₦airaland Forum

zoraro:
@tharma, My posts are clear enough for you to understand just read them again. If you've shut your eyes to the truth how will you see it.

It is truth that Jesus was not the first god to have been born by a virgin (By myths of course).

It is true that Jesus was not the first to be resurrected three days after he died.

It is true that December 25 is also the birthday of many Sun gods

It is true that Jesus was not the first to be the Alpha and omega. e.t.c.

@davidylan, should I also "provide concrete historical proof for the existence" of Horus,Bacchus,Khrishna, Buddha, Laokiun along with that for  Virishna or the other many gods that share some similar personality or events with Jesus.

The problem is that they didn't have  some of those properties. Some of the theories propounded by Acharya are crap. The claims made by her (I think it's a her) and some others are pure invention. For example Krishna was not crucified. He died from being accidentally shot with an arrow. Osiris was not called Christ. The Egyptian word KRST has something to do with burial not anointing.

This isn't to say that there isn't some Sun god elements thrown in. The crown of thorns, halo, rising from the dead, Turing water into wine, Son of God and walking on water look to be descriptions of the sun God.  Almost everything written about Jesus is midrashic in nature. He's basically a combination of Joshua, Elijah-Elisha, and the nation of Israel with a heaping of Essene theology thrown in for good measure. The authors were highly influenced by the prophets, yet did a half-assed job of portraying him as the Messiah. No doubt the Gentiles they were writing to didn't know and/or care about the Jewish Messiah so only enough to wow to ignorant was put into the gospels. Some of the stories were created around Jewish feasts like Yom Kippur, Sukkoth, and Peshach.

Most likely Jesus was intended from the outset to be an allegory, but he took on a life of his own.

Why are people believing frauds and liars like Adeboye? He onced lied that he drove for over 300km in a 504 during feul scarcity with about 4 litters of fuel to carry out Gods work. He claimed God powered the car. , Why does God not power the cars of other christains who have no fuel due to lack of money or scarcity?

davidylan:
[size=14pt]With 25 million copies sold every yr . . . the bible remains America's top selling book of all time even though 90% of all households have at least 1 copy.

If it hurts you please break a leg.[/size]

Same with the Koran, The Koran remains the top selling book in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Eygypt etc even though over 95% of households have at least 2 copies. If it hurts your break you neck.

Chrisbenogor:
@david
Are the smoke grenades finishing? I seriously doubt, I know you went for a reload, hopefully your armoury is not too far away.
Bindex please how does the other work Josephus wrote affect that which was forged? Am I the only one seeing that this guy is trying to pull a cris angel levitation and failing woefully at it.

The guy is a militant  , he will do and say anything to make his point. He has predetermined answers for everything, and is quick to use the word hypocrite with out knowing its meaning when he is clearly a very good defination of the word, when wikipedia support his claims he quickly uses it, when it does'nt he discards it and says ohh Its from wikipedia hence it lacks credibility ,same with science. He will go to any length to prove his point, he even uses imaginary conceptions to prove his point but shouts that people should provide scientific facts or evidence to support theirs, when asked to explain certian issues or events he clearly does'nt know or can't provide answers to he shouts its a miracle, but keeps telling others to provide rational scientific evidence for theirs. What an interesting guy.

davidylan:
apparently objective thinking is not the forte of a lot of you. Any independent witness would have written their accounts AFTER the event occured. they obviously wouldnt have had the foreknowledge that he would resurrect so its highly unlikely anyone was bothering to write an account AS IT WAS happening.

Obviously not about 60 years after the said events.

_{from davidylan}

Isnt it a disgrace to make the oft discredited claim that the only people authorised to write about Jesus must be "eyewitnesses"? When we talk of Matthew, Mark and John . . . we suddenly hear another story entirely.

You believe Tutahnkhamun existed . . . were are the eyewitnesses?

you say Ceasar existed . . . where are the eyewitnesses?

Gallileo existed? . . . who was his eyewitness?

I can go on and on . . . but no need burning myself out over hypocrites.

The only hipocrite here is you. you lied that Jesus was an ordinary guy when all the biblical accounts showed that he was'nt.

You brought the name of Tutahnkhamun, can you please tell me who he is?

The only person trying to break his neck about Ceasar existence is you, why should i care if he existed or not, he was never alleged to have raised any body from the dead, tured water into wine and claim to be the saviour of the world, did he? by the way who is Ceaser? care to tell us about him?

Gallieo had writtings of his own, where are that of Jesus?

As I aforementioned the only hypocrite here is you. As for mathew and co why should we believe their accounts when they are contradictory? besides they never claimed any athourship of any of the text.

_{quote from davidylan}

i'll start with this . . . I have several historically accurate accounts. An interesting thing to note about these accounts are that they do NOT contradict each other even though many are written by jewish, roman and greek historians . . . all writing from different perspectives

And i also have Historical accounts that dispute that. I think it's more mainstream to assume a man existed, but that doesn't make it anymore true. Since there is little or no evidence that a person named Jesus existed except what the Gospels say.We do find that Matthew and Luke alter Mark in ways that suggest they are writing for different purposes and different audiences. However, I do not think that that explanation satisfactorily explains why, for example, Matthew would write about post-resurrection appearances in Galilee but Luke write about them in Jerusalem.

The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John do not include a nativity narrative or any hint that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and refer to him only as being from Nazareth.[22] In a 2005 article in Archaeology magazine, archaeologist Aviram Oshri pointed to the absence of evidence of settlement of the area at the time when Jesus was born.

If Jesus was about 30 years old and was killed by Pontius Pilate then as written by mathew subtracting 30 years would put his birth at the time of Herod's reign. Yet there's a big problem here. Luke also mentions that Jesus was born around the time of the census of Cyrenius. This was 10 years after Herod died!

The Birth Narratives are so different and contain somany details that fail to agree that one must conclude that they had been invented not written based on the OT.

The stories of Jesus' crucifiction also differ. Could there have been and earthquake and so on and  only one goslpel writier heard about it? Come to that, an earthquake would get into Roman records but there is no sign of it even though they are known to have very good documentation of events.

_{quote from davidylan}

the idea that there MUST be a "first hand account" is nothing but a desperate attempt to throw up a smokescreen where there is none. Very few events in ancient history actually have "first hand accounts". For example there is NO "first hand account" of the existence of the pharoahs or the building of the pyramids . . . what we have are accounts written centuries after they died . . . HOWEVER we KNOW the Pharoahs existed because we have been able to unearth their graves.

This is very lame I say. I have always had a hard time understanding why the Jews in the presence of Jesus and who were looking for a Messiah and were primed and ready to receive one, totally rejects Jesus who is performing miracles, raising the dead, etc.Besides there are no roman records of Jesus being arrested or killed.

_{quote from davidylan}

Matthew, Mark and John were written by DISCIPLES who walked with Christ . . . the fact that they wrote their accounts 10-30 years after his death does not detract from the almost precise similarity in their works

Consider Matthew and Luke's versions of events that are not told in Mark. For example, Mark does not include any birth narratives, genealogies, or post-resurrection stories. Tellingly, Matthew and Luke's versions of these differ radically, often to the point of contradiction  The wrote very different and very conflicting account of events.

_{quote from davidylan}

2. For the last 3 years He was an itinerant preacher, despised by the Jews, hated by the pharisees who called Him a blasphemer, regarded by many as "is this not the son of Joseph the carpenter?" and killed by the high priests . . . why would any historian be interested in penning down details of such an ordinary fellow?

Like i said he was'nt an ordinary fellow. He was alleged to have raised the dead, cured the sick, tured water into wine, had a lot of followers, preached in so many places.(Infact he was known as a rebel as you just put, most rebels are well know not ordinary people) Why are you lying that he is an ordinary guy? nobody that has the ability to raise the dead will be considered as an ordinary guy.

_{quote from davidylan}

It was not until the christian movement became a potent force among the gentile world that historians began to take notice.

3. We do not have "first hand accounts" of Herod, Pontius Pilate, Ceasar . . . BUT we know from archeological evidence that they existed.

we don't have conflicting accounts of their existence do we?


_{quote from davidylan}

We have WAY MORE recorded history about the life of Jesus than we have of Julius Ceasar and Herod YET these hypocrites NEVER seem to question whether they existed.

Non of them ever claimed to have healed the sick, raised the dead or to be God the creator of the universe. so why bother finding out anything about them?

tharma:
To Bindex and may be Kuns

One of my former neighbours one day told me that since when he was a kid he want to kill people, but it is this religion thing that is stopping because he don't want to go to hell. If people like him now meet u what will u tell him? No hell, go and enjoy ur life (and to him enjoy is to kill) because according to him he fantasise about killing people on daily basis. When he told me that I quickly gave my estate agents notice, pack and moved away from him.

Reverend King believed in hell yet he still killed people in his church, George Bush believes in Hell yet about a million people are dead because of him in Iraq, Saddam Hussien believed in hell yet he commited genocide,religious fanatics the world over believe in hell but still kell people, The crusaders believed in hell yet they killed lots of people, The early catholic church believed in hell yet they killed so many people during the period of inquisition, Nigerian leaders believe in hell yet uncoutable people have died from their direct actions or inaction, do I need to continue? go and sleep i believe its past you bed time  

davidylan:
e.g. what "reasons" did you give?
You simply made a claim and u're asking that i debunk it?

Where is your evidence for the claims you say i shld debunk?

Follish liars . . . he makes a blanket claim then says i gave no evidence for calling him out as a liar.

You say Josephus was a fraud . . . how? Where is your evidence?

you are a very dishonest person. You provided an entry from wikipedia to buttress your point that Josepus was real. here is what you wrote

A wikipedia entry on Josephus:

Josephus (AD 37 – c. 100),[1] also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph, son of Matthias) and, after he became a Roman citizen, as Titus Flavius Josephus,[2] was a first-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.

Josephus's two most important works are The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[3] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Rome (66–70). Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective. These works provide valuable insight into the background of first century Judaism and early Christianity.[3]

'nuff said.

and from the same wikipedia I provided evidence to show that there is a consensus that his work was forged.

The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolved.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

I went ahead and gave you reasons to show that there was obvious interpolation in his works, but as usual you are screaming that i did not provide any evidence. Here it is once again.

Arguments for the interpolation of this passage consist of the following: (1) Problems of textual conformity between manuscripts, (2) peculiar placement in the text, (3) odd use of Josephan language, (4) the use of pro-Christian language, (5) lack of mention specifically in any other earlier Christian source including Justin Martyr and Origen, (6) the earliest attestation we have, that of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories, he places the Testimonium after Josephus’ account of John the Baptist, and finally (7) Eusebius has an alternate version of the text himself in another work.

The problems of conformity of the manuscripts are a huge deal, although generally not touched upon by dissenters of the Josephan controversy over the Testimonium. The first attestation to this passage is found in the forth century, and even then it seems to not have been set in stone, as Steve Mason[1] cites that Jerome (p. 230) had a different version of the transcript in his Lives of Illustrious Men, and in the 10th century yet an additional manuscript is found in Agapius (ibid.). But it doesn’t stop there, as Michael, the Patriarch of Antioch quotes another variant text in the 12th century. So many alterations exist. Mason asks, “Where did such equivocal versions of Josephus’ account come from?” (p. 231) And not least of all, the fact that there are alternative translations which exist from Robert Eisler[2] and John P. Meier[3] spark additional questions. Why are there no copies of Josephus before Eusebius in the fourth century for scholarship to adequately translate? Perhaps Christians didn’t feel the need to preserve it beforehand, and that should raise additional red flags.

The peculiar placement of the text is additionally odd. Looking at the text from a distance, without really comparing the accounts of the context around the Testimonium, it may seem possible that it fits. It does deal with Pilate, that is for sure, and certainly it contains accounts of followers of a cult, referred to as a “tribe,” that Josephus didn’t hold to, much like those of the cult of Isis he discusses a section down. But further examination reveals a troubling reality. After Pilate arrives in Judea, Josephus follows with two incidents; (a) Pilate allows the Roman images into Jerusalem during the night, and (b) Pilate’s use of temple funds to build an aqueduct. Immediately following the Testimonium, (c) Josephus discusses the destruction of the temple of Isis and the crucifixion of Egyptian priests, (d) Jews are expelled from Rome because of Jewish troublemakers, and (e) Pilate destroyed the Samaritan movement and their settlement at Gerizim. Mason states that, “Like a tourist negotiating a bustling, raucous Middle-Eastern market who accidentally walks through the door of a monastery, suffused with light and peace, the reader of Josephus is struck by this sublime portrait.” (p. 227) Events (a), (b) and (e) involve incidents that look unfavorably upon Pilate, but the Testimonium blames the fiasco of the crucifixion not on Pilate—who seems more like a puppet being played—but on the “denunciation by the leading men among us.” Every single event save for the Testimonium in Antiquities 18 is described as some form of outrage or uprising, yet there is no tumultuous event here, no uprising to speak of. Overall, Mason makes the observance that “he is pointing out the follow of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers,” (ibid.) yet in the Testimonium, Josephus speaks highly of Jesus and his followers, a stark contrast to the rest of the context. Finally, Josephus starts the section concerning the Isis temple as “another outrage,” for which George A. Wells[4] and others have argued both events (b) and (c) to have originally been adjacent, leaving the probability for the Testimonium to have been inserted later.[5]

Is'nt It a shame that you are grasping at the disputed or discredited work of Josephus who was never an eye witness to the alleged events of the bible to give credence to the biblical assertions and proof that Jesus existed? What a shame.

I repeat The original request was for[b] one single solitary first hand account outside the New Testament[/b]. Still waiting. Even the poorly written gospels were not first hand accounts, because all were written many years after the alleged death and resurection of Jesus.

davidylan:
please let no one say i no longer have any reason to call these people the worst bunch of intellectual midgets i've ever seen.

A wikipedia entry on Josephus:

Josephus (AD 37 – c. 100),[1] also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph, son of Matthias) and, after he became a Roman citizen, as Titus Flavius Josephus,[2] was a first-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.

Josephus's two most important works are The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[3] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Rome (66–70). Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective. These works provide valuable insight into the background of first century Judaism and early Christianity.[3]

'nuff said.

Its the way they blab about "undisputed facts" that gets me . . .

I remember you discarding some one on another thread because the source he produced to buttress his argument was from wikipedia, now you are quick to allude to wikipedia. davidylan. from the same wikipedia

The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolved.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Though most scholars consider this passage genuine [1], its authenticity as been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.

How did you debunk any of the my claim that his work were forged by christains?  I gave you reasons to show that his work were interpolated by the christains and all you did was discard it as an off hand and lame attempt

Arguments for the interpolation of this passage consist of the following: (1) Problems of textual conformity between manuscripts, (2) peculiar placement in the text, (3) odd use of Josephan language, (4) the use of pro-Christian language, (5) lack of mention specifically in any other earlier Christian source including Justin Martyr and Origen, (6) the earliest attestation we have, that of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories, he places the Testimonium after Josephus’ account of John the Baptist, and finally (7) Eusebius has an alternate version of the text himself in another work.

The problems of conformity of the manuscripts are a huge deal, although generally not touched upon by dissenters of the Josephan controversy over the Testimonium. The first attestation to this passage is found in the forth century, and even then it seems to not have been set in stone, as Steve Mason[1] cites that Jerome (p. 230) had a different version of the transcript in his Lives of Illustrious Men, and in the 10th century yet an additional manuscript is found in Agapius (ibid.). But it doesn’t stop there, as Michael, the Patriarch of Antioch quotes another variant text in the 12th century. So many alterations exist. Mason asks, “Where did such equivocal versions of Josephus’ account come from?” (p. 231) And not least of all, the fact that there are alternative translations which exist from Robert Eisler[2] and John P. Meier[3] spark additional questions. Why are there no copies of Josephus before Eusebius in the fourth century for scholarship to adequately translate? Perhaps Christians didn’t feel the need to preserve it beforehand, and that should raise additional red flags.

The peculiar placement of the text is additionally odd. Looking at the text from a distance, without really comparing the accounts of the context around the Testimonium, it may seem possible that it fits. It does deal with Pilate, that is for sure, and certainly it contains accounts of followers of a cult, referred to as a “tribe,” that Josephus didn’t hold to, much like those of the cult of Isis he discusses a section down. But further examination reveals a troubling reality. After Pilate arrives in Judea, Josephus follows with two incidents; (a) Pilate allows the Roman images into Jerusalem during the night, and (b) Pilate’s use of temple funds to build an aqueduct. Immediately following the Testimonium, (c) Josephus discusses the destruction of the temple of Isis and the crucifixion of Egyptian priests, (d) Jews are expelled from Rome because of Jewish troublemakers, and (e) Pilate destroyed the Samaritan movement and their settlement at Gerizim. Mason states that, “Like a tourist negotiating a bustling, raucous Middle-Eastern market who accidentally walks through the door of a monastery, suffused with light and peace, the reader of Josephus is struck by this sublime portrait.” (p. 227) Events (a), (b) and (e) involve incidents that look unfavorably upon Pilate, but the Testimonium blames the fiasco of the crucifixion not on Pilate—who seems more like a puppet being played—but on the “denunciation by the leading men among us.” Every single event save for the Testimonium in Antiquities 18 is described as some form of outrage or uprising, yet there is no tumultuous event here, no uprising to speak of. Overall, Mason makes the observance that “he is pointing out the follow of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers,” (ibid.) yet in the Testimonium, Josephus speaks highly of Jesus and his followers, a stark contrast to the rest of the context. Finally, Josephus starts the section concerning the Isis temple as “another outrage,” for which George A. Wells[4] and others have argued both events (b) and (c) to have originally been adjacent, leaving the probability for the Testimonium to have been inserted later.[5]

It's funny christain rely on a controversial writer that did not witness any of the accounts of the bible to prove the existence of their God   as Sam Harris says the christain God is very good at covering is tracks.  

davidylan:
this about sums you up really.

Read up on the babylonian talmud and the other authors . . . they had nothing to do with christian influence. It was compiled by jewish scholars . . . and you of all people shld know that jews were no friends of christians.

Here are a few christian allegations against the talmud:

Anti-Christian or anti-Gentile content
Insults against Jesus or the Virgin Mary
Absurd or sexually immoral content
Falsification of scripture

To continue to peddle the lie that Josephus was a fraud pretty much puts you in the realm of irrelevance to be honest.

Such a huge shame . . . its one thing to hate religion, its another to attempt to wade through the tide of overwhelming history.

Is there any other reason no one takes you people seriously?

You have not debunked any of my claims all you are doing is to droping one liners and blanket statements and declearing that people that do not agree with you are liars without any evidence. As for the writings of Josephus I personally would contend that an interpolation of a text that is not marked as such and attributed to the original author amounts to forgery. That is even true, if the source of the interpolation thought it to be legitimate to do so. Of course the standards in that regard where different 1700 years ago, but this does not mean that we have to apply these old (or absent) standards now. This is true regardless of whether the content of the interpolation was factually correct or not. Not marking it as interpolation makes it forgery.

By the way why do you need to cap nearly all of your posts with aggressions disguised as wisecracks? What do you hope to gain by that?

Why are you listing people that existed 100's of years after the alleged death of Jesus as proof that he existed, by the way most of them were talking about christains not even Jesus. I repeat The original request was for one single solitary first hand account outside the New Testament. Still waiting. Even the gospels were not first hand accounts, because all were written years after the alleged death of Jesus.

davidylan:
this sounds more like a desperate attempt to discredit history simply because it weakens your argument that Jesus did not exist.

There IS already evidence . . . you claim the evidence is forged. Then you go ahead and say that if they were evidence they wouldnt have needed to forge evidence . . .

Does the above really make a shred of sense?

Evidence by who? the gospel which were written at least 60 years after the said events or people that wrote about Jesus 100 or more years after his purported death? Why are there no independent contemporary writers that witnessed any of the alleged big events of the bible and wrote about them?

And as for Josephus, It doesn't really matter what you call it. The undisputed fact is that Josephus didn't write it. AND whoever wrote it, it was heresay. The original request was for one single solitary first hand account outside the New Testament. Still waiting,

davidylan:
Bindex . . . another example of revisionist history. you know the way it works . . . if there were no historical mention of Jesus at all you'd be claiming that as EVIDENCE . . . now that there are mentions its time to discredit the historians?

Like i always like to ask . . . what really is new here?

Rather than pore through your laborious falsehood here . . . allow me to produce a write-up:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).

Tacitus was talking about superstitous christains not Jesus he was talking about the christians not about the existence of Jesus. besides he was'nt alive when the Jesus the christains worshiped lived. He wrote about this very long after Jesus's alleged death and resurection

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

As i earlier said

1) Josephus was not a contemporary, being born several years after the alleged crucifixion.
2) The passage sound like it was written by a Christian, not a Jew reporting on Jesus, and certainly not like what a Jew would believe.
3) The passage is never mentioned before Eusebius even though earlier Christian writers had read and commented upon his work.
4) Before you say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" keep in mind that early Christians bemoaned the fact that Josephus didn't mention Jesus.
5) The works of Josephus were preserved by Christians

Arguments for the interpolation of this passage consist of the following: (1) Problems of textual conformity between manuscripts, (2) peculiar placement in the text, (3) odd use of Josephan language, (4) the use of pro-Christian language, (5) lack of mention specifically in any other earlier Christian source including Justin Martyr and Origen, (6) the earliest attestation we have, that of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories, he places the Testimonium after Josephus’ account of John the Baptist, and finally (7) Eusebius has an alternate version of the text himself in another work. His work was discredited.

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

As you can see this is tantamount to hear say The pharse Julius Africanus qoutes the historian Thallus, non of these people were alive and witnessed any of the assertions of the bible, this does not count as its clearly a work of hear say.

Pliny the Younger[/b], in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

How does this prove that Jesus truly existed? Pliny wrote about Jesus about 100 years after he died how does that prove or support the biblical assertions? This is just the same as me saying that moslems worship mohammed.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.[/b]

I don't know much about the babylonain Talmud, but it could be another christain forgery like that of Josephus.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Lucian lived over 200 years after the alleged death of Jesus, what does that prove? how does that  support the biblical assertions?

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.

How does this corroborate the biblical account? why are you bringing the names of people who all lived over 100  years after the death of Jesus some of which are questionable to prove that he lived? Why don't you come up with the names of independent historians who witnessed his purported birth, death and resurection?

“And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present”

Well, we are only told about these witnesses by the writer of the gospel whoever that is - they don't count as evidence in their own right as we don't even have names. Its funny non of them ever wrote anything about him that we have. Besides one writer who says 500 people witnessed a supernatural event doesn't create 500 bona fide witness accounts.

Just curious, when the city of Jerusalem was overrun with people on the afternoon of the execution of the Christ, "seen by many", why do you think it is that Mark is the only reporter in or out of the bible who found that newsworthy?  because all the other gospels were copied from mark which was written about 60 years after the death of Jesus.That doesn't strike you as odd? I doubt that it does.

JeSoul:
lol . . . So the History Channel is where you get all your facts?

It always amuses me when someone makes statements and proceeds to declare them facts that are "true" and these "facts" are based on what they heard or read somewhere & their own personal beliefs on the matter.

By the way, I also watch the History Channel & Discovery and just yesterday they had "The Complete Story of Jesus" series on, and it has been confirmed by other historic sources other than & independent of the bible the accounts of the final days of Jesus, that He did infact exist and did all the things the bible says He did . . . so much for the claim you watch & know your History .

Christianity is not by force dearie, whether or not you believe it Jesus is LORD. If satanism is what rocks your boat, by all means indulge yourself. But know that on the last day, you will give account everything you have done and will do. And you will have no excuse when you stand before the Great Judge.

Cheerios .

Can you pls name the "Independent" accounts of the final days of Jesus that confirmed that he actualy did existed beside the gospel of the bible. I mean contemporary Independent writers who were alive during the time of Jesus that witnessed his birth, death and crusifiction, even the gospels were written after his so called death.

davidylan:
By Bindex maybe?

Josephus history is well detailed . . . we know when he was born, when he died and what occupation he was involved in.

So because you hate Jesus, anyone that mentioned him is a fraud?

I don't hate Jesus as you claim, i have'nt seen any independent evidence to show that he ever existed in the first place besides the poorly written gospels in the bible. Its a shame that christains are depending on some one that existed long after Jesus died to prove that he once existed.

True Josephus history was well documented but we also know that

1) Josephus was not a contemporary, being born several years after the alleged crucifixion.
2) The passage sound like it was written by a Christian, not a Jew reporting on Jesus, and certainly not like what a Jew would believe.
3) The passage is never mentioned before Eusebius even though earlier Christian writers had read and commented upon his work.
4) Before you say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" keep in mind that early Christians bemoaned the fact that Josephus didn't mention Jesus.
5) The works of Josephus were preserved by Christians.

Christians had the means, opportunity, and motive (as well as a history of lying for Christ) to forge the document. If anything Josephus is evidence against the existence of Jesus because there'd be no reason to forge the evidence if there already was evidence.

davidylan:
Lemaire, A. 2002. Burial box of James the brother of Jesus. Biblical Archaeology Review. Volume 6.

There are other historical records of Jesus notably from Josephus and other Roman historians . . .

where is the record for Virishna? If he's a myth why are you clinging to it to debunk the life of Jesus?

Josephus is believed to be a fraud. Pliny and the rest all talked about christains as the follower of a man called Jesus not about Jesus himself. By the way they were not Jesus's contemporaries, non of them wrote about Jesus when he was alive they all wrote about him long after he died.

George Bush senior once decleard that atheist should not be considered as Americans(not the right quote but something very similar to that). He was president at that time.

olabowale:
This is an evil act. Like every evil act, against women. I feel sorry for the lost soul.

I have never heard you condem the actions of osama bin laden.

A priest crucified a nun because he thought she was "possessed by the devil". So I guess killing was the only choice he had. Some Priests are just plain nuts.

http://godlesswonder..com/2005/06/priest-murders-nun-by-crucifixion.html

Kuns:
I am not into your slave mentality mindset.

What kind of mentality and mindset do you have that of a slave owner?

Kuns:
@huxley

Are these the end times?

What stage of life is it worse to die in?

At the peak of the mischief-making and sinful years. Some people die in childbirth, some in adolescence, some by suicide. Yet, this is the period of time in your life between the ages of 10 and 40. To die at this time is to die in danger, yet suicide is the worse.

If, however, you knew that you have fulfilled all the qualifications and commandments (mandatory laws) sent down by the Eloheem, then death wouldn’t frighten you at all. In fact, your chances of being amongst the 144,000 chosen, and gaining what you call paradise are more assured. On the other hand, if you are young and involved in acts of wrong-doings (prostitution, fornication, intoxicationism, deception, thievery, etc.), then you should try to grant an extended chance to amend your ways and to atone for your evil actions and pray for old-age as a chance to ‘cool off’ and start all over again. To be reborn not of the body, but of the etheric being, in order to transform when the time comes.

Kuns I bet its past your bed time already. Pls take a nap or something.

Kuns:
I was going to reply you , but you are not worth the time of day.

What is the name of the religion you are practising? what deity do you serve or worship? I saw you drop some African names on the other thread are they the deities you worship? why is nobody buying what you are selling? It seems you have to try harder.

Bindx, Just like luke you are confused ,  you have not taken the time to investigate the lied your pastor as been teaching you in sunday school.

I don't know anybody on nairaland that is more confused than you.

Kuns:
Bindx, you are speaking tongue , 

Jesus and Paul did what what are you talking.

Paul was against everything Jesus stood for ,

@Bindx ,  you don't know what you are talking about ,  Joker.

Roman 3:7" For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory"

ST PAUL THE LIAR lied to promote God, Just like you bindx are doing here.

Where did the bible say about lies? What is a lie? Mr Bindx

John 8: 44
" Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xIojRrwxs4w.

At a time I almost took this guys serious, you are obviously in need of urgent help. PLEASE stop smoking crack. Its going to kill you.

So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

I've always like this prophecy. So precise and clear, and a giant FAIL.

Why spend so much time trying to twist misty prophecies onto historical facts but sweep by an obviously clear, failed one.

This is actually a pretty clear case of a prophecy fail. Did not Jesus say something about not all present there would see death before his return? (Sorry can't find the passage quickly). if nothing else, these and other passages point to a belief that the early Christians expected Jesus to return quite soon. Now, we all know that this did not happen.

Kuns some one pointed out to you the fact that nobody is buying what you are trying to sell, so let it be.

By the way davidylan, this is actually a pretty clear case of a prophecy fail. Did not Jesus say something about not all present there would see death before his return? (Sorry can't find the passage quickly). if nothing else, these and other passages point to a belief that the early Christians expected Jesus to return quite soon. Now, we all know that this did not happen.

Could you, explain your take on this and why you think the biblical writers got it so wrong?

davidylan:
Its because you really do not understand the prophecy do you?
You say "generation" there and you thot it must be refering to Peter and the lot?

Jesus and Paul seem to be pretty clear that it meant within the lifetimes of some of the people right there at the time.

I imagine you're going to tell us it really means something else.

davidylan:
i'm not amazed . . . did not the bible tell us about the children of the last days?

[size=15pt]2 Timothy 3
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7[b]Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.[/b]

8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.[/size]

So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

I've always like this prophecy. So precise and clear, and a giant FAIL.

Why spend so much time trying to twist misty prophecies onto historical facts but sweep by an obviously clear, failed one?

I watched this very interesting documentary some months ago when I was in Sweden on the history channel, I just found it in you tube, enjoy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFa4IgvjlOA&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BspIgRTXGso&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEBfliSjKuI&feature=related

huxley:
If Jesus was really pre-ordained to be crucified, his death having been organised by himself, then his death was in effect suicide, or more specifically suicide-by-soldiers. What is the Christian position on suicide?

Huxley.

huxley:
I wonder! Which other parts of the ten commandments are only applicable to the Jews. If I remember correctly, there are many instances in the OT where God (aka Jesus) ordered the killing of non-Jewish children who could hardly have being culpable for the sins of their parents.

The biblical God released a remix. It's called the new covenant.

I just can't get the reason why the writers of the bible included this embarrasment in the narrative.