₦airaland Forum

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:
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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:
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:
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....

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

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

You're attempt of reverse psychology has failed you.

These foreign extremist ideologies are solely based on a diabolic, false, fake and counterintuitive belief system, one that you subscribe.

In all reality, it's you who's been brainwashed to subscribe to narratives that has no historical basis.

I'm simply telling you that according to history, the Jesus character, story line and all the other narratives peddled by the authors of the Christian bible is completely and utterly fictional.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on you and anyone else who makes false assertions to the contrary.

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.

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:
You give me evidence of the bolded.

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:
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.

That's all rhetoric and has already been rubbished in my previous response.

Again, answer my question.

Does you or doesn't you believe that the Christian bible is the word of your god?

It isn't a trick question.

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.

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.

Dr Henrik Clarke broke down this topic meticulously and I paraphrase him below:

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

Then, it shouldn't be hard for you to prove.

Go ahead provide us with the evidence.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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:
Of course christian bible include many myths the way majority of ancient works of old did. The job of historians is to use scholarly criterias to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Is the Christian bible a true account of history?

GeneralDae:
So you studied Roman history and you quote people who are not in academia? you ignore all the other professors. I don't believe you studied Roman history, because if you did, you would see how absurd it would be for Romans to create a new religion where the hero was crucified on a cross.

It's you who refuse to study history.

The Jesus character isnt a part of Roman history.

That's the whole point.

The Jesus character was invented, that means to say, that character never existed.

GeneralDae:
Are you kidding me? even from wikipedia sources we read this:

Atwill's theory contradicts the mainstream historical view,[1] which is that while the Gospels include many mythical or legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the biography of a historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Judea,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11]

There was never a person who walked this Earth called Jesus Christ.
Assuming you have any proof to the contrary, kindly provide them here.

Furthermore, you seem to disregard the fact that in your own submission it clearly states that Christian bible includes many myths.

Here you've experienced what is commonly know as an "Observation Selection".

You're argument is based on a false premise.

GeneralDae:
So tell me why you think Ceasar's Messaiah is factual..

Due to the fact that I studied Roman history as well as the writing systems of the olden days Roman and Greek writers and what he wrote is indeed factual.

GeneralDae:
Let start from somewhere, give me a point in Ceasar's messaiah and the reasons why you think it's true, I would give you my opposed view, then readers would compare.

My advice is for you to go and
READ the book.

Assuming I can get my hands on a electronic copy, I will post it, meanwhile get yourself a copy, READ.


I think there's a video that he published on social media.

GeneralDae:
This is, no doubt, why his work has suffered from such harsh critique in the scholarly world.

Cite one serious minded historian who critiqued "Caesar Messiah".

GeneralDae:
Joseph Atwill is not a NT scholar or a historian; he is a businessman. Therefore, he has no educational prowess on this subject—anymore than the average person with a business degree could offer. This is, no doubt, why his work has suffered from such harsh critique in the scholarly world.

Now you're lying simply due to the fact that you be been condition to accept a fictional story.

Have you read his book "Caesar Messiah" or are just simply spouting out giberish?

My advice is for you to actually go and take the time to read and then come back here to make proper sense.

GeneralDae:
Is Joseph Atwill a new testament scholar?
what are his references and sources?

That's the point that eludes, most historians completely disregard the biblical narratives as the rubbish that they are.

I made reference to Joseph Atwil's writting due to the fact that he's a Jewish historian.

Most serious minded historians don't engage in fiction.

Any historian that takes the biblical narratives as some kind of historical event is definitely a practicing Christian, therefore isn't a reliable source.

The main reason that Eurocentric historians didn't, don't write a correct version of African history is due to "White Sociopathy" or what some people referto as"White Suprenacy".

What is "White Sociopathy"?

A Sociopath are certain individuals who possess a personality disorders, such disorder is said to manifest itself into extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour. i.e engaging in premeditated murder, looting, plunder, brainwashing, colonisation, chattel slavery of another human being.

Therefore, "White Sociopathy" is a mental disorder that may be cured by becoming exposed to truth.

GeneralDae:
Titus was an enemy of the early christian Church....

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:
...Constantine in the 4th century.

Indeed, Constantine of the 4th Century.

Basically all these foreign extremist ideologies were created in the early parts of the first millennium.

When I say Christianity was created by Romans of the first century, that's to shed light on the fact that this foreign extremist ideology predates the Jesus character by hundreds of years.

Look at it this way, the followers of the church of Serapis concepts and ideologies are similar to the ones the Roman Catholic church peddled to ya'll, the many differences came about after various splits, the most famous being when the Protestant broke away from Catholicism.

That is to say, Christianity is a Roman mockery of the Hellenistic religions.

Furthermore, the Romans adopted various concepts from the Hellenists i.e the Serapis image, salvation, the Eucharist e.t.c

Again don't take what's being stated as the facts that they are, go and research for yourselves and you'll find that you come to the same conclusion as the rest of the serious minded historians.

GeneralDae:
Constantine in first century?
Titus was an enemy of the early christian Church.
Vespasian and Titus were emperors.
What made you think I have not studied Roman history?
You are the one bringing up conspiracy theories and assertions here. If Romans want to create a religion to dominate the world, it wouldn't be such a contradictory religon like christianity. Also if the Romans created christianity, why did the Romans persecute them so much up until Constantine in the 4th century.

How can Titus have persecuted the followers of Jesus, when they had yet to invent the Jesus character?

The term 'Christ' predates the Roman manufactured ideology.

That is to say, there was hundreds of characters who was given the title Christ, again, the most prominent of them was Serapis, Serapis Christos as they named their Christ character.

Whoever told you that either hasn't study history or is simply lying.