musicwriter:


I now know enough to know that even the SCHOLARSHIP sorounding Jesus is Euro-centric. Do you understand?

How can I believe the same culture that gave me Jesus to tell me he did not exist?

If we (Africans) were in our right state of mind, the question of Jesus's existence should not be of concern to us because there's no place in Europe or Middle East where the existence of Ogun, Amadioha or Shango is of any significance. You and I should concentrate all our energies on African Gods, African scholarship about them, African world view, African culture, African spiritually, African history. Just look at how many man hours that you and I have spent talking about a Jesus whom we know nothing about except what Europeans have told us. Who is this modafuker called Jesus that didn't stop my parents from being enslaved by Europeans?? Who is this bastard called Jesus that I must read to know him in a European book?? When will you and I write a holy book about African God and give it to Europeans to read?? There're no Chinese people wasting human hours talking about Jesus existence. Because whether Jesus existed or not it doesn't matter!! But you and I have been enslaved to believe that it matters. To hell with Jesus!!

Cool, I agree with you. It doesn't matter in the end, it's just that people like the op use it as an arguement. It is not a good arguement. Instead we should promote black pride and gods without using false arguments.

GeneralDae:

Cool, I agree with you. It doesn't matter in the end, it's just that people like the op use it as an arguement. It is not a good arguement. Instead we should promote black pride and gods without using false arguments.

Thank you.

musicwriter:


St. Augustine is simply saying that the belief around a deity such as Jesus wasn't new. There were other "messiah's and saviors" before anybody heard of Jesus. Indeed, the full quote ends with something like "existed among the ancients and was never not". Simply google the quote and it'll take you to so many sources. Or read it in Christianity before Christ by John G. Jackson.

Well, you do have a point even if what St .Augustine sound as amazement. But none of these people before Yesha,ever pride himself as equal with God through signs and wonders beyond man's imagination.

Secondly, no prophet born of man ever forgave sins as Yeshiva did.

Thirdly, Yeshua was killed and he resurrected ,which no man had done in the past before him and till date,even tomorrow inclusive.

Fourthly, the description of his coming had been prophesied five hundred years before he was born. Infact, Yerimayah (Jerimayah), and other prophets mentioned his coming. Aries( King Apries of Egypt) , was part of Yerimayah prophecies , in which he spoke of the warrior saviour ,whom through the Hebrew will be saved. There is archeological evidence to these information i.e Ideograms account. Papyrus of Septuagints in Egypt affirms Hebrew Ideology as unique form of serving God.


Fiftly, Persian,Greeks,Romans, Assyrian, Egyptians etc have written account of Yeshua; the Messiayah. These accounts supports and confirm his birth and the ideology of God worshiping pattern, which is different from the old form i.e God being acknowledged as friend, and accessible to all without connecting through any prophets but through self interaction.

GeneralDae:

I have read both of your links and I wonder how they disprove the existence of jesus.

You have failed to provide any evidence of a fictional character called Jesus except for some nonsensical rhetoric that is without merit.

Furthermore, assuming you can actually READ then you won't be making such a false statement.

GeneralDae:

Cool, I agree with you. It doesn't matter in the end, it's just that people like the op use it as an arguement. It is not a good arguement. Instead we should promote black pride and gods without using false arguments.

Foreigners came to our continent, found out about our divine principles and decided to call them God.

The African Gods are the only true and proper ones.

Not to be conflated with the Almighty God.

GeneralDae:
..
It doesn't matter in the end, it's just that people like the op use it as an arguement. It is not a good arguement. Instead we should promote black pride and gods without using false arguments.

Eventhough I agree with the spirit of what you are stating here.

It seems as though you are misinterpreting what is being saide here.


As a matter of facts, nothing that was stated is false, according to history, the Jesus character is fictional.

It does matter due to the fact that not only is this character fictional, the false narratives that is being peddled is one that is solely responsible for the colonisation and enslavement of innocent Africans.

Assuming these points aren't enough to make one wake up from the mental slavery, then it goes to show how much of a diabolic spell that these foreign extremist ideologically based narratives really are.

Throughout all of our great continent's illustrious history, the only mention of the name Jesus is directly connected to the transatlantic slave trade.

As in, the name Jesus was the name of the first slave ship to touch down on American shores.

Know history and become one with reality.

There's overwhelming evidence to prove that these foreign extremist ideologies are solely responsible for colonisation and slavery, from the records of murder, plunder, looting and desecration that occurred during those horific atrocities.

Here is a document that puts these facts into perspective, this document is commonly known as "The doctrine of discovery" 1493

The document asserted that any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be "discovered", claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers and maliciously declared that " the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be spread, and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself"


https://www.nps.gov/subjects/islandofthebluedolphins/upload/Lesson-Plan-Doctrine-of-Discovery.pdf

Amujale:


You have failed to provide any evidence of a fictional character called Jesus except for some nonsensical rhetoric that is without merit.

Furthermore, assuming you can actually READ then you won't be making such a false statement.

Then show how this so called rhetoric is without merit.
This is the proof again, and I repeat:

The book of Galatians has a certain Paul speaking about a certain Jesus (brother of James), he spoke about a Peter whom he had conflict with concerning circumcision of new converts to Christianity and he is greatly pained about this. He doesn't want his new converts to be circumcised, but it seems the Jerusalem church led by James wanted the circumcision for converts.

Now can you prove that all of these were just formulated to deceive us? Show why you think this could not have happened. This is what you have to prove, this is my strongest proof for the existence of jesus. Disprove it with facts and reason, and I would admit it is weak. All you have done so far is to merely dismiss it, this is why I am not taking you seriously because I don't think you know what you are even arguing about.

Amujale:
Throughout all of our great continent's illustrious history, the only mention of the name Jesus is directly connected to the transatlantic slave trade.

As in, the name Jesus was the name of the first slave ship to touch down on American shores.

Know history and become one with reality.

I do not disagree with this, but still this doesn't prove there wasn't a Jesus.

GeneralDae:

I do not disagree with this, but still this doesn't prove there wasn't a Jesus.

There's no evidence of a person called Jesus Christ anywhere in human history, assuming you have any such evidence, provide them here and cease arguing pointlessly.

Amujale:


Foreigners came to our continent, found out about our divine principles and decided to call them God.

The African Gods are the only true and proper ones.

Not to be conflated with the Almighty God.

All you've said here may be true and I tend to believe them, but how does it show that a Jesus most likely did not exist.

GeneralDae:

Then show how this so called rhetoric is without merit.
This is the proof again, and I repeat:

The book of Galatians has a certain Paul speaking about a certain Jesus (brother of James), he spoke about a Peter whom he had conflict with concerning circumcision of new converts to Christianity and he is greatly pained about this.

The Christian bible isn't a history textbook, citing that book as a source, renders your evidence false and unreliable.

When was this so called fictional Jesus character meant to have been around?

What year?

What area of the world?

How many historical people has any recollection of such a character apart from the authors of the Christian bible?

Bear in mind that we are aware of the names of some of the people who wrote the so called gospels.

We know who wrote various parts of the New Testaments and their names definitely weren't Paul, Peter, John, James or Mark.

Amujale:


There's no evidence of a person called Jesus Christ anywhere in human history, assuming you have any such evidence, provide them here and cease arguing pointlessly.

I have provided the evidence several times. The book of Galatians and Josephus on Jesus brother of James. You keep asking for evidence and I keep giving you.

Amujale:


The Christian bible isn't a history textbook, citing that book as a source, renders your evidence false and unreliable.

When was this so called fictional Jesus character meant to have been around?

What year?

What area of the world?

How many historical people has any recollection of such a character apart from the authors of the Christian bible?

Bear in mind that we are aware of the names of some of the people who wrote the so called gospels.

We know who wrote various parts of the New Testaments and their names definitely weren't Paul, Peter, John, James or Mark.

The Christian bible is not one single book but a collection of various books. I am speaking particularly about the book of Galatians here.

He was meant to have been around from 4 BC to AD 30

In Judea, Jerusalem. Although he was originally a poor Gallilean.

It doesn't matter how many people wrote about him. How many people wrote about Soceates apart from his disciples and those who heard from his disciples? How many people wrote about Buddha and other religious characters apart from their followers? Besides writing was only for the upper class in those days, and they would hardly spend their time writing about the many religious leaders and prophets existing in back water Judea.

Even at that, Josephus and Tacticus wrote about Jesus, but the book of Galatians is enough evidence for me.

So give me the names of those who wrote the gospel and why you think they were the authors.

GeneralDae:

He was meant to have been around from 4 BC to AD 30

Are you aware of how many historians existed in the first century?

Are you aware that apart from the people of Kemit, the Romans are the other people who had the most elaborate system of recording their history?

Explain to us how a character that was meant to have walked on water, heal the blind, feed a multitude with a few loafs of bread and turn water into wine was missed by hundreds of historians from all around the area that you claim he stayed?

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, how is it that to this very day, when we study Roman history, not one sentence is dedicated to this Jesus character?

I've studied Roman history from the time of their inception to their decline and not one sentence is dedicated to any such character, instead we learn about Romulus and Remus.

Talking of Romulus and Remus, perhaps you ought to go and read about Romulus in particular this should give you a better understanding of how the Jesus character came about.

Why?

Due to the fact that the Jesus character is solely based on fiction.

In all reality, the Jesus character is a malicious adaptation of Heru the son of Auset and Ausar.

GeneralDae:

So give me the names of those who wrote the gospel and why you think they were the authors.

Before I divulge such information, would you agree with me that neither a person called Mark, John, Luke, Paul, Peter or Timothy wrote anytime partaining to the Christian bible.

GeneralDae:

Then show how this so called rhetoric is without merit.
This is the proof again, and I repeat:

The book of Galatians has a certain Paul speaking about a certain Jesus (brother of James), he spoke about a Peter whom he had conflict with concerning circumcision of new converts to Christianity and he is greatly pained about this. He doesn't want his new converts to be circumcised, but it seems the Jerusalem church led by James wanted the circumcision for converts.

Now can you prove that all of these were just formulated to deceive us? Show why you think this could not have happened. This is what you have to prove, this is my strongest proof for the existence of jesus. Disprove it with facts and reason, and I would admit it is weak. All you have done so far is to merely dismiss it, this is why I am not taking you seriously because I don't think you know what you are even arguing about.

Good evening again.

You are making a serious fundamental mistake. You cannot use the bible to prove the bible. Let us know anything outside the bible that affirms that Paul spoke to James.

By the way, historians don't deny that there were people called Jesus. Of course, there must have been thousands of people called Jesus 2,000 years ago because Jesus is just a Jewish name (Yashua) meaning God saved. In Igbo language it's CHINAZO, which means the same thing- God saves. It's even a popular Igbo name.

Imagine going back 2,000 years in Igbo history and begin making the argument that Paul said something to James the brother of Chinazo. Of course, there would've been millions of "James" who their brother was called Chinazo. Making it worse for you is that "Chinazo" was the most popular name for Messianic people killed by Rome.

What historians say is that there's no proof of any CHINAZO (Jesus) who was born by a virgin, walked on water, resurrected from dead. And for your information, the city of Nazareth did not even exist until after about 150 years Jesus supposedly lived!!. This's according to Kenneth Humphreys in the book Jesus never existed. The Jesus that was born by a virgin, walked on water, resurrected from dead, it pure literature.

For details, below is how Kenneth Humphreys, answered the question of numerous Jesus's, in his book; Jesus never existed:

Was there a Jesus? Of course there was a Jesus – many!

The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yehoshua (Yeshua) bin Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Iesous in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

Jesus ben Sirach.
This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira.
A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias.
Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat.
In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala.
During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth.
A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

But was there a crucified Jesus?

Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.

But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.''

Arrius Calpurnius Piso

This name at the surface may not seem familiar to those who have yet to read about the above character, yet for many of us on NL, we've read about him before.

Arrius Piso was a first century writer of royal descent who made use of different pen names one of which was Flavius Josephus.

source: The True Authorship of the New Testament' by Abelard Reuchlin

Pdf download:-
The True Authorship of the New Testament' by Abelard Reuchlin (here there's a list of various characters who wrote multiple chapters of the NT, most of whom were related to Arrius Piso .i.e his grandfather, father, siblings and other members of his extended family.

https://www.academia.edu/33328631/Flavius_Josephus_aka_Arrius_Calpurnius_Piso_pdf.

Arrius Calpurnius Piso In The Talmud
http://www.academia.edu/10920856/Arrius_Calpurnius_Piso_Aka_The_NT_Jesus_In_The_Talmud


Pliny The Younger wrote as Paul of the New Testament.

http://www.academia.edu/10806671/On_Corresponding_Words_Of_Pliny_and_Pauls_Epistles

Pliny The Younger In The Talmud
http://www.academia.edu/10734718/Pliny_Younger_In_The_Talmud

[quote author=musicwriter post=100240914]

Good evening again.

You are making a serious fundamental mistake. You cannot use the bible to prove the bible. Let us know anything outside the bible that affirms that Paul spoke to James.

The Christian bible is made up of 27 different books by different authors with some having conflicting views. So tell me what is wrong in using one or two books and authors? if you are truly interested in truth, tell me why I can't use Galatians for instance to know what happened in history. Now forget about the bible as a whole for now, let's talk about just Galatians first.

By the way, historians don't deny that there were people called Jesus. Of course, there must have been thousands of people called Jesus 2,000 years ago because Jesus is just a Jewish name (Yashua) meaning God saved. In Igbo language it's CHINAZO, which means the same thing- God saves. It's even a popular Igbo name.

Imagine going back 2,000 years in Igbo history and begin making the argument that Paul said something to James the brother of Chinazo. Of course, there would've been millions of "James" who their brother was called Chinazo. Making it worse for you is that "Chinazo" was the most popular name for Messianic people killed by Rome.

Well the particular Jesus I'm speaking about was called brother of James and Christ. Both Josephus and Paul spoke about him in that way. It is that particular Jesus I'm speaking about.

What historians say is that there's no proof of any CHINAZO (Jesus) who was born by a virgin, walked on water, resurrected from dead. And for your information, the city of Nazareth did not even exist until after about 150 years Jesus supposedly lived!!. This's according to Kenneth Humphreys in the book Jesus never existed. The Jesus that was born by a virgin, walked on water, resurrected from dead, it pure literature.

But you have rejected historians on this matter for people who do not have degrees in history, so you cannot tell me what historians say on this matter, rather I would tell you what they are saying:
The historical view is that there was a Jesus from Nazareth, who was baptized by John the Baptist, had followers and was crucified by pilate. FINISH. That's the conclusion of historians on the matter at this point.
Also Kenneth Humphrey is wrong, there was a Nazareth in the time of Jesus and it has been discovered to date back to that time and beyond. This is why you should read books from true Historians not Kenneth Humphrey, but you are biased towards your own point of view of course and you reject historical scholarship.

[quote author=GeneralDae post=100243338][/quote]

Unfortunately for you, the Jesus you're talking about is the work of literature, he's a fictional character just like Okonkwo in China Achebe's "things fall apart".

Jesus is a fictional character placed in a historical setting. If you go looking for Jesus in history you can't find him but you'll find those things that are in the historical background. This's what is confusing you. That's one.

The motive of the authors of the gospels is to get you emotional about the Jesus character so that you throw away logic and science, but instead believe that the fictional character existed so that in your reverence of him, you'll obey constituted authority- originally to obey and submit to Rome. You've fallen for it. That's two.

Know this and know peace.

musicwriter:


Unfortunately for you, the Jesus you're talking about is the work of literature, he's a fictional character just like Okonkwo in China Achebe's "things fall apart".

Jesus is a fictional character placed in a historical setting. If you go looking for Jesus in history you can't find him but you'll find those things that are in the historical background. This's what is confusing you. That's one.

The motive of the authors of the gospels is to get you emotional about the Jesus character so that you throw away logic and science, but instead believe that the fictional character existed. You've fallen for it. That's two.

Know this and know peace.

Read books of Historians or blogs, you can take only Atheists and Jewish historians. Read them, put holes in their arguement as to why Jesus existed and then come back, else we'll just be going round in circles. My problem with you guys is that you are ignoring scholarship and even archeology on this matter for your favourite conspiracy theorists whose arguments are outdated and debunked by actual scholars in the field and yet you accuse Christians of fanaticism.

GeneralDae:

Read books of Historians or blogs, you can take only Atheists and Jewish historians. Read them, put holes in their arguement as to why Jesus existed and then come back, else we'll just be going round in circles. My problem with you guys is that you are ignoring scholarship and even archeology on this matter for your favourite conspiracy theorists whose arguments are outdated and debunked by actual scholars in the field and yet you accuse Christians of fanaticism.

It's you that's peddling conspiracy theory here. Otherwise, prove me wrong below.

Nobody in history said Jesus healed me.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead.

Nobody in history said I was among the 5,000 multitude Jesus fed with 5 fishes and 2 loaves of bread.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus turn water to wine.

Nobody in history said I was there when Jesus was beaten by a mob.

Nobody in history said I was there when Jesus was crucified.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus ascend into heaven.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus with my two eyes.

Nobody in history even said I lived in the same village or city or town with Jesus.

Nobody witnessed it because its MYTHOLOGY. Prove me otherwise.

Amujale:


Are you aware of how many historians existed in the first century?

Are you aware that apart from the people of Kemit, the Romans are the other people who had the most elaborate system of recording their history?

Explain to us how a character that was meant to have walked on water, heal the blind, feed a multitude with a few loafs of bread and turn water into wine was missed by hundreds of historians from all around the area that you claim he stayed?

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, how is it that to this very day, when we study Roman history, not one sentence is dedicated to this Jesus character?

I've studied Roman history from the time of their inception to their decline and not one sentence is dedicated to any such character, instead we learn about Romulus and Remus.

Talking of Romulus and Remus, perhaps you ought to go and read about Romulus in particular this should give you a better understanding of how the Jesus character came about.

Why?

Due to the fact that the Jesus character is solely based on fiction.

In all reality, the Jesus character is a malicious adaptation of Heru the son of Auset and Ausar.

You are not getting the point. Historians are not claiming that Jesus walked on water or fed 5000 people. Historians generally believe these are myths that cannot be ascertained, but if you know anything about writings in the ancient world and about ancient characters, mythical stories and exaggerations by their followers are not new. So it is nothing surprising to historians.

What Historians maintain is that there was an Original Jesus whom his followers thought highly of and the authors of the gospels writing 40-60 years after had a mission to evangelise. Mark wanted to envagelize Rome, making them know that Ceasar is not the son of God ( as he claimed) but rather there is one called Jesus who is the true son of God. Matthew wanted to convince his Jewish circle that Jesus was Jewish messiah who fulfilled old testament scriptures, Luke was writing to a certain Greek Theophilus and John was most likely an Hellrnistic Jew writing 60 years after.
Historians do not believe that any of these Authors were witnesses, but rather they were just about a generation away from the witnesses.
100 years later they were named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by the church.

When we study Roman history, we also do not find any sentence dedicated to prophets or religious characters from Judea. Why should we? why should Rome care about Judea and their prophets? oh come on, be realistic.


Now you say the Jesus character came from Romulus, another time it came from Budddha, Horus, Krishnna, Mithra, and someone also alleged from Moses as well. So which should we believe? Where is the Jesus character from actually? choose one or at most 3, so you can start making sense here, biko.

GeneralDae:

You are not getting the point. Historians are not claiming that Jesus walked on water or fed 5000 people. Historians generally believe these are myths that cannot be ascertained, but if you know anything about writings in the ancient world and about ancient characters, mythical stories and exaggerations by their followers are not new..

Dude it seems you're in a trance, snap out of it.

Did you not READ what contributors to the thread wrote?

There was never a person who walked this Earth called Jesus Christ.

At least take the time to READ.

GeneralDae:

When we study Roman history, we also do not find any sentence dedicated to prophets or religious characters from Judea...

As you make my point for me, you definitely missed the part where I told you that the Christian bible is a combination of fakery and falsehood.

As in, there isn't one character or story line present in that book that is real.

GeneralDae:

Now you say the Jesus character came from Romulus, another time it came from Budddha, Horus, Krishnna, Mithra, and someone also alleged from Moses as well. So which should we believe? Where is the Jesus character from actually?

Firstly, stop misconstruing what I wrote.

Eventhough it's correct to say that the Jesus character takes after various older characters from around the world (Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Mithra e.t.c), still, I actually gave the credit to the most ancient of these characters (Horus/Heru), it doesn't take much for you to actually take the time to READ.


Secondly you're stuck in belief mode, you have the need to want to believe

That's the reason you refuse to free yourself from these foreign extremist ideologies.

I choose to know rather than merely believe.

And you can choose to know as well assuming you would clear the cobwebs in your thought pattern and research those characters for yourself and reach your own conclusions.

The reason I state these facts is so that anyone may go and research them for ourselves.


Furthermore, Moses is a fictional character that was euhemerised into Ancient Egypt, hence that character doesn't count.

GeneralDae:

...What Historians maintain is that there was an Original Jesus whom his followers thought highly of and the authors of the gospels writing 40-60 years after had a mission to evangelise. ..

No, what historians maintain is that since there is no historical grounds for reference, no recollection by historians of the specific time period, archeological data except for literature written by unscrupulous individuals, Jesus Christ is a fictitious character that never existed.

Furthermore, us already know that Romans of the first century were responsible for the writing of various stories in the Christian bible.

We can identify who wrote the Jesus story.

That in itself is enough to conclude that the Jesus Christ character is based on fakery and falsehood.

Amujale:


No, what historians maintain is that since there is no historical grounds for reference, no recollection by historians of the specific time period, archeological data except for literature written by unscrupulous individuals, Jesus Christ is a fictitious character that never existed.

Furthermore, us already know that Romans of the first century were responsible for the writing of various stories in the Christian bible.

We can identify who wrote the Jesus story.

That in itself is enough to conclude that the Jesus Christ character is based on fakery and falsehood.

If you can't give me scholarly sources or writings of true Historian Professors who state the bolded you wrote above, then we are wasting our time here.

Amujale:


Dude it seems you're in a trance, snap out of it.

Did you not READ what contributors to the thread wrote?

There was never a person who walked this Earth called Jesus Christ.

At least take the time to READ.

If you cannot refute my points or give me scholarly sources from true Archeologists or Historians, then let's stop wasting our time, because unlike others here arguing with me, you are not even making the effort to refute my arguments or deal with what I say, you are just repeating thesame thing over and over again all over the thread.

musicwriter:


It's you that's peddling conspiracy theory here. Otherwise, prove me wrong below.

Nobody in history said Jesus healed me.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead.

Nobody in history said I was among the 5,000 multitude Jesus fed with 5 fishes and 2 loaves of bread.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus turn water to wine.

Nobody in history said I was there when Jesus was beaten by a mob.

Nobody in history said I was there when Jesus was crucified.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus ascend into heaven.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus with my two eyes.

Nobody in history even said I lived in the same village or city or town with Jesus.

Nobody witnessed it because its MYTHOLOGY. Prove me otherwise.

Good afternoon. Please, do you the off version of the books you listed here, because I've been trying to get then but could not find them? I've only downloaded that one by the Humphreys guy. If you have the pdf version of them, do you mind sending it?
Thanks �

Each day that passes, shows NL is been filled daily with self acclaimed authority on specialisation many aren't versed in it. This has become worrisome when contributors want to assert false as truth. This is indeed shocking.

The Op of this thread kept refuting evidence beyond reasonable doubt that eeshua existed over tow thousands of years ago in a pinch space given him on this section. I wish people get banned for falsification and derogatory statement on personalities as Yeshua.

The findings by scholars found out that the oldest written references mentioning Jesus date from after his death. He appears for the first time in the letters of Saint Paul, written between 20 and 30 years after the crucifixion.

It was stated by one out of many researchers that Saint Paul never knew Jesus, although according to Simon Gathercole, the New Testament studies specialist from the University of Cambridge (United Kingdom) explains, he knew “not only Jesus’ disciples but also his brothers,” (in reference particularly to James the Just, whose kinship with Jesus is one of the points of disagreement between different Christian sects).

And couple of decades later, the New Testament Gospels were written, which do appear to contain first-hand testimonies. Yet despite this, according to the experts very few of them can be considered rigorously historical. In particular, the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist and his crucifixion are the only two episodes generally accepted, but not by all. “The crucifixion is safe, but the baptism is hard to support or locate,” the archaeologist and biblical researcher Eric Meyers, professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Duke University (USA).

The crucifixion of Jesus is one of the episodes generally accepted by historians. Author: Peter Gertner, however, for Byron McCane, archaeologist and historian of religions and Judaism at the Atlantic University of Florida (USA), both the baptism and the crucifixion are stories that the first Christians are unlikely to have invented, since neither of them “supports their interests in any way,” he asserts, “The baptism shows Jesus to be a disciple of (and therefore inferior to) John the Baptist, and the crucifixion was a humiliating punishment reserved for criminals.”

A broad consensus among scholars but the ancient references to Jesus are not just found in works by Christian authors, an argument that supports the historical authenticity of the character. “Jesus is also mentioned in ancient Jewish and Roman texts,” says McCane. For example, around the year 93, the Pharisee historian Flavius ​​Josephus left in his work Jewish Antiquities at least one indisputable reference to the “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Two decades later, the Romans Pliny and Tacitus also wrote about Jesus; the latter explained that the founder of the sect of Christians was executed during the mandate of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governing in Judea.


Obviously, the Op didn't realise that the Hebrew as a people were multiracial group and not Europeans as been speculated by him. And infact, these people lived under many Pharaoh's kings. This is just an amazement when I read gibberish online. So, pathetic.


Lastly, GeneralDae, don't waste much of your time on this man because, he being antagonist isn't the problem if there are convincing evidence, through archeological and historical backing up from him. Instead , he swings to and fro to position Africa as all in all. Meanwhile, Africa is is having over a thousand different unrelated languages with diversed means of God worshipping. Ethiopia, Egyptians, Cush (Sudanese group) are the group with knowledge of ancient Hebrew in Afriavu with many evidence via papyrus, pictographs to show the footprint of some of ancient Hebrew in Africa before their multitude disappearance through Sudan belt till date; bearing another name as their identity. Kudos to you because you stated your view as a scholar.