It must be noted that the centuries surrounding the beginning of the Christian era, the periods of Tiberias and Augustus, were, in fact, some of the best-documented in history, this fact is admitted even by Christian apologists.

For example, the Roman historian under Augustus, Livy (59 BCE-17 CE), alone composed 142 volumes, over a hundred of which were subsequently destroyed by the Christian conspirators trying to cover their tracks.

Despite this fact, however, there are basically no
non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus’s purported advent.

Is not strange that no literate person of his own
time mentioned him in any known writing.
Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and
philosopher Philo (20 BCE-50 CE), who wad alive at the purported time of Jesus, was silent on the subject of the great Jewish miracle maker and
rabblerouser who brought down the wrath of
Rome and Judea.

Nor are Jesus and his followers mentioned by any of the some 40 other historians
who wrote during the first and second centuries
of the Common Era, including Plutarch, the
Roman biographer, who lived at the same time
(46-120 CE) and in the same place where the
Christians were purportedly swarming yet made
no mention of them, their founder or their religion.

Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature,
aside from two forged passages in the works of a
Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the
works of Roman writers, there is to be found no
mention of Jesus Christ.

Unless you choose to be daft by choice, common sense will tell you that it is either the man Jesus with all his noise making miracles and antics was a fairytale concocted by the early church fathers from the pre-existing litany of pagan worship and dogma or he just never existed at no time, why will there be such difficulties when it comes to the person of Jesus giving the length and breadth of his exploits when lesser mortals of thesame time have both archeological evidence, writings and paintings.

rhymz: It must be noted that the centuries surrounding the beginning of the Christian era, the periods of Tiberias and Augustus, were, in fact, some of the best-documented in history, this fact is admitted even by Christian apologists.

For example, the Roman historian under Augustus, Livy (59 BCE-17 CE), alone composed 142 volumes, over a hundred of which were subsequently destroyed by the Christian conspirators trying to cover their tracks.

Despite this fact, however, there are basically no
non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus’s purported advent.

Is not strange that no literate person of his own
time mentioned him in any known writing.
Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and
philosopher Philo (20 BCE-50 CE), who wad alive at the purported time of Jesus, was silent on the subject of the great Jewish miracle maker and
rabblerouser who brought down the wrath of
Rome and Judea.

Nor are Jesus and his followers mentioned by any of the some 40 other historians
who wrote during the first and second centuries
of the Common Era, including Plutarch, the
Roman biographer, who lived at the same time
(46-120 CE) and in the same place where the
Christians were purportedly swarming yet made
no mention of them, their founder or their religion.

Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature,
aside from two forged passages in the works of a
Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the
works of Roman writers, there is to be found no
mention of Jesus Christ.

Unless you choose to be daft by choice, common sense will tell you that it is either the man Jesus with all his noise making miracles and antics was a fairytale concocted by the early church fathers from the pre-existing litany of pagan worship and dogma or he just never existed at no time, why will there be such difficulties when it comes to the person of Jesus giving the length and breadth of his exploits when lesser mortals of thesame time have both archeological evidence, writings and paintings.

lmao, I was expecting something like this, all you have above is pure hogwash. Do a better historical study of Jesus and you will convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus didn't only exist but that he was also a unique man.

I will leave you to study hard first, this copy and paste would not help you.

This Rhymz dude is just wasing his time.... Go get ur facts right

haibe:

lmao, I was expecting something like this, all you have above is pure hogwash. Do a better historical study of Jesus and you will convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus didn't only exist but that he was also a unique man.

I will leave you to study hard first, this copy and paste would not help you.

Yeah, I purposely posted excerpts of my response from another similar thread on the historicity of Christ. I did not see any reason for me to start giving you any fresh write up on a topic I have exhaustively argued and discused here on BLast with way more smarter and mature Christian commentators

The problem I have with you is the fact that you just randomly make references to people and things you are yet to really study just so you can come across as knowledgeable. You mentioned Tacitus the Roman politician and historian but fail to explain that his references to Christianity have been found to be pure interpolations and forgeries squeezed into the man's work by early church fathers who at the time controlled litrary works of authors and had sole custody of these books..... I challenge you to explain the references in the interpolated portion of the man's work let's start from there if truly you are knowledgeable enough about history and the historicity of Christ.

rhymz: Yeah, I purposely posted excerpts of my response from another similar thread on the historicity of Christ. I did not see any reason for me to start giving you any fresh write up on a topic I have exhaustively argued and discused here on BLast with way more smarter and mature Christian commentators

The problem I have with you is the fact that you just randomly make references to people and things you are yet to really study just so you can come across as knowledgeable. You mentioned Tacitus the Roman politician and historian but fail to explain that his references to Christianity have been found to be pure interpolations and forgeries squeezed into the man's work by early church fathers who at the time controlled litrary works of authors and had sole custody of these books..... I challenge you to explain the references in the interpolated portion of the man's work let's start from there if truly you are knowledgeable enough about history and the historicity of Christ.

Guy all this you are saying is irrelevant, you said Jesus never existed so why not prove it? The onus is on you who is disproving.

When you lay down relevant points to disprove the existence of Christ, then our discussion can start. For now you are only speculating that he never existed.

To tell you the truth, this argument has been overflogged more than a hundred times, I even have a thread I created in which I exhaustively argued this same topic with one Mr_anonym using excerpts from a well researched book by DM Murdock, Christ conspiracy the greatest lie ever sold which also was the name of the thread.

Going through that same argument to repeat myself again is one heck of a job I can no longer do again except I have to post summarised versions of my arguments there....
that being said, I like to point to you that the existence of Christ is an onus on every Christian that claims to know him should strive to prove and not the other way round.

The problem I have with many Christians is the fact that they like to argue from a close-minded stand point and want you too to do thesame.

Jesus's existence has for a very long time been a subject of contention amongst scholars historians and religious comparative analysts as many of the claims of the gospels are usually non-existent outside of bible whose books were canonized by highly political Roman church fathers. The Bible is neither an inerrant word of God or an unbiased history book outside of the Christian religion. Most of what we have there are distortions, half-truth, interpolations and copycat concepts from supposed pagan religions.... it can not be used as a history book to prove Jesus's existence, that is my point.

rhymz: To tell you the truth, this argument has been overflogged more than a hundred times, I even have a thread I created in which I exhaustively argued this same topic with one Mr_anonym using excerpts from a well researched book by DM Murdock, Christ conspiracy the greatest lie ever sold which also was the name of the thread.

Going through that same argument to repeat myself again is one heck of a job I can no longer do again except I have to post summarised versions of my arguments there....
that being said, I like to point to you that the existence of Christ is an onus on every Christian that claims to know him should strive to prove and not the other way round.

The problem I have with many Christians is the fact that they like to argue from a close-minded stand point and want you too to do thesame.

Jesus's existence has for a very long time been a subject of contention amongst scholars historians and religious comparative analysts as many of the claims of the gospels are usually non-existent outside of bible whose books were canonized by highly political Roman church fathers. The Bible is neither an inerrant word of God or an unbiased history book outside of the Christian religion. Most of what we have there are distortions, half-truth, interpolations and copycat concepts from supposed pagan religions.... it can not be used as a history book to prove Jesus's existence, that is my point.

Okay stick to your opinion, it's a free world.

maybe the roman fathers wrote the quran and BOM too

The story of Jesus Christ can be found only in the forged books of the New Testament, an assortment of gospels and epistles that required many centuries and hands to create. Funny enough, the NT is not a single volume; it is a combination of compiled books from very many unknown authors with influences from different pagan religions and prevailing religious practices of their time.
In one of the many posts to defend the inerrancy of the Christian book, the bible was described as the inspired word of God…. That is hardly true as with little research, it will be revealed that the books of the NT were canonized (i.e the highly political early church Bishops from Rome and Alexandria raucously selecting from the over 200 gospel books in circulations which one is to be termed inspired by God and which one is to be termed Apocrypha) by mere mortals with even worse vices than an average folk.
In fact, it has been demonstrably proven that the earliest NT book were not even the so-called gospels but the Pauline Epistles which basically form the Christian liturgy of today even though in comparison to the Jesus described in the Gospels, the Pauline Jesus is heavily mystical with dizzying similarities with Hellenistic mythologies and dogma.
To start with, even though the various Pauline epistles contained in the New Testament form an important part of Christianity, yet these “earliest” of Christian texts never discuss a historical background of Jesus,yet Paul purportedly lived during and after Jesus’s advent and surely would have known about his master’s miraculous life.

Instead, these letters deal with a spiritual construct found in various religions, sects, cults and mystery schools that had existed hundreds to thousands of years prior to the Christian era. The Pauline books do not refer to Pilate or the Romans, or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin, or Herod or Judas, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the Passion; neither did his epistles ever make any allusion to them.

You too think about it, Is it conceivable that a preacher of Jesus could go throughout the world to convert people to the teachings of Jesus, as Paul did, without ever quoting a single one of his sayings?
Unless of course, he was not aware of such preaching, sermons or even miracles which points to the fact that possibly did not happen in the first place.
Had Paul known that Jesus had preached a sermon, or formulated a prayer, or said many inspired things about the here and the hereafter, he could not have helped quoting, now and then, from the words of his master. If Christianity could have been established without a knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, why then, did Jesus come to teach, and why were his teachings preserved by divine inspiration?

If Paul knew of a miracle-working Jesus, one who could feed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes, who could command the grave to open, who could cast out devils, and cleanse the land of the foulest disease of leprosy, who could, and did, perform many other wonderful works to convince the unbelieving generation of his divinity, is it conceivable that either intentionally or inadvertently he would have never once referred to them in all his preaching?

The position, then, that there is not a single saying of Jesus in the gospels which is quoted by Paul in his many epistles is unassailable, and certainly fatal to the historicity of the gospel Jesus, a damning fact many Christians love to ignore in their arguments but rather choose to bury their head in “FAITH”

haibe:

Okay stick to your opinion, it's a free world.

maybe the roman fathers wrote the quran and BOM too

of course I expect you to bum out, so typical of christian supposed "intellectuals" to chicken out when it comes explaining the historicity of their faith.

rhymz: of course I expect you to bum out, so typical of christian supposed "intellectuals" to chicken out when it comes explaining the historicity of their faith.

Guy ur post still doesn't make sense, I have given you proves why Christ did exist but it seems you find it hard to read or something. You said the prove existed only in the bible and I highlighted other books too.

So why should I not leave you to your opinion when you are confused as to what you believe, I do have better threads to face than this, I don believe in writing long epistles to prove a point buy I will just do you this favour, infact I didn't even get the point in the mumbo jumbo you quoted up there, be concise.


If you’re an alert type, you might remember the 2001 discovery of an ancient bone box inscribed with the words ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.’


Also other word religions prove Jesus existed, Mormonism, Scientology, Rastafarianism, cults like The Manson Family or North Korea’s creepy ‘Kim’ cult, islam, etc all recorded and acknowledge the existence of Jesus, that debunks your fake argument that the prove of Jesus is only in the bible, I wonder how some supposed intelligent person will arive at a conclusion like this.

Even a renowned scholar an agnostic admitted Christ existed after his findings but only doubted the crucifixion, bart Ehrman puts it this way:
“The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.”

Flavius josephus was a 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian who always refuted that Jesus is the Son of God, yet he wrote about Jesus and talked about his existence, this guy doesn't support a lot of biblical stances but yet he believed Christ existed.

A lot of historians documented about Jesus even though they didn't believe him to be the son of God. Buhari and Muslim's hadith is another proof. There are different scribes who penned down writings about jesus in his time and made declarations of who He is.

So bro, I think you do need to check your owb stand on this, Christ existed and is not even an argument, people do not just believe he is the son of God, Do researches without bias and you will just always be close to the truth Instead of deceiving yourself. Your argument that jesus didn't exist is the most illogical I have come across since a lot of history figures can't always meet "proof needs".

Once again you are entitled to your opinion, its a free world.

rhymz:
The position, then, that there is not a single saying of Jesus in the gospels which is quoted by Paul in his many epistles is unassailable, and certainly fatal to the historicity of the gospel Jesus, a damning fact many Christians love to ignore in their arguments but rather choose to bury their head in “FAITH”

This guy why not argue with sense, paul never met Christ until his encounter on his way to persecute the Christians, so how to you expect him to know all that Christ has said when he was alive? you think we are doing film tricks here? or magic?

Paul faced the work given to him, and that is to preach salvation to the jews and gentiles, not to record the saying of Christ in his epistles.

Funny enough if paul quoted Jesus,it's still some slowpokes that will be asking how he knew about all that jesus said since he never met him, baseless arguments I say.

Please if even though you are free to argue without applying wisdom and fairness, do that moderately.

haibe:

Guy ur post still doesn't make sense, I have given you proves why Christ did exist but it seems you find it hard to read or something. You said the prove existed only in the bible and I highlighted other books too.

You have given me proves why Christ exist by randomly talking about historians whose work you barely know what they were about except that they were mentioned as citing the existence of Christ, don't you see that you sound like an intellectual toddler trying to pass off his confusion as knowledge. Perhaps you should first understand the argument before rushing off to angrily post incomprehensible BS

haibe:

So why should I not leave you to your opinion when you are confused as to what you believe, I do have better threads to face than this, I don believe in writing long epistles to prove a point buy I will just do you this favour, infact I didn't even get the point in the mumbo jumbo you quoted up there, be concise.

sounding like a kid throwing temper tantrums only exposes your lack of knowledge about what you are yapping, it is either you know it or you don't, writing angrily like a thug does not help your case so calm down and learn.

haibe:
If you're an alert type, you might remember the 2001 discovery of an ancient bone box inscribed with the words ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.’

Also other word religions prove Jesus existed, Mormonism, Scientology, Rastafarianism, cults like The Manson Family or North Korea’s creepy ‘Kim’ cult, islam, etc all recorded and acknowledge the existence of Jesus, that debunks your fake argument that the prove of Jesus is only in the bible, I wonder how some supposed intelligent person will arive at a conclusion like this.

I read this gibberish and almost decided I was going to ignore you as it was obvious I was dealing with below average I.Q mouthing off the nonsense he heard or was told by some queer Christian scientists.

Can you read the nonsense you wrote about a box of bones with the tag James son of Joseph brother to Jesus, who believes such a hogwash, your claim to Jesus's existence is an alleged bone box that makes an allusion to being that of Jesus's brother, whoever made such discovery is a fraud like many of the Christian church fathers in the habit of altering history books just to squeeze in Jesus's existence.

rhymz:
You have given me proves why Christ exist by randomly talking about historians whose work you barely know what they were about except that they were mentioned as citing the existence of Christ, don't you see that you sound like an intellectual toddler trying to pass off his confusion as knowledge. Perhaps you should first understand the argument before rushing off to angrily post incomprehensible BS

Okay you have won, Are you happy now? lol.

haibe:

Flavius josephus was a 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian who always refuted that Jesus is the Son of God, yet he wrote about Jesus and talked about his existence, this guy doesn't support a lot of biblical stances but yet he believed Christ existed.

Like I suspected, you are an intellectual pretender, you know next to nothing about the nonsense you write or the historians you name,
to begin with, Flavious Josephus was a Jewish historian, he arguably wrote the most extensive history books of the 1st century yet in all of his work, at no point did he make any mention of Jesus christ except for the interpolation by the church father Eusebus in the man's work in two brief paragraphs that purpots purport to refer to Jesus Christ. An interpolation that have been found to be outright falsification and forgery.
Josephus Father was contemporaneous to both Pilate and the advent of christ, if Christ had existed at the time his father would no doubt have made mention of him to his historian son. Josephus himself was appointed to Galilee and was in Rome the same time Paul was alleged to be in Rome with his christian community incurring the wrath of the authorities yet in all of Josephus writings, at no time did he mention Paul or Jesus christ besides those two fraudulent forgeries interpolated into the man's work.
I challenge you to provide the pages of the man's work where he allegedly refuted that Jesus was the son of God. You need to just humble yourself and let the facts speak for themselves instead of you randomly trying to pass lies and hear-say as truth.[/quote]

haibe:
A lot of historians documented about Jesus even though they didn't believe him to be the son of God. Buhari and Muslim's hadith is another proof. There are different scribes who penned down writings about jesus in his time and made declarations of who He is.

So bro, I think you do need to check your owb stand on this, Christ existed and is not even an argument, people do not just believe he is the son of God, Do researches without bias and you will just always be close to the truth Instead of deceiving yourself. Your argument that jesus didn't exist is the most illogical I have come across since a lot of history figures can't always meet "proof needs".

Once again you are entitled to your opinion, its a free world.

Can you point to me which of the first century historian made mention of christ in their extensive, outside of the interpolations and forgeries, don't even mention scholars or hostorians that had to use distorted 5th to 6th century history books to write their own history, it does not prove anything.

haibe:

This guy why not argue with sense, paul never met Christ until his encounter on his way to persecute the Christians, so how to you expect him to know all that Christ has said when he was alive? you think we are doing film tricks here? or magic?

Paul faced the work given to him, and that is to preach salvation to the jews and gentiles, not to record the saying of Christ in his epistles.

Funny enough if paul quoted Jesus,it's still some slowpokes that will be asking how he knew about all that jesus said since he never met him, baseless arguments I say.

Please if even though you are free to argue without applying wisdom and fairness, do that moderately.

Kid shut up and just comment on things you know, you mean to tell me that Paul that was alive both during and after the advent of Christ did not know jack about the Christ he was leading people to? Do you have any sense at all? How can Paul be preaching about Jesus Christ yet he does not know who he is, that explains the concept of the religion:ignorant people being led by the blind. In essence you are arguing that Paul was preaching and talking about another Jesus Christ different from the one in the Gospels he claims to be preaching, that exactly corroborate my argument that Paul the founder of Christianity preached about a different Christ that greatly differs from the one in the gospel, his own Christ like the one in the gospels was also a mental creation influenced heavily by both Hellenistic and gnostic religious dogmas and practices, am sure you know he practiced the so-called pagan religion before his alleged conversion to Christianity which of course influence his religious construct of Christ and Christianity.
You are way out of your league, it is obvious you do not know what you are yapping about.

rhymz: Kid shut up and just comment on things you know, you mean to tell me that Paul that was alive both during and after the advent of Christ did not know jack about the Christ he was leading people to? Do you have any sense at all? How can Paul be preaching about Jesus Christ yet he does not know who he is, that explains the concept of the religion:ignorant people being led by the blind. In essence you are arguing that Paul was preaching and talking about another Jesus Christ different from the one in the Gospels he claims to be preaching, that exactly corroborate my argument that Paul the founder of Christianity preached about a different Christ that greatly differs from the one in the gospel, his own Christ like the one in the gospels was also a mental creation influenced heavily by both Hellenistic and gnostic religious dogmas and practices, am sure you know he practiced the so-called pagan religion before his alleged conversion to Christianity which of course influence his religious construct of Christ and Christianity.
You are way out of your league, it is obvious you do not know what you are yapping about.

is this guy mentally ill? I want to believe you arr above 25 yrs by now and if you still think like this at 25, you have a big problem.

I will leave you to your foolishness.

haibe:

is this guy mentally ill? I want to believe you arr above 25 yrs by now and if you still think like this at 25, you have a big problem.

I will leave you to your foolishness.

the rantings of a kid throwing childish temper tantrums because he is not smart enough to argue his preposterous claims, abeg go siddon, you are way outta your league.

rhymz: the rantings of a kid throwing childish temper tantrums because he is not smart enough to argue his preposterous claims, abeg go siddon, you are way outta your league.

You that you are an adult why do you argue like a toddler, you are unable to debunk my proves and instead you keep painting them like they are all fraud.

I can't argue with someone who is intellectually dishonest, if you can't argue fairly then leave this thread and let the purpose reign, afterall we have derailed enough.

Typical nigerian traditional bigot always referring to someone as kid when their stance are questioned. You have a long way to go bro, by now at your age you should operate in wisdom in matters like this. You don't have to win an argument when you see a glaring truth.

haibe:

You that you are an adult why do you argue like a toddler, you are unable to debunk my proves and instead you keep painting them like they are all fraud.

I can't argue with someone who is intellectually dishonest, if you can't argue fairly then leave this thread and let the purpose reign, afterall we have derailed enough.

Typical nigerian traditional bigot always referring to someone as kid when their stance are questioned. You have a long way to go bro, by now at your age you should operate in wisdom in matters like this. You don't have to win an argument when you see a glaring truth.

hahahaha....typical case of delusions of grandeur....any unbiased person reading my responses to you can safely tell who is busy sidestepping and distracting from the main issue. You obviously do not posses the skill set to argue with somebody like me on this issue, you probably thought I was one your usual averages, now you want to resort to insults and temper tantrums like your other christian sister...lol...so christian of you kids.

rhymz: hahahaha....typical case of delusions of grandeur....any unbiased person reading my responses to you can safely tell who is busy sidestepping and distracting from the main issue. You obviously do not posses the skill set to argue with somebody like me on this issue, you probably thought I was one your usual averages, now you want to resort to insults and temper tantrums like your other christian sister...lol...so christian of you kids.

lol, what makes you think am a christian? Presumptuous fellow.

I stand for truth whenever I see it. Get ur facts right next time and be a good bible student to be able to disprove the bible, learn from the likes of logicboy and Amanfrommars, they are better in laying arguments and not just posting mumbo jumbos.

Good bye young man and don't border quoting me again.

haibe:

lol, what makes you think am a christian? Presumptuous fellow.

I stand for truth whenever I see it. Get ur facts right next time and be a good bible student to be able to disprove the bible, learn from the likes of logicboy and Amanfrommars, they are better in laying arguments and not just posting mumbo jumbos.

Good bye young man and don't border quoting me again.

.....lol, I see you want to have the last word kiddo, be my guest, knock yourself out..... by the way, I just quoted you, I hope you burst a vein in your head in a fit of rage... lol, I know how annoying I can be to nonentities and lamebrains.

rhymz: .....lol, I see you want to have the last word kiddo, be my guest, knock yourself out..... by the way, I just quoted you, I hope you burst a vein in your head in a fit of rage... lol, I know how annoying I can be to nonentities and lamebrains.

Okay.






















































Are you happy now old boy? lol