of you. I asked you to list for us which of Paul's letters you think were written by him and which ones you don't think he wrote. Please do this so that our discussion can progress. If you claim that not all the epistles were written by Paul, it should be easy for you to tell us which ones you think were and which ones weren't.


I'll pause here for now and will continue when you let us know which books of Paul's letters pass your mark of authorship authenticity

@Striktlymi, the book of Acts is actually dated at about 30 years after Christ. That pushes Luke further ahead and Mark even earlier.

Mr anony: @Striktlymi, the book of Acts is actually dated at about 30 years after Christ. That pushes Luke further ahead and Mark even earlier.

Thanks!

I am being conservative here that's why I said "no more than" because there is little time to get the exact time frame.

PhenomenonVFX: Seriously, I have to hand it to Mazaje . The dude knows his stuff. I used to think I was the only one who could see the rivalry in the new testament (Back in the days when I was a devout christian, I used to bind and cast every spirit of doubt). Some books were dedicated to subtly proving the superiority of one person over another.
Just like I am still inclined to believe that the followers of John the baptist and Jesus may have been rivals. And John the baptist probably never made the claims about Jesus that the new testament, which was written by the followers of Jesus, says he did.
The first part of first chapter of the gospel of John dedicated itself to proving (more like claiming) that Jesus was God and John the baptist was not the light. You dont do that unless u are trying to win an argument of superiority with someone else who was claiming otherwise. The question now is who was the author of the gospel of John arguing with?
Thanks to the Holy Roman Catholic Church there are many things we may never be able to know about Paul and the early apostles because they burnt every book with opposing views or claims.

Anony is trying to tell us that christianity has divine origins but that is VERY FALSE and there is NOTHING in early christianity that suggest such. . .The religion was formed by people after the character called Jesus. I consider the founders of christianity to be the early church fathers like Justin Matyr, Papias, Ireneaus, Polycarp etc and not even Jesus, Paul or Peter. . .The early church fathers brought the gospels to us, they were the ones that ascribed the names on the nameless gospels, they were the ones that claimed Paul wrote down all the letters ascribed to him etc They were the ones that brought the book of acts and said Luke wrote it. . .

In order to form a proper opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is absolutely mandatory that the evidence from antiquity be first examined.

There is no other way to form an opinion of the start of the Jesus--Evidence First. It doesn't work that way, you have to look at other sources. . .

Its very good to look at non-apologetic writers like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonus.

These four ancient writers remarkably covered the ENTIRE 1st century and wrote about events and the history of the Jews. Their writing are considered as the standard historical accounts of the Jews during the first century and they wrote about all the major events that happened throughout the 1st century. .

There is no mention whatsoever in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius of a Jesus cult of Christians where Jews worshiped a known man as a god, the logos and god creator who was claimed to have been raised from the dead and was the son of god born of a holy ghost or spirit conceived by a virgin.

I cannot form an opinion that the Jews worshiped a Jewish man as a god when no corroborative evidence from antiquity exist in the history of the Jews at all.

Next, examine the so-called canonized gospels.

In order to form an opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is imperative that the Gospel be first examined. . . .The earliest version of the Jesus story in gospel of Mark is extremely significant because it can be easily seen that there was NO Jesus cult at all when Jesus was supposedly alive.

1. In gospel Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted. See Mark 4

2. In gospel of Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ instructed his own disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ. See Mark 8

3. When Jesus was arrested his disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied him. See Mark 14.

4. When Jesus was put on trial before the Sanhedrin he was considered a blasphemer and the Jews asked that Jesus be crucified before Pilate. See Mark 15. . .

I will form an opinion on gospel of Mark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius because these are the earliest sources of what happened in the 1st century Palestine. . .

In the earliest version of the Jesus story there was NO Jesus cult of Christians up to the day Jesus was supposedly crucified and this appears to be in harmony with Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suestonius.

There was no Jewish person called Jesus the Messianic ruler who was worshiped as a god in the time of Pilate and NO Jesus cult of Christians. . . .If Jesus did exist he would have been known merely as blasphemer whose so-called disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied and NOT as one who started a cult.

So, when gosel of Mark was composed there was NO Jesus cult of Christians. . . . The Jesus cult of Christians most likely started AFTER the story was composed. . . . It was people who believed the story who called themselves Christians.. . . The story in the early version of gospel of Mark is that the Jews killed or asked that Jesus be killed. . . .Those who believed the story were called Christians.

But if we are to look at it historically Jesus did NOT start any religion himself. . .Christianity started with the gentiles and the early church father made it what it is today. . .They brought the gospels and all the other writing in the new testament out to the public. . .They wrote down the christian history and made it what it is today. . .Not even Paul or Jesus. . .No body knows Paul anywhere. . .His name does NOT appear in any document outside that of the early church fathers, they claimed he wrote his letters, no one knows him any where. . .Paul could be their own creation. ..

mazaje:

Anony is trying to tell us that christianity has divine origins but that is VERY FALSE and there is NOTHING in early christianity that suggest such. . .The religion was formed by people after the character called Jesus. I consider the founders of christianity to be the early church fathers like Justin Matyr, Papias, Ireneaus, Polycarp etc and not even Jesus, Paul or Peter. . .The early church fathers brought the gospels to us, they were the ones that ascribed the names on the nameless gospels, they were the ones that claimed Paul wrote down all the letters ascribed to him etc They were the ones that brought the book of acts and said Luke wrote it. . .

The above represent your opinion without a shred of evidence just like it is my view that President Goodluck Jonathan is a Ghanian by birth.

mazaje:
In order to form a proper opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is absolutely mandatory that the evidence from antiquity be first examined.

Okay, let's examine this so called 'evidence from antiquity'...

mazaje:
There is no other way to form an opinion of the start of the Jesus--Evidence First. It doesn't work that way, you have to look at other sources. . .

Its very good to look at non-apologetic writers like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonus.

These four ancient writers remarkably covered the ENTIRE 1st century and wrote about events and the history of the Jews. Their writing are considered as the standard historical accounts of the Jews during the first century and they wrote about all the major events that happened throughout the 1st century. .

There is no mention whatsoever in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius of a Jesus cult of Christians where Jews worshiped a known man as a god, the logos and god creator who was claimed to have been raised from the dead and was the son of god born of a holy ghost or spirit conceived by a virgin.

Now by your logic, when a Historian fails to mention a popular public figure then that figure did not exist in the past? This indeed is some strange logic.

Now do note that Josephus actually mentioned Jesus and Tacitus also mentioned Jesus so Mazaje falsehood would get you nowhere.

I can't continue addressing the rest of your post because of the obvious lies and misrepresentations of Sacred scriptures.

mazaje:

Anony is trying to tell us that christianity has divine origins but that is VERY FALSE and there is NOTHING in early christianity that suggest such. . .The religion was formed by people after the character called Jesus. I consider the founders of christianity to be the early church fathers like Justin Matyr, Papias, Ireneaus, Polycarp etc and not even Jesus, Paul or Peter. . .The early church fathers brought the gospels to us, they were the ones that ascribed the names on the nameless gospels, they were the ones that claimed Paul wrote down all the letters ascribed to him etc They were the ones that brought the book of acts and said Luke wrote it. . .

In order to form a proper opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is absolutely mandatory that the evidence from antiquity be first examined.

There is no other way to form an opinion of the start of the Jesus--Evidence First. It doesn't work that way, you have to look at other sources. . .

Its very good to look at non-apologetic writers like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonus.

These four ancient writers remarkably covered the ENTIRE 1st century and wrote about events and the history of the Jews. Their writing are considered as the standard historical accounts of the Jews during the first century and they wrote about all the major events that happened throughout the 1st century. .

There is no mention whatsoever in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius of a Jesus cult of Christians where Jews worshiped a known man as a god, the logos and god creator who was claimed to have been raised from the dead and was the son of god born of a holy ghost or spirit conceived by a virgin.

I cannot form an opinion that the Jews worshiped a Jewish man as a god when no corroborative evidence from antiquity exist in the history of the Jews at all.

Next, examine the so-called canonized gospels.

In order to form an opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is imperative that the Gospel be first examined. . . .The earliest version of the Jesus story in gospel of Mark is extremely significant because it can be easily seen that there was NO Jesus cult at all when Jesus was supposedly alive.

1. In gospel Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted. See Mark 4

2. In gospel of Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ instructed his own disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ. See Mark 8

3. When Jesus was arrested his disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied him. See Mark 14.

4. When Jesus was put on trial before the Sanhedrin he was considered a blasphemer and the Jews asked that Jesus be crucified before Pilate. See Mark 15. . .

I will form an opinion on gospel of Mark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius because these are the earliest sources of what happened in the 1st century Palestine. . .

In the earliest version of the Jesus story there was NO Jesus cult of Christians up to the day Jesus was supposedly crucified and this appears to be in harmony with Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suestonius.

There was no Jewish person called Jesus the Messianic ruler who was worshiped as a god in the time of Pilate and NO Jesus cult of Christians. . . .If Jesus did exist he would have been known merely as blasphemer whose so-called disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied and NOT as one who started a cult.

So, when gosel of Mark was composed there was NO Jesus cult of Christians. . . . The Jesus cult of Christians most likely started AFTER the story was composed. . . . It was people who believed the story who called themselves Christians.. . . The story in the early version of gospel of Mark is that the Jews killed or asked that Jesus be killed. . . .Those who believed the story were called Christians.

But if we are to look at it historically Jesus did NOT start any religion himself. . .Christianity started with the gentiles and the early church father made it what it is today. . .They brought the gospels and all the other writing in the new testament out to the public. . .They wrote down the christian history and made it what it is today. . .Not even Paul or Jesus. . .No body knows Paul anywhere. . .His name does NOT appear in any document outside that of the early church fathers, they claimed he wrote his letters, no one knows him any where. . .Paul could be their own creation. ..

Majaze, you dey read bible

I have to up my game....chei.....i no fit even contribute to this menn......I need to start reading up.



Great work sir.

striktlymi:

The above represent your opinion without a shred of evidence just like it is my view that President Goodluck Jonathan is a Ghanian by birth.

What is this LOL?. . .

Okay, let's examine this so called 'evidence from antiquity'...



Now by your logic, when a Historian fails to mention a popular public figure then that figure did not exist in the past? This indeed is some strange logic.

Now do note that Josephus actually mentioned Jesus and Tacitus also mentioned Jesus so Mazaje falsehood would get you nowhere

No where did I say that Jesus did not exist, that is your own making. . .What I am saying is that NON of the historians that covered the entire fist century say any of the things written about Jesus in the gospels and in the bible. A lot of what was written in the gospels actually contradicts known history. .Lets look at Tacitus for example. . .

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

He only mentions Christus(the anointed one) doesn't even mention Jesus by name. He does not say any other thing about Jesus, in fact. he claimed the Jesus story is a superstition. . .

Josephus as we all know has been shown to be a fraud and an interpolation by Eusebius. . .

I can't continue addressing the rest of your post because of the obvious lies and misrepresentations of Sacred scriptures.

mazaje:

What is this LOL?. . .

No where did I say that Jesus did not exist, that is your own making. . .What I am saying is that NON of the historians that covered the entire fist century say any of the things written about Jesus in the gospels and in the bible. A lot of what was written in the gospels actually contradicts known history. .Lets look at Tacitus for example. . .

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

He only mentions Christus(the anointed one) doesn't even mention Jesus by name. He does not say any other thing about Jesus, in fact. he claimed the Jesus story is a superstition. . .

Josephus as we all know has been shown to be a fraud and an interpolation by Eusebius. . .

Are you serious?

Did Josephus and co follow Christ? Did they follow any of the Apostles? How come you want people to rely on their account about the miracles of Jesus?

Mazaje - undisputed king of speculation. The man is quite good with red herrings too but nowhere as good as another I know.

striktlymi:


Are you serious?

Did Josephus and co follow Christ? Did they follow any of the Apostles? How come you want people to rely on their account about the miracles of Jesus?

They don't have to follow Jesus or the apostles at all. Do you know why their works are consider as historical accounts but not the biblical stories?. . .The bible stories are primarily a book of theology NOT a historical account as such you will expect disinterested parties to mention its stories. . .Remember according to the bible Jesus did so many great things that the books in the whole world will not contain all the things he did if they were to be written down. . .The bible paints him as this mighty healer and great magician that went about going very great things. . .The thing is that the bible is the only book that records or mentions this, no Jeiwsh documents mentions this at all, no disinterested documents mentions him as such a great person. That non of any of the things written about him gets mentioned outside the bible is very telling. . .The stories written about him in the bible were written very long after he died not even by people that knew him or have ever meet him, but by Greek speaking christians writing for gentile audiences based on hear say. . . .

mazaje:

They don't have to follow Jesus or the apostles at all. Do you know why their works are consider as historical accounts but not the biblical stories?. . .The bible stories are primarily a book of theology NOT a historical account as such you will expect disinterested parties to mention its stories. . .Remember according to the bible Jesus did so many great things that the books in the whole world will not contain all the things he did if they were to be written down. . .The bible paints him as this mighty healer and great magician that went about going very great things. . .The thing is that the bible is the only book that records or mentions this, no Jeiwsh documents mentions this at all, no disinterested documents mentions him as such a great person. That non of any of the things written about him gets mentioned outside the bible is very telling. . .The stories written about him in the bible were written very long after he died not even by people that knew him or have ever meet him, but by Greek speaking christians writing for gentile audiences based on hear say. . . .

Do you know the difference between a history book and a biography book? Sacred scriptures is neither but throw some light on the life and mission of Christ.

I do not expect the historians you mentioned to even talk about Christ let alone mentioning the way he died and how he was revered by his Apostles and disciples.

Expecting them to start talking about his miracles is stretching it when they were not even present....Are you even aware that Philo did not mention Herod Antipas in his book?

As far as historical facts are concerned, this does not mean anything...if Philo can leave out this character in his book, then leaving out a number of other things does not come as a surprize.

striktlymi:


Do you know the difference between a history book and a biography book? Sacred scriptures is neither but throw some light on the life and mission of Christ.

I do not expect the historians you mentioned to even talk about Christ let alone mentioning the way he died and how he was revered by his Apostles and disciples.

Expecting them to start talking about his miracles is stretching it when they were not even present....Are you even aware that Philo did not mention Herod Antipas in his book?

As far as historical facts are concerned, this does not mean anything...if Philo can leave out this character in his book, then leaving out a number of other things does not come as a surprize.

Firstly, non of the writers of the gospels were there with Jesus, non of them claim to know him or have ever meet him any where, they were writing their stories in distant lands in a language he never spoke based on hear say.Church tradition ascribed authorship to the books . .You will expect their stories to have outside corroboration. . . .

mazaje:
Disproved what?. . .The first gospels were written very long after Jesus died at least 45 years after he died by people living in another part of the world where he did not live. . .There was never a time in any Jewish historical document where the story of Jesu's resurrection was an issue any where. . .The story came long after Jesus died, it was written by unknown greek speaking christians based on hear say. . .There was nothing to disprove because nothing like the resurrection of Jesus happened any where. . .It happened ONLY in the pages of story books written by people who have never meet Jesus or knew him any where very long after he died. . .


Sure, the author of the book of acts was writing his own fairy tales. . .By the way nobody knows if Luke wrote the book of acts. . .Church tradition claimed he did, no know knows if its true. . .



I repeat you do not know if Paul was killed or suffered for his new religion. . .The entire book of acts has no credibility, for example the book of acts will claim one things or say one thing about Paul. later Paul himself will come and say another thing. . .For example Paul reports that King Aretas was the one out to get him while Luke says it was Jews.



No body knows if its true. . .He just claimed he was tortured, no body know if its true. . .



False, the empty tomb of Jesus was NOT know in his time, the bible is NOT a historical book, pls bring me just one book from the time of Jesus outside the bible that says the tomb of Jesus was empty. . .It is a known and widely accepted story among christians, it is NOT a fact. . .The gospels were written very long after Jesus died by people that never meet him. . .They were just writing stories based on hear say. . .There is no empty tomb of Jesus any where only stories about the empty tomb



Many people, and they wrote what they saw. . .




If you can provide historical documents outside the bible that talk about Jesus ascending into heaven. . .Then I will show you historical documents outside the Hadiths that show Mohammed ascending into heaven on the back of a winged beast.




I will check it out and get back to you. . . .




Just trying to show you that the christian story about resurrection is NOT uniquely a christian story. . .

The remaining part of your post as quoted here depends on you telling us which of Paul's letters you think were actually written by him and which ones weren't.

mazaje:

Firstly, non of the writers of the gospels were there with Jesus, non of them claim to know him or have ever meet him any where, they were writing their stories in distant lands in a language he never spoke based on hear say.Church tradition ascribed authorship to the books . .You will expect their stories to have outside corroboration. . . .

...and what evidence do you have to back up your claims?

@mazaje going through your posts I can see that you're trying to confuse people by bring fabrications and distorting facts. I'll try and address some of them. I don't see why rendering different accounts is enough to say Apostle Paul was false. First remember Paul did not write the book of Acts Luke did, so the first account of the conversion was not narrated by Paul. Let me say this in human accounts there are always differences, for instance even on NL when something happens in an area and people living there start giving accounts of what transpired, we always see some discrepancies and we have to read 3 or 4 accounts before we get the whole picture, we don't conclude it didn't happen. What I want to ask you is this, in all the accounts rendered did the event happen or not, does any negates that Aspt Paul had an encounter with Christ, if No then its irrelevant how the account was rendered.
Again you lied that Jesus said salvation was for only the Jews and not for the whole world but failed to quote: Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Marks account
Mar 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Luke's account
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Pls @mazaje pls what is your believe, are u an atheist, Muslim, pagan or what so that I know who I'm talking with. Thanks

I await ur response

Logicboy03:


You are a silly fool.

I'm sure you'll figure out some way to say that he abused you first here too.

mazaje:

Anony is trying to tell us that christianity has divine origins but that is VERY FALSE and there is NOTHING in early christianity that suggest such. . .The religion was formed by people after the character called Jesus. I consider the founders of christianity to be the early church fathers like Justin Matyr, Papias, Ireneaus, Polycarp etc and not even Jesus, Paul or Peter. . .The early church fathers brought the gospels to us, they were the ones that ascribed the names on the nameless gospels, they were the ones that claimed Paul wrote down all the letters ascribed to him etc They were the ones that brought the book of acts and said Luke wrote it. . .

In order to form a proper opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is absolutely mandatory that the evidence from antiquity be first examined.

There is no other way to form an opinion of the start of the Jesus--Evidence First. It doesn't work that way, you have to look at other sources. . .

Its very good to look at non-apologetic writers like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonus.

These four ancient writers remarkably covered the ENTIRE 1st century and wrote about events and the history of the Jews. Their writing are considered as the standard historical accounts of the Jews during the first century and they wrote about all the major events that happened throughout the 1st century. .

There is no mention whatsoever in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius of a Jesus cult of Christians where Jews worshiped a known man as a god, the logos and god creator who was claimed to have been raised from the dead and was the son of god born of a holy ghost or spirit conceived by a virgin.

I cannot form an opinion that the Jews worshiped a Jewish man as a god when no corroborative evidence from antiquity exist in the history of the Jews at all.

Next, examine the so-called canonized gospels.

In order to form an opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is imperative that the Gospel be first examined. . . .The earliest version of the Jesus story in gospel of Mark is extremely significant because it can be easily seen that there was NO Jesus cult at all when Jesus was supposedly alive.

1. In gospel Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted. See Mark 4

2. In gospel of Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ instructed his own disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ. See Mark 8

3. When Jesus was arrested his disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied him. See Mark 14.

4. When Jesus was put on trial before the Sanhedrin he was considered a blasphemer and the Jews asked that Jesus be crucified before Pilate. See Mark 15. . .

I will form an opinion on gospel of Mark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius because these are the earliest sources of what happened in the 1st century Palestine. . .

In the earliest version of the Jesus story there was NO Jesus cult of Christians up to the day Jesus was supposedly crucified and this appears to be in harmony with Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suestonius.

There was no Jewish person called Jesus the Messianic ruler who was worshiped as a god in the time of Pilate and NO Jesus cult of Christians. . . .If Jesus did exist he would have been known merely as blasphemer whose so-called disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied and NOT as one who started a cult.

So, when gosel of Mark was composed there was NO Jesus cult of Christians. . . . The Jesus cult of Christians most likely started AFTER the story was composed. . . . It was people who believed the story who called themselves Christians.. . . The story in the early version of gospel of Mark is that the Jews killed or asked that Jesus be killed. . . .Those who believed the story were called Christians.

But if we are to look at it historically Jesus did NOT start any religion himself. . .Christianity started with the gentiles and the early church father made it what it is today. . .They brought the gospels and all the other writing in the new testament out to the public. . .They wrote down the christian history and made it what it is today. . .Not even Paul or Jesus. . .No body knows Paul anywhere. . .His name does NOT appear in any document outside that of the early church fathers, they claimed he wrote his letters, no one knows him any where. . .Paul could be their own creation. ..

For an atheist, you know Bible and Bible history die.

It's amusing that not even the Jews accept the Bible account of Christ in their history and yet some chrsitians thousands of miles away, thousands of years after this portrayed time of Christ, all over the globe purport to know the history far better than the Jews themselves. I wouldn't be too hard on them though. I never am because I've been just as deluded for most of my life without the self-awareness to see it.

striktlymi:


...and what evidence do you have to back up your claims?

Firstly, non of the writers of the 4 gospels claim to know Jesus or have meet him any where in their writings. . .The gospels were written in 3 person narrative very long after Jesus died in Greek ,a language him and his disciples never spoke. . .They spoke Aramaic. . .Papias and later Ireanues were the first persons to ascribe authorship to the anonymous documents(gospels). . .

noblefada: @mazaje going through your posts I can see that you're trying to confuse people by bring fabrications and distorting facts. I'll try and address some of them. I don't see why rendering different accounts is enough to say Apostle Paul was false. First remember Paul did not write the book of Acts Luke did, so the first account of the conversion was not narrated by Paul. Let me say this in human accounts there are always differences, for instance even on NL when something happens in an area and people living there start giving accounts of what transpired, we always see some discrepancies and we have to read 3 or 4 accounts before we get the whole picture, we don't conclude it didn't happen. What I want to ask you is this, in all the accounts rendered did the event happen or not, does any negates that Aspt Paul had an encounter with Christ, if No then its irrelevant how the account was rendered.

The to accounts are to be found in acts. . .

Again you lied that Jesus said salvation was for only the Jews and not for the whole world but failed to quote: Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Marks account
Mar 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Luke's account
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Pls @mazaje pls what is your believe, are u an atheist, Muslim, pagan or what so that I know who I'm talking with. Thanks

The first gospel to be written is the gospel of Mark and all the other gospels were copied from it. .The original manuscript does NOT contain the great commission. . .The foot note of the NIV and other english translations said these about the ending of Mark. . .

The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.

Obviously some one added it. . .

Ihedinobi:

I'm sure you'll figure out some way to say that he abused you first here too.

So you actaully avoided reading the part where he called me a troll?

mazaje:

Anony is trying to tell us that christianity has divine origins but that is VERY FALSE and there is NOTHING in early christianity that suggest such. . .The religion was formed by people after the character called Jesus. I consider the founders of christianity to be the early church fathers like Justin Matyr, Papias, Ireneaus, Polycarp etc and not even Jesus, Paul or Peter. . .The early church fathers brought the gospels to us, they were the ones that ascribed the names on the nameless gospels, they were the ones that claimed Paul wrote down all the letters ascribed to him etc They were the ones that brought the book of acts and said Luke wrote it. . .

In order to form a proper opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is absolutely mandatory that the evidence from antiquity be first examined.

There is no other way to form an opinion of the start of the Jesus--Evidence First. It doesn't work that way, you have to look at other sources. . .

Its very good to look at non-apologetic writers like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonus.

These four ancient writers remarkably covered the ENTIRE 1st century and wrote about events and the history of the Jews. Their writing are considered as the standard historical accounts of the Jews during the first century and they wrote about all the major events that happened throughout the 1st century. .

There is no mention whatsoever in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius of a Jesus cult of Christians where Jews worshiped a known man as a god, the logos and god creator who was claimed to have been raised from the dead and was the son of god born of a holy ghost or spirit conceived by a virgin.

I cannot form an opinion that the Jews worshiped a Jewish man as a god when no corroborative evidence from antiquity exist in the history of the Jews at all.

Next, examine the so-called canonized gospels.

In order to form an opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is imperative that the Gospel be first examined. . . .The earliest version of the Jesus story in gospel of Mark is extremely significant because it can be easily seen that there was NO Jesus cult at all when Jesus was supposedly alive.

1. In gospel Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted. See Mark 4

2. In gospel of Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ instructed his own disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ. See Mark 8

3. When Jesus was arrested his disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied him. See Mark 14.

4. When Jesus was put on trial before the Sanhedrin he was considered a blasphemer and the Jews asked that Jesus be crucified before Pilate. See Mark 15. . .

I will form an opinion on gospel of Mark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius because these are the earliest sources of what happened in the 1st century Palestine. . .

In the earliest version of the Jesus story there was NO Jesus cult of Christians up to the day Jesus was supposedly crucified and this appears to be in harmony with Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suestonius.

There was no Jewish person called Jesus the Messianic ruler who was worshiped as a god in the time of Pilate and NO Jesus cult of Christians. . . .If Jesus did exist he would have been known merely as blasphemer whose so-called disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied and NOT as one who started a cult.

So, when gosel of Mark was composed there was NO Jesus cult of Christians. . . . The Jesus cult of Christians most likely started AFTER the story was composed. . . . It was people who believed the story who called themselves Christians.. . . The story in the early version of gospel of Mark is that the Jews killed or asked that Jesus be killed. . . .Those who believed the story were called Christians.

But if we are to look at it historically Jesus did NOT start any religion himself. . .Christianity started with the gentiles and the early church father made it what it is today. . .They brought the gospels and all the other writing in the new testament out to the public. . .They wrote down the christian history and made it what it is today. . .Not even Paul or Jesus. . .No body knows Paul anywhere. . .His name does NOT appear in any document outside that of the early church fathers, they claimed he wrote his letters, no one knows him any where. . .Paul could be their own creation. ..

Very interesting.

It is comments like these that expose your irrationality. Let us look at the sources you respect

mazaje: I will form an opinion on gospel of Mark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius because these are the earliest sources of what happened in the 1st century Palestine. . .

I put it to you that based on the same criteria you have been using to judge the new testament and the life of Christ, you cannot legitimately form an opinion from the sources you have provided. The reasons are as follows:-

1. Apart from Philo and Mark, none of the others was even born at the time of Christ. They never met Him nor knew Him.
So Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus are hereby disqualified.
By the way this also applies to anything they wrote about that happened before their birth. This includes everything Tacitus wrote about Ceasar Augustus, Tiberius etc. We can't trust that Augustus Ceasar ruled Rome because Tacitus was not yet born during the the time of Augustus according to your logic.

2. We are left with Philo and Mark. The only writings we have of Philo apart from one short paragragraph breifly mentioning him in Josephus' Antiquities are his own writings about himself and since Philo was never a general in the Roman army or some other prominent political ruler we cannot even be sure that Philo even wrote the things we say that he wrote or that he was being honest when he wrote them.
By the way, I hope you know that this will also apply to philosophers like Plato and Socrates. They never were prominent and most of what we know about them were written by themselves. In the case of Socrates, he was written entirely by Plato. According to your logic, more and more Frauds are poping up in classical history.

3. And finally we come to Mark, though he was a contemporary of Christ, it is uncertain that Mark actually met Christ. We know about him through the book of Acts....but according to you Acts is a fairy tale so we can't even trust that there was a Mark. besides the oldest surviving version of Acts is dated at about 70 AD some 35 years after the death of Christ. By Mazaje's logic Mark is also discredited.

You see the problem is that you are so intent on discrediting Christ that you have discredited all of history as well. I always point out to you when you are being irrational and this is one such example.


P/s: By the way for anyone else who is reading this, read some of Philo's writings about the God and the Logos, I think you'll find them very interesting.

1. In gospel Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted. See Mark 4

2. In gospel of Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ instructed his own disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ. See Mark 8

3. When Jesus was arrested his disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied him. See Mark 14.

4. When Jesus was put on trial before the Sanhedrin he was considered a blasphemer and the Jews asked that Jesus be crucified before Pilate. See Mark 15. . .

1. Could you tell us where in Mark 4 you got this?

2. Context?

3. And what is this meant to prove?

4. And you have just debunked yourself by admitting that the Sanhendrin did in fact arrest, try and condemn Jesus.

2.

striktlymi:


Do you know the difference between a history book and a biography book? Sacred scriptures is neither but throw some light on the life and mission of Christ.

I do not expect the historians you mentioned to even talk about Christ let alone mentioning the way he died and how he was revered by his Apostles and disciples.

Expecting them to start talking about his miracles is stretching it when they were not even present....Are you even aware that Philo did not mention Herod Antipas in his book?

As far as historical facts are concerned, this does not mean anything...if Philo can leave out this character in his book, then leaving out a number of other things does not come as a surprize.

That's Mazaje's favourite fallacy. He argues from silence.

i.e. "Mazaje has never talked about X therefore X must not exist".

It's one of the simplest examples of bad logic, yet he does it over and over again.

Mr anony:
That's Mazaje's favourite fallacy. He argues from silence.

i.e. "Mazaje has never talked about X therefore X must not exist".

It's one of the simplest examples of bad logic, yet he does it over and over again.

The last time I checked on this thread, Majaze clearly said that he wasnt arguing that Jesus didnt exist....

mazaje:



No where did I say that Jesus did not exist, that is your own making. . .What I am saying is that NON of the historians that covered the entire fist century say any of the things written about Jesus in the gospels and in the bible. A lot of what was written in the gospels actually contradicts known history. .Lets look at Tacitus for example. . .

Logicboy- fighting Anonyism since 2012

Logicboy03:
The last time I checked on this thread, Majaze clearly said that he wasnt arguing that Jesus didnt exist....
Logicboy- fighting Anonyism since 2012

mazaje:
No where did I say that Jesus did not exist, that is your own making. . .What I am saying is that NON of the historians that covered the entire fist century say any of the things written about Jesus in the gospels and in the bible. A lot of what was written in the gospels actually contradicts known history. .Lets look at Tacitus for example. . .

Last time I checked, nowhere did I say that Mazaje was arguing that Christ didn't exist.

Notice how Mazaje argues from silence i.e. "Tacitus and Josephus etc didn't talk about Christ's miracles therefore they didn't happen".

By the way it will interest you to know that Tacitus and Josephus were not even yet born at the time of Christ and therefore couldn't have met Christ.


Logicboy: disgracing himself since 2012

Logicboy03:


So you actaully avoided reading the part where he called me a troll?

Is there a username here called Mr Troll? Mehn, you're incredibly dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.

Mr anony:


Last time I checked, nowhere did I say that Mazaje was arguing that Christ didn't exist.

Notice how Mazaje argues from silence i.e. "Tacitus and Josephus etc didn't talk about Christ's miracles therefore they didn't happen".

By the way it will interest you to know that Tacitus and Josephus were not even yet born at the time of Christ and therefore couldn't have met Christ.


Logicboy: disgracing himself since 2012

You have started again!


Majaze simply said that Historians wrote about Jesus but never his miracles. Gbam. So you are just adding the part of "it didnt exist" to it.




Furthermore, if historians didnt write about the Miracles and there exists no physical evidence for it, then, there is no reason to believe they happened- this is my own argument.

Now, lets take it from a better perspective- everytime that historians and archeological evidence omits something that the bible mentioned, it has always been the case that the bible lied. Exzamples

Egyptian enslavement of Jews- biblical claim, historical falsehood
Adam and Eve- Biblical claim, historical, scientific and archeological falsehood

Ihedinobi:

Is there a username here called Mr Troll? Mehn, you're incredibly dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.

What is Mr. Troll if not a troll?

SAY NO TO ANONYISM!

mazaje:
Disproved what?. . .The first gospels were written very long after Jesus died at least 45 years after he died by people living in another part of the world where he did not live. . .There was never a time in any Jewish historical document where the story of Jesu's resurrection was an issue any where. . .The story came long after Jesus died, it was written by unknown greek speaking christians based on hear say. . .There was nothing to disprove because nothing like the resurrection of Jesus happened any where. . .It happened ONLY in the pages of story books written by people who have never meet Jesus or knew him any where very long after he died. . .

I hope you do realize that in most if not all of ancient history, the writings come long after the deaths of the protagonists. In fact Jesus Christ is the most attested figure in ancient history. You haven't really made any point here

Sure, the author of the book of acts was writing his own fairy tales. . .By the way nobody knows if Luke wrote the book of acts. . .Church tradition claimed he did, no know knows if its true. . .

Lol, now you have denied a whole book because it doesn't fit into the theory you are trying to form

I repeat you do not know if Paul was killed or suffered for his new religion. . .The entire book of acts has no credibility, for example the book of acts will claim one things or say one thing about Paul. later Paul himself will come and say another thing. . .For example Paul reports that King Aretas was the one out to get him while Luke says it was Jews.

Again all you did here was arbitrarily claim that the book of Acts was fake just so you could claim Paul wasn't tortured. No points scored

No body knows if its true. . .He just claimed he was tortured, no body know if its true. . .

This is just more poor reasoning from you. All you've done once more is arbitrarily claim that Paul and Luke lied with no proof.

False, the empty tomb of Jesus was NOT know in his time, the bible is NOT a historical book, pls bring me just one book from the time of Jesus outside the bible that says the tomb of Jesus was empty. . .It is a known and widely accepted story among christians, it is NOT a fact. . .The gospels were written very long after Jesus died by people that never meet him. . .They were just writing stories based on hear say. . .There is no empty tomb of Jesus any where only stories about the empty tomb

This is just weird and quite ignorant. The gospel that Christ resurrected was proclaimed as soon after Christ did. The sad thing is that you've started of by saying that anything that will tell you that Christ resurrected is a lie. The demand you are making is like one asking for a piece of ancient historical writings that proves Socrates died by drinking poison but then I start by saying Plato, Aristotle and other Greek writers are liars. It is simply an irrational position to hold

Many people, and they wrote what they saw. . .

Please cite some of these people

If you can provide historical documents outside the bible that talk about Jesus ascending into heaven. . .Then I will show you historical documents outside the Hadiths that show Mohammed ascending into heaven on the back of a winged beast.

No actually I want to see the hadiths that talk about Mohammed doing this. Please provide them

I will check it out and get back to you. . . .

I'm still waiting

Just trying to show you that the christian story about resurrection is NOT uniquely a christian story. . .

But you haven't shown this, you have only claimed it. I'd like to see the Josephus quote and the Hadith quotes please.

By the way, I still want you to tell us which of Paul's letters you think were actually written by him and which ones weren't and why.

Logicboy03:
You have started again!

Majaze simply said that Historians wrote about Jesus but never his miracles. Gbam. So you are just adding the part of "it didnt exist" to it.

That's exactly what I said. The fact they didn't mention the miracles doesn't mean they didn't happen. Argument from silence

Furthermore, if historians didnt write about the Miracles and there exists no physical evidence for it, then, there is no reason to believe they happened- this is my own argument.

By the way, Luke was a historian

Now, lets take it from a better perspective- everytime that historians and archeological evidence omits something that the bible mentioned, it has always been the case that the bible lied. Exzamples

Egyptian enslavement of Jews- biblical claim, historical falsehood
Adam and Eve- Biblical claim, historical, scientific and archeological falsehood

Red herring