₦airaland Forum

Amujale:
The letter 'J' didn't exist in the English alphabet until 1524.

Prior to when Gian Giorgio Trissino introduced it , the letter "I" was used as the vowel of choice.

I would go further to suggest that it was the African languages, especially the West African languages that gave the world the letter 'J'.

How is this arguement relevant?

Amujale

Crucifixion was a common practice by the Romans of that time period, something that continued for 500 years.

I never said it wasn't.

Merely mentioning the practice isn't proof of a character.

Where did I say mentioning the practice is proof of a character?

Pontius Pilate never claimed to have crucified a Christ character.

I fail to get your logic sometimes. You are arguing all over the place. First you say the Romans crucified many people and you agreed to that, now you want the Romans to tell us about everyone they crucified just because their followers believed in them as christ.
Does this make any sense to you? I'm not sure you even read what you write here sometimes, lol.

There are records of the incarceration of various other characters named Jesus, however these weren't the Jesus Christ character as other contributors have already stated.

If Jesus and his followers were not warriors nor zealots, who attempted to take up arms against Rome, then why should the Romans care that a certain Jew somewhere ( whom his followers called christ) was crucified by them?

Plus, you still haven't answered the question.
I answered you before but you ignored it.
What is the dates for this fictional Jesus character?

I told you Jesus was born around 4BC.

Amujale:
There were hundreds of Christ character that the Greco-Romans followed prior to the manufacture of the Roman ideology known today as Christianity.

Out of these 100's of christ characters, how many of them were crucified under Pontius Pilate specifically in the reign of Tiberius. Tacticus said this was the beginning of the heresy and where it originated from. Now this writing from Tacticus which he wrote in disdain of christianity, corroborated with the gospels speaking particularly about one Jesus who was called christ, crucified under pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Both Galatians and Josephus goes to call this particular character called christ, brother of james. So when you put all together we have a particular character who was brother of james, was called christ, and crucified by pilate in the reign of Tiberius which should put the date of the crucifixion from between 27 to 30 A.D.
Have I answered your queries?

Amujale:
Then answer this question.

Why is it that nowhere in the historical narrative of the Pontius Pilate is the name Jesus ever mentioned?

You have rejected the historical citings of Josephus and Tacticus, and yet you turn around to ask me why he was never mentioned?
Now you see why I say you should read actual scholarly sources and not essayists whose jobs are to just write anything for the sake of writing? if you did, you won't be asking these questions.

Your question shows your ignorance on this matter to scholars because: Scholars know that in the ancient world, Roman authorities crucified many people. The Romans and the Greek authors rarely wrote about religious prophets from Judea ( why should they care about them?). All of what we know in detail about 1st century prophets and rabbis from Judea comes from the writings of Josephus not even Philo who was an Hellenist but he was not interested in writing about religious characters.

Now tell me why should America care about teachers or Prophets in Venezuela or Iran for example? Venezuela and Iran are not important to America except when they cause trouble politically. An Iranian or Venezuelan prophet ( of which there are many in this century), no matter the theories of miracles his people claimed he performed would hardly be taken seriously in White House news or History.
Now when we consider that writing was only usually the privilege of the upper class and royalty in the ancient world, you see how very useless and ignorant your question is.

This is why I say put aside your essayists and conspiracy theories and read the writings of scholars, so you can ask logical questions and know the depth of the research they have put on this matter so far. You are repeating outdated theories that scholars have refuted and it doesn't take me 1 minute to refute them because I have seen the arguements and they stem from bias and ignorance, but yet you read these things and you think you know something.

Amujale:
Firstly, I never said Josephus invented the Jesus character, I said he invented the Jesus storyline, there's a distinction.

Secondly, it's the peddlers of these fictional characters that are the conspiracy theorists here.

Furthermore, perhaps you missed it earlier, here it is below, take your time and read.

Lol you are wasting time in this debate sincerely. You bring me an essayist Abelard Reuchlin as the scholar who can tell us about the Author of the new testament? This is going no where my friend.
Even without me reading the non factual hypothesis of Abelard, anyone who has read all 27 books of the new testament ( and especially those who have studied various manuscripts in their original Greek) would know that it's not the writing style of one, two, or three men with it's very contradictory greek pattern and styles as well as the contradictory write ups, so this is another epic fail from you.
Who is Abelard? Has he studied the various ancient new testament manuscripts, can he read Greek and Latin? what are his scholarly theses on ancient Rome?
If you want to prove here that Jesus did not exist, don't give me books or writings from essayists, businessmen, etc. Give me writings from those who studied history and have written from between 1990 till date.
The reason I have this criteria is that those who studied history are more careful not to make unfounded claims or theories, they back up their works with ancient sources because they know other historian professors (knowledgeable about the ancient world) would read their works.

Amujale:
The Book of Galatians is inadmissible.

Josephus is credited with inventing the Jesus storyline.

Tacticus didn't mention Jesus anywhere in his write up.

I defy you to cite one paragraph in any of Tacticus writings where he mentions Jesus.

Moreover, he instead mentions Chresteans and Chrestus. More likely referring to the Hellenists and their ideology.

Furthermore, there are no historians of the first century, Romam, Greek or any other that makes mention of a Jesus Christ character.

why is the book of Galatians inadmissible?

what scholar or historical work says Josephus invented Jesus or is it just from your conspiracy theorists again?

Tacticus hated Christians and christianity. He speaks of a Chrestus crucified under the reign of Tiberus and Pilate. Tell me who else in history was known to be crucified under Tiberus and Pilate and who had a sect devoted to him after his death at the time of Tacticus. Can you name any other character whom you think Tacticus was referring to? Forget about the name Chrestus, that was probably a mistake or voiced out by Tacticus from pure hatred. Who were those Hellenists who had their founder crucified under Pontius Pilate and Tiberus? see why your arguement doesn't add up?

Amujale:
Are you aware who Justin Martyr was?

He was one of the Augustine's Peers.

The point is that the Philosophers in those days struggled with the rhetoric, they knew as well as I does that it's all a facade.

Justin Matyr was trying to defend virgin birth. This is irrelevant to me because I cannot prove the existence of the virgin birth historically. I don't care about virgin birth arguement.

Amujale:
You're simply telling us who McCabe is, I don't see you disputing anything he wrote.

Perhaps you ought to get that book, that's the reason I posted that reference, so that anyone can pick up that book and actually read.


What is freethought?

That is the part that eludes you.

The reason I am more interested in only the arguement scholars ( historians and archeologists)give, is because no one knows ancient history like them because it is their field.

You are giving me Joseph McCabe who is not a scholar but has his own arguements and ideas, I can also give you people who support my idea and it never ends.

This is why it is better for us to stick to scholarship alone, you try to refute their arguements while I support them. This is list of current historians of the ancient world and christianity in the Roman Empire. They consist of jews, atheists, christians, etc. Quote them and their arguements, and let's examine the arguements.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Testament_scholars&ved=2ahUKEwi7srDFndbvAhVC8uAKHaoECyQQFjABegQIAxAF&usg=AOvVaw0VBubv3Y5MYbfYeCBQ63jf

Amujale:
According to the Chronicon Paschale also known as Chronicum Alexandrinium written in the 6th century CE:-



The Roman Macrobius writes:



According to Joseph McCabe co-author of "The Story of Religious Controversy' writes on page 169

Joseph Martin McCabe (12 November 1867 – 10 January 1955) was an English writer and speaker on freethought, after having been a Roman Catholic priest earlier in his life. He was "one of the great mouthpieces of freethought in England".[1] Becoming a critic of the Catholic Church, McCabe joined groups such as the Rationalist Association and the National Secular Society. He criticised Christianity from a rationalist perspective, but also was involved in the South Place Ethical Society which grew out of dissenting Protestantism and was a precursor of modern secular humanism.

I said give me the writing of a modern Professor of History or Archeology and this is the best you could come up with?

Amujale:
.The Jesus image is a perpetuation of the Serapis image.

.The Jesus storyline is a typology of the military campaign of Titus Vespasian.

The characteristics of the Jesus Christ characters a taken from various older characters from around the world, especially Africa. i.e Heru/Ausar.

Aswell as Dyonisus, Romulus, Bachus e.t.c

This is evident in the words of Justin Martyr c 165 CE and I quote:



In the above quote he was specifically referring to Dyonisus.

Sorry Justin quote does not prove that Jesus is fiction, rather Justin is trying to defend the virgin birth which scholars of today dismiss as fiction because there is nothing on ground to support it. But scholars believe the baptism and crucifixion could not have been invented and they have laid down their arguements for that.

Amujale:
You haven't met the basic requirements for this topic.

You seem to be wasting much of your time trying to proof the existence of an altogether different character that you call Paul.

I'm not asking you to about the Paul character but that you should provide us of evidence of the Jesus Christ character.

Why do you reject scholarship and academia on this matter?
Galatians as a book with the type of arguement within it and the unlikelihood of it been invented ( for whatever reason) is proof of the existence of both Paul and Jesus.
Scholars agree that out of 14 books attributed to Paul in the new testament, he only wrote 7.
Paul's epistles are very human, they show his struggles, confrontations, and weaknesses. Historians take them seriously, because historians don't just dismiss things as fiction without adequate proof or for no reason.
Read Galatians, understand the context and the background and tell me why you think it should be classified as fiction. Remember it was not written as a story, rather it was a letter that was addressed to a particular group of people.

Amujale:
For the umpteenth time, one cannot prove the nonexistence of a character that never existed in the first instance.

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

It's you claiming a fictional character is meant to be real.

I have you the reasoning behind the fact that the Jesus character is fictional, it's up to you to provide us with the proof.

.There are no genuine records of a Jesus Christ character anywhere in history.

.There are no archeological evidence of this fictional character.

. Not one single Roman or Greek historian from the first century makes mention of a Jesus Christ character.

.We know who invented the Jesus story.

.We are aware of the fact that the Jesus character takes after older historical characters.

.We are aware that the Jesus image is a perpetuation of the Serapis image.

Everything about the Jesus character is fake.

The name, the image, the storyline as well as the rhetoric are all based on fakery and falsehood.

I have given you proof and you rejected it for your wild claims. So you give me proof for all you wrote above.

Give me the writing of a history professor that says Jesus is from Serapis. If you can't then you are the one making claims without proof. You are repeating yourself and not even dealing with the arguements here. It's illogical to continue stating thesame thing without facts. I have given you facts ( the book of Galatians, Josephus, Tacticus ) and the fact that scholarship agrees with me. You have not given me anything but wild claims.

You are not even consistent, first you claimed he is from Romulus and now from Serapis. Your arguements are neither here nor there.

So let's settle this once and for all, since you reject what I presented as proof, give me the scholarly source that says Jesus is from Serapis or give me the writing of a Professor of history that supports your arguement, I can give you the writing of History professors that says Jesus was a historical character, now you give me history Professors that says Jesus is from Serapis or any of the rubbish theories you wrote up there

sonmvayina:
I dont understand...why would anybody, a jew write a story about a real man and give them mythological attributes....?

Then the story is not meant to be taken litetally. Just like perseus or prometheus....they are also demi gods..

Because heroes of ancient literature are often shrouded in myths by their followers especially Greek writers. The gospels were written by Hellenistic Jews and Greek Authors who were probably a generation away from the original disciples, but they were most likely part of the gentile early church. They only recounted the heroic oral stories they heard and they also had the goal to use the oral myths for evangelism. Historians call them "The Evangelists". They were most likely not necessarily interested in writing accurate history, they were rather preaching, according to Historians.

Author of Matthew was probably writing to his Jewish circle he wanted to convert or probably new converts, and he is interpreting old testament scriptures in his own way to make them believe that Jesus was the promised messaiah.

Mark was most likely half Roman, half Jew, who was writing to the Romans in an indirect way to make them see that this Jesus whom they crucified is the true son of God and not Ceasar ( who claimed to be son of God).

Luke was a Greek author who most likely just had a prominent Greek convert named Theophilus and Luke's job is to collect all stories about jesus, and then present them in his own way to satisfy the curiosity of Theophilus and his audience.

Author of John is definitely a jew, most likely an Hellenistic Jew. Scholars say his Greek grammar is not so refined like the others, and he seemed to know about Jewish cultures and intrinsic details about the jewish sites he wrote about than the other gospel authors. It is also the last of the gospels (written about 60 years after) and more evangelical than the others.

Even at that, scholars say Matthew and Luke used an earlier material or oral source that had the sayings and teachings of Jesus which they both copied from.

sonmvayina:
I am the one asking the questions...it is rude to answer a question with a question.

If you must know, i never take scripture at face value. I know they are not actual events. They are mostly oracles and hence just like in nollywood where olu jacobs or pete Edochie sends people to go and see the "Eze muor".. They normaly convey their answer with parables after consulting with God. Most times it is usually proceeded with " Thus says the lord.....


But you are taking the jesus story on fave value and literal...beats me..

Because the Jesus myth is based on a historical figure though the stories are mythical. That is the position of historians on the matter. For Moses, historians have no arguement or evidence to show that the character is based on a real person, not so for Jesus, especially the crucifixion of Jesus and the baptism.

sonmvayina:
Seems you are finding it difficult to differentiate fiction from none fiction....

Is Moses fiction or non fiction?

Jman24:
I responded because you are making a big deal of a biblical character common to some people as old as the world and unaccounted for

You are still not making sense to me here, Sincerely I'm lost. Maybe you should speak in plain language.

Jman24:
Stop getting played by different philosophers in the good book

As old as human existed, there are people who support jungle justice and there are those who don't(even in same area). But the constant there is "justice"


It still exists till today. So when the invented or biblical Jesus frowns at jungle justice, it isn't a new thing.
Hope you got that Africans!

And how does this tally with my response to the post I was responding to and where did I say frowning at Jungle justice is a new thing? I don't get the point you are making.

Dtruthspeaker:
I am a Lawyer and to Find The Most Goodest, The Most Right-Fullest, The Most Balancest and Equalest Law and The Most Flawless and Faultless Law in All the earth was a Personal Mission I undertook for myself.

For as we were taught and saw their (not mine anymore) man made law called Constitution was always defective and ineffective and insufficient and never ever did enough just is and right (if anything it was Wrong and Insight)

Thus, Lawyers are Charged to Find or Commissioned to create A Good and Perfect and Flawless Law which Guarantees Natural Just is, Equity, and Equality and Balance with No Party reasonably left out to seek remedy because Just is was not Fully Done!

And in line with my commission as a Lawyer, I find No Better Body of Laws which are as Righteous as The One God Gave Isreal.

THERE IS NONE!

No, not one anywhere on the earth, whether in the past nor the future.

Only God's Laws are the Most Right-Full and Balanced and Fair and Just in all the earth!

You are just obsessed with Law. All that we need to make laws in our individual societies are the teachings of Jesus such as the Golden Rule, forgiveness, etc. We don't need 613 laid out laws. Humans are different across different cultures, we just need to be guided by the teachings of Jesus, then each society can write out their laws by those basic principles Jesus, Moses, our African traditions and the likes of Confucius taught.

[quote author=sonmvayina post=100288405][/quote]I could also quote passages from christian bible if I want. Does it prove anything?

sonmvayina:
I really dont have any problem with you wanting to follow whoever you choose to follow. But what i am trying to lay before you is the information and facts and history so you can at least make an informed decision.
I still maintain that there was never any need for the jesus character. It is God who created us like this. He did not make any mistake to warrant him sending "his son" as a sin sacrifice to undo his fork up..That is just plain stupiid. He created us with the ability and capacity to make choices. He knows we can make the wrong ones. He just gave us laws to make good ones so that we will all live in peace within ourselves and with our neigbour.

End of it all, when we die, our spirit returns to God and our body back to the earth..

There was a need for the jesus character. The Jesus character taught the jews the most important tenets of the law. Stoning people for not keeping sabbath makes no meaning in today's world or burning the promiscuous daughter of a priest alive is a barbaric law.
If we follow Jesus, we can just live by his moral teachings, and we do not need the law and the system it was meant to govern.

Your other points about sin sacrifice are not the major reasons jesus himself gave for coming into the world. This is the reason the Jesus character himself gave:

And even the son of man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Mark 10v45.

The crowd hailed Jesus as King when he rode on a donkey in Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders became scared that if it continued that way and the Romans hear about these things, the Romans would come into their land to destroy so many in the nation ( who have now become disciples of Jesus). It was therefore fitting that Jesus alone ( one man) should die than for this mass destruction in the city in the search for those who proclaimed Jesus as new King of the Jews. Jesus was delivered to the Romans, and he gladly became a Ransom to the Romans in order to spare his followers who continued with his message. The message we hear today all around the world even though a lot has probably been corrupted down the centuries.

And he said to them, I have told you I am he. If you seek me, let these ones go their way.
John 18v8

If you study the gospels well, you would see that Jesus was also scared for his disciples and beckoned on them several times to pray so that they too would not fall into temptation. He prayed to God to preserve them.

He was quick to present himself to the Roman guards who came to arrest him, saying: I am he, let these men go.

Dtruthspeaker:
Why are you seeking to make trouble?

The Laws of God where Already in Force in the whole earth long before before He Even Spelt it out and Gave Moses,

Abraham, Laban, Joseph, Egypt Prove The Truth of It!

Thus, every nation knew not to steal, kill, take another man's woman etc and many of His Laws Already

But NONE HAD THE THE FULLNESS OF RIGHT AND GOOD SPELT OUT AND HONOURED IN their laws, Not One!

Only Isreal!

And how do you know the bolded? what is your proof for that?

sonmvayina:
Nah....not at all, not when every woke human holds similar view.

Can you give me proof the Torah is special?

sonmvayina:
Now we are getting somewhere....exactely why the Romans invented the jesus character. Because they felt the God of the jews cant be the real God...

Google "Marcion".

I know about Marcion, no need to Google him, and Marcion was partly right not totally.

sonmvayina:
But none comes close....the Hindu might be the second because the indians understands that life is a journey..and knows what God is and is not.

The battle/wars/jihad is within..

You are arguing subjectively, can't you see that?

Dtruthspeaker:
Lies!

No Nation on Earth had Any Righteous or Right-Full and Good-Full law NEARLY Comparable to the Laws God Gave Moses and Israel.

No, not one! Not Before, Not After!

Are you kidding me? so are you saying laws such as do not kill, steal, commit adultery, came from the Moses character and non before the creation of this character? you need to expand your view of other cultures and history.

sonmvayina:
From all indication...The Torah is the most interesting and beautiful master peice i have come accross. If you really understand the layers of meaning. You will easily know jesus is an idol..and immidiately flee from him..

So that is what you have now? subjective arguements? The Torah is from God simply because it's the most beautiful master piece you've come across? Why don't you realize that for many the new testament books are the most interesting and beautiful? For Others the Quran is the greatest and no one can write a book like it and for many it's the Hindu scriptures that revers several gods?

Dtruthspeaker:
Do not be offended, I do understand and I respect the fact every person has a right to walk in a that seemeth good in their own eye, even if such a way is erroneous, but hopefully, they discover error before it is too late!

For as A Last Word All The Teachings of Are The Explanations of The Application and the Execution of The Law Given to Moses by God Himself, Moses did not Make The Law!

So I back off now!

There is nothing so special or different about the laws of Moses. They are very much like ancient middle eastern laws. Ancient middle Eastern laws were both moral and barbaric, some more than others.
The sumerians who existed way before the Moses character already had moral laws forbidding killing, stealing, and the likes. God's inspiration was available to every culture not just to Moses. Besides, in my opinion the laws of Moses that requires stoning people who don't keep sabbath or burning the promiscuous daughters of Levite Priests are outdated and cannot come from thesame God of Jesus.

Dtruthspeaker:
Have you abandoned your position?

"...but for me I am okay with the golden rule and the teachings of christ. I don't think I need the laws of Moses to serve God."

For I wanted to show you based on whatever Rule or Teaching you may raise which you erroneously attach to Christ, its equivalent Pronouncemet of Law.

So it needs be cleared that you have a abandoned your ground of Christ Teachings being Different from The Law, then I can proceed to answer the question up above which you posed.

So have you abandoned your "but for me I am okay with the golden rule and the teachings of christ. I don't think I need the laws of Moses to serve God." position?

I don't know what you want me to abandon. I have not abandoned anything. My point is:

I am okay with the teachings of christ and I don't need the laws of Moses. I don't even care if there is a law of Moses. I am okay with just the teachings of christ. The laws of Moses do not matter to me whether it aligns with that of christ or not. Do you get it now?

Gospelpreacher1:
You can only be Forgiven when you ask for forgiveness.
You can only be Saved when you accept JESUS Christ.
God puts before us, Choices and allows us to choose.

He is asking why can't Satan just ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus Christ.
The truth is what Christians usually call Lucifer is a figurative story of a King in the book of Isaiah. Lucifer is actually the son of light, even Christ can be referred to as that.

Dtruthspeaker:
Have you abandoned your position?

"...but for me I am okay with the golden rule and the teachings of christ. I don't think I need the laws of Moses to serve God."

For I wanted to show you based on whatever Rule or Teaching you may raise which you erroneously attach to Christ, its equivalent Pronouncemet of Law.

So it needs be cleared that you have a abandoned your ground of Christ Teachings being Different from The Law, then I can proceed to answer the question up above which you posed.

So have you abandoned your "but for me I am okay with the golden rule and the teachings of christ. I don't think I need the laws of Moses to serve God." position?

What I am saying is: Assuming there was no law of Moses, the teachings of christ are enough to please God. So whatever is important in the law has been taught by christ.

sonmvayina:
Then you really dont know what God is and is not...i guess we should start there..

So you are saying the creators of Moses knew God better?

sonmvayina:
If he actually existed....but the creators put those words in his mouth..

Then the creators did a good job, a better job than the creators of Moses actually.