₦airaland Forum

sonmvayina:
Why invent jesus?.

God has already given mankind his laws thousands of years before the supposed time of jesus...

People where already keeping the laws..and God was finding them righteous..like cyrus, nebochadnezzer, and the prophets and kings..

But Jesus has done nothing wrong, instead he has made the laws better by his teachings.

sonmvayina:
The need to burn a lamb for one's sin came from a fabricated concept that the Jewish service of sacrifices to Eloh-m in the Holy Temple brought them forgiveness from sin. This is false, and it is a distortion of the true meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Yes, blood sacrifices of kosher livestock are commanded by Eloh-m, but exclusively for the Jewish people -- and we're not Jewish. And that commandment applies only when the Jewish Holy Temple is built and functioning in its assigned place in Jerusalem. During times when the Holy Temple is temporarily destroyed, the Jewish service of the blood sacrifices is temporarily suspended, and PRAYERS takes their place, as instructed to the Jews by Eloh-m through Hoshea 14:3 – “We will render the PRAYER OF OUR LIPS IN PLACE OF the sacrifice of bulls.”
The Leviticus chapters 1-3 have NOTHING TO DO WITH “sin” or “guilt” offerings either. Those chapters only speak about “burnt” offerings, which are BROUGHT AS ''WORSHIP OFFERINGS'' to Eloh-m. That also happens to be the only category of sacrifices that Eloh-m accepts from Non-Jews as a form of worship, and for them as well, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH SINS AND FORGIVENESS. Kindly see Genesis 8:20, that Noah (a righteous Non-Jew) sacrificed kosher animals in worship to Eloh-m, and he was a righteous man who had no sins, as testified by the Hebrew Scriptures in Genesis 6:9.
Leviticus chapter 4 speaks about the so-called “sin” offering as it is translated in English, but the Hebrew term “hatas” (mistranslated as a generic “sin”) means only an *unintentional* (accidental) sin (see Lev. 4:2), for which the Jewish person is not liable to any punishment from G-d or from a Jewish court on earth, because it happened by accident!
The various categories of so-called “guilt” offerings are also almost exclusively for *unintentional* (accidental) sins (Lev. 4:22,27; 5:15,17,18), for which the Jewish person is not liable to any punishment from a Jewish court on earth or from Eloh-m. Those offerings apply if a Jew doesn’t even know if he sinned accidentally, but he became aware that maybe he sinned accidentally.
Liability to punishment by Eloh-m only applies for sins that are committed deliberately (the literal translation of the Hebrew term is “treacherously”). There are no sacrifices (neither “burnt” offerings, “sin” offerings or “guilt” offerings) prescribed to obtain G-d’s forgiveness for a sin that was committed deliberately. What is required is PERSONAL SINCERE PRAYERS OF CONFESSION AND REPENTANCE to the One Eloh-m alone. See Numbers 5:6 (where there is no mention of a need for any blood sacrifice because it only talks about a deliberate sin, for which a person is liable for punishment by Eloh-m).
Please carefully study Psalm 51, which is King David’s prayer of confession and repentance for a deliberate error, for which Eloh-m does NOT specify NOR WANTany blood sacrifices. Rather, Eloh-m only looks for the sinner’s PERSONAL REPENTANCE (see Psalms 51:18,19).

Whatever the case, the fact still remains that your Yaweh commanded his people to practice sacrifice in a temple for whatever reason and it was about deliverance of sin ( unintentional or intentional). I have told you severally that the method prescribed by Jesus for the forgiveness of sins is that we repent and forgive others who trespass against us.

Dtruthspeaker:
And all the teachings of Christ are the Instructions of The Law, if you doubt raise up any Teaching of The Lord and See if I would not raise out its corresponding Law!

Then why do you still need the entire law? what is in the law that christ has not given us?

sonmvayina:
If Gods laws says so....why not...why invent the jesus. If God already gave us petfect laws?

You call that a perfect law? oh my gosh.
What criteria makes them God's Laws?
So if you are a priest, you would burn your promiscuous daughter alive all in the name of a so called God?

sonmvayina:
Has God at any time asked for a human sacrifice as a sin sacrifice ? Never.
He only approved animal sacrifice for unintentional sins.

Whether unintentional or intentional, sin is sin. You are not usually consistent when you defend the old testament.

sonmvayina:
Hmmm..so you are regecting Gods divine laws for man made laws, hmm who do you think is the judge?.

God laws are the 10 commandments...the rest are just customs and traditions of the jews. They where given to only the jews.

But as we are all children of Noah(contextually speaking) we have the noahide laws for the rest of man kind. They are 7 of them...

Ok so answer me, if you were a priest in those days and your only daughter at once played the LovePeddler, would you burn her?
Also tell me what is so special about the ten commandments or Nohahide laws that Jesus or others ( you call man made) have not given us?

Dtruthspeaker:
After all I said, is the Answer not obviously yes?

She is Actually His Daughter, I am just her boarding school!

Also, it is my willful intention to never ever commit Adam's Mistake, Same for Moses, Saul and many others which is the mistake of choosing their fellow man or woman over, above and beyond God.

NEVER, WILL I!

Hmm, its okay. At least you are honest and now I know you are ready to completely go back to Mosaic Law, 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.

Dtruthspeaker:
Daughter of A Priest of God, commiting the Offence of Whoredom! (Let this weight sink in first)

Then consider this, The Direct And God Appointed Representative of God on earth, his daughter is a Wh.ore! (Let this sink too)

I am sure, you do not know that the implication is that HOLY God's Daughter is A Wh.ore! (You know I will say let it sink so I won't say it again after now)

Therefore, God's Daughter is A wh.ore and Shall it be Allowed that God did Nothing about it?

Surely, No, For The Lord must not be put to shame, scorn and ridicule.

For, if His Daughter is a Wh.ore and He did nothing about it, then how shall He be Just and Right to Command other people's daughters to stop whoring?

So why should any wh.ore anywhere be condemned for whoring, when God's Own Daughter Wh.ores and He Did Nothing about it?

Besides being A Priest he is Also A Judge, so on what basis will be have a Right to Judge and remedy others for their own Wrong Doing, when his own Wrongdoing has not been remedied?

Now, I am sure you can see how Great and Far reaching the consequences and effects of that Law and it's failure thereof!

And The Rightness of The Law!

If you are a priest, and your only daughter all of a sudden played the LovePeddler, would you burn her alive? Just answer yes or no.

Dtruthspeaker:
Understanding is the Key to unlocking the True Meanings and Interpretation of the words of the Bible.

And the Primary Understanding is (against everyone else's feeling or thinking, God CAN NOT AND NEVER COMMAND THE DOING OF A BAD THING!

If you hold this thinking in mind, all the messages in the Bible will be Settled!

Also, the Use of A Good Bible (KJV) is most Necessary

For what The Lord Clearly Commanded was
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, (whom we call boyfriend today) and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; (Another man oh, not her boyfriend)

At this point is she not guilty of the offence of whoredom and cheating? what you people today call "a hoe, slay mama, these bitches ain't loyal?" And all those shots!

Which boyfriend will not be happy to see that bitch killed and say that just-is has been served on her? Please do not bother lying here for our guys in romance section are witnesses)

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city (Because she did not resist and therefore she was NOT RAPED!); [Judgement 1] and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife:[Judgement 2] so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

As I said the guys in Romance Section Prove the Justness and Rightness of this Law!

And as you see No Rape Occurred!

And as you see, The Lord does not Command The Doing of Any Bad Thing!

Interesting! What of this one:

Leveticus 21v9 ( KJV)
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the LovePeddler, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Dtruthspeaker:
First The Whole Law is about doing of "The Good Alone" and The Right, No one must be willfully injured in any way and manner. Which is summed up in the words of Legal Practice as

"The Tenets of The Law are To Live Honestly, To Hurt No One and To Give To Each his Due!"

Niko, where did you come by stoning of rape victims? God can never ever command the doing of a bad thing at all please check again and please revert

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

In my opinion, the law is not totally just concerning rape victims ( who can marry the rapist afterwards), slaves, women, etc.
In the law, Moses commanded the stoning of a man who violated the Sabbath, he also commanded the burning of promiscuous daughters of Levites, cutting of the hand of a woman who shags a man's thing with her hand during a conflict, and so on and so forth.
Do you think the law should be practiced in the modern world? If you are a priest would you immediately burn your promiscuous daughter alive?

Dtruthspeaker:
Simplest shortest statement "If you love me, keep my commandments" and TWICE Did He Say It!

What people wrongly call old testament say "he that keepeth The Law, happy is he!"

My man, jesus gave us commandments in the new testament. If we keep them, we would have fulfilled the purpose of the law. So why do you want to keep all of the law, such as stoning raped victims, having a temple to make sacrifices for sin, etc. Aren't some of these laws backward and outdated? These are simply laws from Moses, and the measure of the spirit of God in Moses or Elijah cannot be compared to that of the Christ, this is what the disciples had to learn in the mount of transfiguration.

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.

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:
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.

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.

[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.

The new testament does not speak of human sacrifice to God. God does not need animal or human sacrifice. The animal sacrifices were symbols and there is no human sacrifice to God in old or new testament.

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.

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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

That's that....

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

@All

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

The origins of religion by professor James Small.

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

ok so you agree there was an original christianity or what? Let's be clear:
1) I am not defending the Christian religion. I am presenting scholarship on the issue that says Jesus more than likely was a historical figure. You are against that, but you have not being able to show why the arguement from majority of scholars ( or even Bart Erhmann) are wrong. Show why these argurments are wrong and why your theories are right. I can subscribe to African religions and accept our proud history, hate christianity to my bones, and still say that Jesus more than likely existed based on the facts on ground.

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

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

4) Again look up 2 and 3 above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The gospels were all written in Greek because they were written most likely between 40-60 years after Jesus by people who heard the oral stories of Jesus. However before them, there was already a Paul who was writing Just 15-20 years after Jesus. That's too early to develop myths. Besides the disciples were Fishermen and mostly illiterates, you don't expect them to write much in an era were only a privileged few could write.

The jews were all looking forward to the messaiah coming to save them from their enemies, and that's why presenting a crucified man as the messiah makes no sense, except there was actually a jesus whom his followers believed he was the messaiah and then he shamefully ended up being crucified. isn't that a more realistic possibility?

The gospels were most likely written by Hellenistic jews( like the gospel of John) and some gentiles ( like the authors of Luke and Mark) who have been immersed in Greek culture but who became disciples of the followers of jesus, and they simply recounted all myths and stories they heard about him. This is the position of academia on the matter, and it's more reasonable.

Greeks/Romans would not create a religon where the messaiah was crucified.
If you check the gospels especially the gospel of Luke and Mark, you would see how embarrassed they are about the crucifixion and how they try to explain it away by using old testament scripture to their rescue, they didn't have to go through that stress.
There was no need to invent a crucified messaiah. Crucifixion was a stigma but to Jews and Greek/Romans. Crucifixion was also an hindrance to the message of the early Christians.
Paul said the jews rejected jesus because it was weakness( because according to the law, cursed is anyone hung on a tree, and messaiah should be saving them from Rome, not getting crucified).To the Gentiles, it was foolishness that the hero of a religion should be crucified( for Romans it was the worst death penalty reserved for only slaves, for Greeks it made no sense) and paul admitted all these problems he encountered in the book of 1 Corinthians.
Also creating a religion that has 27 books and it's also contradictory within itself ( for instance it has disputes among the early followers such as peter and paul) makes no sense. They could have just written one or two non contradictory books to make it more believable. Whichever way you look at it, it makes no sense to scholars.

So I'll advise you look into sound scholarship on this matter and not just your baseless theories that comes from gut feelings which proves nothing.

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

I wont pass that up..

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

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

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

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

Kobojunkie:
With the Levites? Absolutely it is possible. You need to know who the Levites were supposed to be as far as God's agreement was concerned. They were meant as God's Policemen/Enforcers as far as the Kingdom of Israel was concerned and He held them and their families to standards higher than that He placed on those of the other tribes of Israel for good reason too.

Do you know how God decided to choose those of the tribe of Levi for the role they were to play?
Not to mince words, they murdered 3000 of their brothers when Moses asked them to do, even though they were all guilty of the same sins(worshipping the golden calf), in Exodus 32.

You should also read the book of Leviticus to learn a bit of this higher standard God had for them, and how on day one, Aaron's 2 sons went down dead because of their disobedience.

it's alright, let's leave it at that. To me, it all seems like laws and workings of men and men alone.
God commanding them to kill 3000 of their brothers. We know that if a community does that today and says God commanded them to do so, we would see it as highly unlikely.

Kobojunkie:
Where exactly do you find this law of burning promiscuous daughters from?
If it is defined in any one of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, then it is listed as part of the agreement between God and the people.

If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.

Leviticus 21v9.

How could God have such an agreement? is it possible? Anyway.

Kobojunkie:
Well, you are told that the same God commanded Abraham to kill for Him his first son, which he, Abraham, almost did.

I do believe that God indeed gave the people of Israel the Law of Moses in keeping with the agreement which He made with Abraham, their father. Or it would not have made sense that God sent Jesus Christ, His other plan for Abraham, without first keeping the promise He made directly with Abraham.

Well that would be a topic for another day as I would not derail the thread. There are so many things the Israelites said God did or commanded them to do that definitely look fishy. And those laws of burning promiscuous daughters and stuff like that do not align well. Anyway topic for another day.

Kobojunkie:
Right, those laws were never a concern for the gentiles back then and are still not a concern for gentiles even to this day. The Old Covenant Law is a law that only applies to Jewish people and those who live in Israel.

There are Jewish communities(non-Christian) in Israel, to this day, where those laws are practiced. Are they condemned by God for it? God forbid... they are living as God commanded they should so why would He condemn them for honoring the very Law that He gave to their father Abraham?

I don't even believe God directly gave men laws. They were just inspired. Tell me, has God changed? would he give you a law to stone virgins or burn your promiscuous daughters, this is why it seems to me the laws were just mosaic laws.

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

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