GeneralDae:

So Atwill's Ceasar's Messaiah have become your innerant bible? I would post some of the criticism of the main points stated in his book, and I want you to read them as well before I get motivated to read the entire book.

Amujale:


Is the Christian bible a true account of history?

GeneralDae:

The Christian bible is not one book but a collection of 27 different letters, scripts, and then some books. You are saying the Romans wrote all 27 of these different ( some contradicting some others) to create a new religion, when it would have been easy for them to just write one big unified book.
See why your theories are absurd and not taken seriously? see why it is you who need to provide proof of your outlandish theories?

Amujale:


You aren't making any sense.

There are thousands upon thousands of serious minded historians that agree with the position that the Jesus story was fabricated.

GeneralDae:

..I only know of two main mythicysts who have a PhD in new testament history ( Robert Price and Richard Carrier) and even they do not take Atwill seriously. All new testament history professors in academia and the other doctors consider Jesus historical.

GeneralDae:

All new testament history professors in academia and the other doctors consider Jesus historical.

Amujale:


Robert Price argues that the Christian bible is a combination of fakery and falsehood.

Cite these historians that claim Jesus as being a real person.

You still haven't answered my question.

Are you a believer in the Christian bible as being the word of your god?

The Eurocentric ideologues didn't only colonise the innocent people of the continent, they began to colonise information about the people. In order to attempt at achieving this, they had to attempt to forget, or attempt to pretend to forget all that they'd previously known about the African

GeneralDae:

I already told you all historians specializing on the ancient world and new testament except a few like Robert Price and Richard Carrier, say Jesus existed. So go check up any new testament historian. I gave the link to the names of all scholars who have degrees on this matter in my reply to musicwriter, go look it up.

Amujale:


You're a confused soul.

The new testament and all the other aspects of the Christian bible is solely based on fakery and falsehood.

You can pass me with all that nonsensical rhetoric.

Provide us with the evidence.

GeneralDae:

I gave the link to the names of all scholars who have degrees on this matter in my reply to musicwriter, go look it up.

GeneralDae:

You give me evidence of the bolded.

Amujale:


The onus is on you to provide the proof of your false narratives and fictional characters.

One cannot prove the nonexistence of characters that never existed in the first instance.

GeneralDae:

Lol, it is okay for you to hold on to your belief. I am just saying that your explanations as to why you hold these views do not hold water neither do they align with academia on this issue. You have to read up more and be open.

Amujale:


You're argument is flawed.

It's similar to me telling you that one plus one equals two and not providing you with the proof and then asking you to prove that one plus one doesn't equal two.

The burden of proof is on you dude.

Now provide us with the proof of your fictional characters and false narratives.

Go!

GeneralDae:

Lol, it is okay for you to hold on to your belief..

GeneralDae:

I gave you proof and you came up with conspiracy theories to refute them. I said the book of Galatians had Paul speaking of Jesus....

Amujale:


And that has already been rubbished as the nonsense that it is. Go back and read the journal that was posted earlier.

Furthermore it isn't a conspiracy theory to state the fact that the Jesus story line is a typography of Titus Flavians military campaign.

You simply need to compare and contrast these two parallels, something you obviously haven't partaken.

https://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

https://www.news24.com/news24/mynews24/jesus-fictional-character-indeed-part-1-20120713

Amujale:


And who were these so-called early Christian church?

It most definitely hadn't anything to does with the Jesus character.

As stated earlier, the people that Eurocentric historians refer to as the early Christians were the followers of the Church of Serapis.

Christian historian use that false narratives in an attempt to try and justify the horrific atrocities that this foreign extremist ideology perpetrated on the continent.

GeneralDae:

Give me five of these serious minded historians. I only know of two main mythicysts who have a PhD in new testament history ( Robert Price and Richard Carrier) and even they do not take Atwill seriously. All new testament history professors in academia and the other doctors consider Jesus historical.

GeneralDae:

You give me evidence of the bolded.

sonmvayina:


This is from Emperior julian. In his famous book "Against the galileans" has this to say


Book I Edit

39.[9] It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

sonmvayina:



https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Against_the_Galileans

GeneralDae:

is Julian arguing that Jesus did not exist? I don't see that there. However this is not proof of anything.

sonmvayina:


He calls the story a fabrication....Julian is closer to the beginning of christianity than us. He was a roman emperior. So he must have had a lot of evidence to conclude as such..

I wont pass that up..

GeneralDae:

ok so if I show you people closer than Julian to christianity and yet accepts it, would you accept them? Also he never says Jesus did not exist, he even called Christians the Gallileans to mock them because the religon began with fishermen of Galilee who were illiterate, so he believes in that part of the story. What he doesn't believe is the miracles and the Christians' claim to special morality. He says the morality of the Galilleans are not new.

Also according to scholars, the miracles and some of the stories are most likely formulated, this does not mean there wasn't a Gallilean called Jesus but there are invented fables about him. It's different from saying there wasn't a Jesus at all.

There are always invented fables about ancient heroes, it's nothing new and historians know this, so they apply other criterias to determine if there was a Jesus. I have listed those criterias in my reply to musicwriter.

Your arguement is different, you are saying there was no Jesus at all. We are not talking about the miracles and stories, but whether there was an original Jesus and fishermen Gallilean disciples.

sonmvayina:


Yes, i hold the opinion that there was no jesus at all. The gospels where all wriiten in Greek.
Come to think of it, the jews where all looking forward to the messiah coming to save them from their enemies, ending oppression of any kind and ushering peace. And all of a sudden somebody is presenting a story about a man who was cruxified , as the messiah...
One thing i am 1000% sure is that the gospels was not written by jews. We can confidently rule them out. They dont have the idea of demi god as part of judaism. It is a Greek/Roman idea.
The idea of miracles is not how the messiah will be recognised. Infact the jews where warned to not follow anyone who does magic.

So there are just many contradiction with the old testament. I think it is just the Greeks/Romans making a mockery about the jewish God. That was why they added it at the back of the jewish Tanakh..

GeneralDae:

ok so if I show you people closer than Julian to christianity and yet accepts it, would you accept them? Also he never says Jesus did not exist, he even called Christians the Gallileans to mock them because the religon began with fishermen of Galilee who were illiterate, so he believes in that part of the story. What he doesn't believe is the miracles and the Christians' claim to special morality. He says the morality of the Galilleans are not new.

Also according to scholars, the miracles and some of the stories are most likely formulated, this does not mean there wasn't a Gallilean called Jesus but there are invented fables about him. It's different from saying there wasn't a Jesus at all.

There are always invented fables about ancient heroes, it's nothing new and historians know this, so they apply other criterias to determine if there was a Jesus. I have listed those criterias in my reply to musicwriter.

Your arguement is different, you are saying there was no Jesus at all. We are not talking about the miracles and stories, but whether there was an original Jesus and fishermen Gallilean disciples.

musicwriter:


Please concentrate on the people you're talking to and stop mentioning me every now and then. You offered nothing to me that's worth any knowledgeable person looking at, so please spell out your response to whomever you're talking to and keep me out of it.

Before I close: one thing you need to understand is that both the SCHOLARSHIP sorounding Christianity and CHRISTIANITY itself as a religion are both sides of your enslavement. If we colonized Europeans, we would've given them Ogun, Shango, Amadioha etc to worship and we'll give them the scholarship to back it up. So, you're doubly enslaved. This's why it's difficult to help you see the light. You need to first free yourself from Christianity or it's scholarship (by researching out of church tradition), then you'll begin to see lies and cover-ups everywhere in the scholars you're fun of quoting. You think I don't know those new testament scholars?? The only person I can say knows what he's doing it Bart Erhman, just check my threads, I did post one Erhman writing sometime ago. Yet, none of them have any proof whatsoever there was a Jesus, all they have is a case of "based on the literature it looks like Jesus may have existed" but no proof has ever been given to back it up because Jesus has no history outside the bible.

GeneralDea:

Lol, it's okay. I know what the problem is with you and the op. You are fixated on black power movement and of course you detest the Europeans for destroying black culture and of course you all blame christianity for it. I also blame European christianity for it ( especially christianity from Constantine). But no matter how we feel, it is better to argue with facts, not feelings or conspiracy theories. The christianity of the first 300 years was already in Ethiopia and spreading across the Empire before it even became the religion of Europe or was totally accepted in Rome.
You don't have to be a Christian to admit that combining the book of Galatians and the writings of Josephus on James the brother of Jesus ( who was called christ), that there was most likely a crucified Jesus tainted in myths and mystery.
It doesn't change the fact that the whites use their version of christianity to enslave blacks and other races.

I could be a worshipper of Shango and hate the whites for how they use christianity to enslave us and still admit that Jesus most likely existed.

We are interested in facts here not feelings or conspiracy theories.

musicwriter:


So, you think I wasn't a christian like you? Six years ago I was still in darkness thinking Jesus has set me free because even as I knew that whites enslaved us with Christianity but I felt it was about God, not realizing that he who gives you a God sets the context for what it should mean, be, do, want, etc and what it shouldn't mean, be, want, do. In order words, if someone gives you a God that says jump off a cliff at age 40 to meet your savior deep down or kill your mother at age 40, you'll gladly do so and even thank God for making you reach age 40. So, at no time did I challenge it because I never questioned Jesus or anything in the bible until I actually began to research the history of christianity to discover to my dismay the whole thing called Christianity is a product of Roman imperialism and politics, not spiritually.

That's that....

No, even the Christianity practiced in Ethiopia today isn't the right one or rather it could have been the right one but an Ethiopian prince (I believe one of Menelek's or Solomonic dynasty) who was born in the Middle East, (probably Hellenized) came back to Ethiopia, brought the European bible and polluted, yes, indeed, the original Christianity that was already in Ethiopia before the conversation of Europe. But that original Christianity practiced by the original Jewish sect (Ethiopians) plus the Hellenized Ethiopians who call themselves Jews today was completely destroyed by Constantine. It didn't survive. So, if you're still hanging on on christianity because of the Ethiopian connection you're wrong. The bible they use is the 1611 AD version already polluted by Greeco-Romans but edited by King James in Britain. It's neither here no there.

@All

For anybody out there who want to know the Ethiopian connection and how all these things originated out of Africa, see the best lecture by brother James Small below. Just in case you're new into the research, the below lecture is not to encourage you to be a christian but to show you how Europeans have taken over an African practice, bastardized it, corrupted it, and used it to rule the world.

The origins of religion by professor James Small.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYOMB2orvMo

GeneralDae:

ok so you agree there was an original christianity or what? Let's be clear:
1) I am not defending the Christian religion. I am presenting scholarship on the issue that says Jesus more than likely was a historical figure. You are against that, but you have not being able to show why the arguement from majority of scholars ( or even Bart Erhmann) is wrong. Show why these argurments are wrong and why your theories are right.

2) We are arguing history here not religion, race, or spirituality.

3) It is all about history and the historical method, not religion, race, or spirituality.

4) Again look up 2 and 3 above.