₦airaland Forum

sonmvayina:
This is from Emperior julian. In his famous book "Against the galileans" has this to say


Book I Edit

39.[9] It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

So how does this quote prove that Jesus does not exist or that christianity was created by Romans and why should we believe Julian?

Amujale:
And that has already been rubbished as the nonsense that it is. Go back and read the journal that was posted earlier.

Furthermore it isn't a conspiracy theory to state the fact that the Jesus story line is a typography of Titus Flavians military campaign.

You simply need to compare and contrast these two parallels, something you obviously haven't partaken.

https://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

https://www.news24.com/news24/mynews24/jesus-fictional-character-indeed-part-1-20120713

I have read both of your links and I wonder how they disprove the existence of jesus.
In your first link, Atwill is of the opinion that the Romans created a new sect to pacify the Jews and left us puzzles, but this is unnecessary and would be a useless move because the Romans didn't need to do that. There were so many peaceful jewish sects in Judea which they could elevate. Even the pharisees and saducees at a point in the first century became loyal. Only the messianic sects known as the zealots were ready to take up arms and the Romans had all the military might to quench any rebel whenever they wanted to which they did in AD 70 and AD 123. From what we know of Rome they loved to show their military prowess, they loved to conquer and dominate rather than go through the struggle of creating a new religion with 27 books which they in turn later spent time persecuting and trying to wipe out across the empire.
Even if we are to agree to this your pet theory ( which has no basis), it still doesn't make sense to promote christianity.
1) The Christians did not worship caesar or the pagan gods, they worshipped a slave Jesus who was given the worst death penalty ( crucifixion) which was a stigma in ancient Rome.

2) The Romans of the first and early 2nd century didn't speak well of christianity, they called them cannibals who ate the flesh of their god and drank his blood.

3) Christianity was as divisive as any other jewish sect until the 4th century ( the time of constantine) where Constantine united it in a way.

4) There was persecution of christianity because the early Christians did not promote the worship of pagan gods or Ceasar.

5) It would be stupid for the Romans to accept 27 different books with contradictory topics and internal quarrels for instance Paul in Galatians to the book of James about faith and works, etc.

etc etc.

Amujale:
You're argument is flawed.

It's similar to me telling you that one plus one equals two and not providing you with the proof and then asking you to prove that one plus one doesn't equal two.

The burden of proof is on you dude.

Now provide us with the proof of your fictional characters and false narratives.

Go!

I gave you proof and you came up with conspiracy theories to refute them. I said the book of Galatians had Paul speaking of Jesus brother of James, and this Jesus which he called Christ. Josephus also spoke of Jesus brother of James, who was called christ by his followers. You then came up with conspiracy theories of Rome creating the book of Galatians. This is why the onus of proof is on you.

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

One cannot prove the nonexistence of characters that never existed in the first instance.

Lol, it is okay for you to hold on to your belief. I am just saying that your explanations as to why you hold these views do not hold water neither do they align with academia on this issue. You have to read up more and be open.

Amujale:
You're a confused soul.

The new testament and all the other aspects of the Christian bible is solely based on fakery and falsehood.

You can pass me with all that nonsensical rhetoric.

Provide us with the evidence.

You give me evidence of the bolded.

Amujale:
Robert Price argues that the Christian bible is a combination of fakery and falsehood.

Cite these historians that claim Jesus as being a real person.

You still haven't answered my question.

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

My man before you decide to lecture on or argue a matter, it is better to be well versed in whatever you are arguing. You don't know what you are arguing and you don't even know about scholarship on this issue, you just read conspiracy theories and you think you know.
I already told you, all historians specializing on the ancient world and new testament except a few like Robert Price and Richard Carrier, say Jesus existed. So go check up any new testament historian. I gave the link to the names of all scholars who have degrees on this matter in my reply to musicwriter, go look it up.

Amujale:
You aren't making any sense.

There are thousands upon thousands of serious minded historians that agree with the position that the Jesus story was fabricated.

Give me five of these serious minded historians. I only know of two main mythicysts who have a PhD in new testament history ( Robert Price and Richard Carrier) and even they do not take Atwill seriously. All new testament history professors in academia and the other doctors consider Jesus historical.

Amujale:
Is the Christian bible a true account of history?

The Christian bible is not one book but a collection of 27 different letters, scripts, and then some books. You are saying the Romans wrote all 27 of these different books( some contradicting some others) to create a new religion, when it would have been easy for them to just write one big unified book.
See why your theories are absurd and not taken seriously? see why it is you who need to provide proof of your outlandish theories?

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

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

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

You're argument is based on a false premise.

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

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

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

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

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


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

So Atwill's Ceasar's Messaiah have become your innerant bible? I would post some of the criticism of the main points stated in his book, and I want you to read them as well before I get motivated to read the entire book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most serious minded historians don't engage in fiction.

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

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

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

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

Name those serious minded historians. Because I have established that bible historians (atheists, Christians, agnostics, etc) do not agree with you. Please do not name Joseph Atwill and the likes.

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

How did he back up his claims?

Are his studies comparable to what we have now in modern scholarship?

why do you prefer Joseph Atwill to the consensus of scholars on the matter in modern times?

Amujale:
Indeed, Constantine of the 4th Century.

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

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

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

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

Give me proof for all these. Both you and the others here are yet to give me proof of these claims.

sonmvayina:
I am 10000% sure he was created in Nicea by the Greeks/Romans...

God is conciouseness, not a man or human being. The gospel stories comes from ancient tales about Marduk.

Can you help your fellow jesus mythicysts in the thread below?
In that thread, no one there seem to be able to back up their conspiracy theories about jesus being created by Romans
https://www.nairaland.com/5208931/why-didnt-eurocentrics-write-correct/1

TAO11:
Lol. The fact that you aren’t a conservative is palpably perceptible from your comments.

Also, Nairaland so-called “atheists” aren’t atheists per se. They are simply Atheist wanna-be, perhaps because such tag appears ‘cool’ to them.

Engage them on Atheism and the next thing they wanna know is the faith you profess — as if that would be of help in defending Atheism. As if I can’t be an Atheist or Theist and still stand for truth.

They simply don’t understand most of the things they wish to delve into. They only seek to align because that appears in vogue to them.

By the way, I don’t necessarily agree with the entirety of the Bible’s presentation of many historical episodes and personages, but the fantastic idea of ‘borrowing’ has been demonstrated time and time again to be a myth in and of itself.

Bart Erhmann, an atheist and even a staunch critic of christianity has some lectures on this and many scholars( including atheist scholars) know that the Christian authors were more interested in borrowing from the old testament than from gentile sources and that a crucified messaiah was not in their best interest. When you read the new testament, you can see how they tried to give excuses for the crucifixion and explain it away.


A messaiah or god should not be crucified. Crucifixion was only meant for slaves. It would be an abomination to ascribe it to a normal citizen talkless of a king and worse of all a god.

Anyone who knows anything about first century Judaism and Jewish messianic sects and how they align with the new testament can easily dismiss this idea that the new testament authors borrowed from pagans to create a religon. Rather the new testament authors seemed to be more interested in judaism and the old testament books.

TAO11:
Omg! LMAO! I’ve been following this. And you clearly know your stuff.

The borrowing theories are usually in fact exaggerated and unsubstantiated.

I’ve had a similar exchange with some of our passionate friends here some two years ago.

It turned out that they’ve have built their worldview on blind faith and conspiracy theories, rather than academic scholarship.

No professional historian in academic scholarship takes such conspiracy theories serious.

‘Passion’ without ‘Knowledge’ = 0

Cheers!

Thanks dear, anytime I make this arguement with atheists( didn't start today at all), I have looked up almost every atheist arguement and dug deep for truth ( I am not a conservative Christian), and I have always wondered why atheists who accuse religious people of not sticking to facts and academia, go against facts on ground when it comes to the existence of jesus. It is baffling, dogmatism is not just a religous thing.

The5DME:
Don't quote me again till you exit earth.

lol

The5DME:
Stop wasting your time with that guy; he's a lost case

can you give me proof of a crucified Horus or Mithras? Maybe you can help him.

musicwriter:
How many times should I tell you that the stories of resurrected messiahs were everywhere in ancient time? Rome copied from many sources, from ancient Egypt, from Jews, from India, from Greece, and from pagan Roman religion itself where Mithra, according to your source already shed blood to save mankid. Sorry my brother, I have to go.

No probs, me too I have to go, I think I've exposed these baseless theories created to confirm established beliefs rather than facts.

musicwriter:
All of them were formerly christians but who later became non christian. They all have background in history and should know better than new testament scholars who tend to be believers, and therefore, aren't always objective.

Many of the new testament scholars are not believers, and they are not just historians but specifically new testament historians who studied the ancient world and ancient christianity as a profession.

musicwriter:
When it says of Mithra that "you have saved us ... in the shed blood" that's how Greco-roman authors came up with the idea of Jesus saving you on the cross. So, as you can see, the concept of "saving someone with blood" is older than any Jesus.

it could be, but rather than assuming this, why not also link it to the Jewish ritual sacrifice of the passover. This is where Mark seem fixated on rather than Mithras.

Also mithraic salvation was different:

According to Robert Turcan,[36] Mithraic salvation had little to do with the other-worldly destiny of individual souls, but was on the Zoroastrian pattern of man's participation in the cosmic struggle of the good creation against the forces of evil.

musicwriter:
Well, it depends on where they checked. Fortunately, I did my own research and found sources that proves Jesus is fake. Check the books given earlier.

lol these books from those your scholars who perhaps are not modern or new testament scholars cannot be taken seriously in the academic world. They would be nothing but conspiracy theories just like Christians also have some conspiracy theories not backed up by facts or accepted by academia.

musicwriter:
Aren't you the same person that told me not to give you blog sources? Stackchange is a site people talk about issues just like Nairaland, so don't show that to me because the one writing is just like you. He doesn't know any better. Or if he's your spokesperson, then invite him to Nairaland and open a thread let's discuss it.

The person who asked the question on that blog said he has searched everywhere and could not find a source that proved Jesus-Horus crucifixion similarity, and I believe the person because I have once searched too when I saw the atheist bloggers making the claim, and I found none.

musicwriter:
Aren't you the same person that told me not to give you blog sources? Stackchange is a site people talk about issues just like Nairaland, so don't show that to me because the one writing is just like you. He doesn't know any better. Or if he's your spokesperson, then invite him to Nairaland and open a thread let's discuss it.

They gave references all over. Do your blogs have references of modern scholarship? I checked their references to see if it's modern.

There are no clear cut similarities to show that Jesus crucifixion was invented from these cults or anywhere. No modern atheist scholar even supports your position with all we know about Rome and the stigma of crucifixion.

musicwriter:
The person who wrote that doesn't know what he's saying when he said "I've heard this claim before and see no evidence for it in any Egyptian texts or iconography."

Ancient Egyptian religion texts and iconographies are all over museums across Europe and America. I have shown you papyrus picture of Horus holding an ankh (Egyptian name for cross) and there's even a stone carving showing the virgin birth of Horus and 3 wise men from the East bringing some gifts to him and mother.

Google Egyptian cross/ankh.

Google the virgin birth of horus inscribed on stone in Egypt.

As for mithra, I have searched all over and could not find anything that indicates mithra was crucified from any Roman before the birth of christ. Here's what wikipedia has to say on the matter with sources and references of course...



Salvation
A painted text on the wall of the St. Prisca Mithraeum (c A.D. 200)[34] in Rome contains the words: et nos servasti (?) . . . sanguine fuso (and you have saved us ... in the shed blood). The meaning of this text is unclear, although presumably it refers to the bull killed by Mithras, as no other source refers to a Mithraic salvation. However, the servasti is only a conjecture.[35] According to Robert Turcan,[36] Mithraic salvation had little to do with the other-worldly destiny of individual souls, but was on the Zoroastrian pattern of man's participation in the cosmic struggle of the good creation against the forces of evil.[37] According to Akhondi and Akbari, red was a color of prominence. The sacrifice of the bull's holy blood was a sign of fertility and life, much as in Christianity red wine can symbolize the sacrifice of Christ. In addition, white was an important color for the cult. The bull always remained white because it was a symbol of purity and holiness. Moon and stars painted in gold and white were also important symbols to the cult and later incorporated into Christian architecture and other decorations. [38]

Mithraists believed that one day Mithra's works would be complete on earth and that he would return to heaven. [39]

Symbolism of water Edit
Monuments in the Danube area depict Mithras shooting a bow at a rock in the presence of the torch-bearers, apparently to encourage water to come forth. Clauss states that, after the ritual meal, this "water-miracle offers the clearest parallel with Christianity".[40]

Sign of the cross Edit
Tertullian states that followers of Mithras were marked on their forehead in an unspecified manner.[41] There is no indication that this mark was made in the form of a cross, or a branding, or a tattoo, or a permanent mark of any kind.[42] The symbol of a circle with a diagonal cross inscribed within it is commonly found in Mithraea, especially in association with the Leontocephaline figure.

musicwriter:
The person who wrote that doesn't know what he's saying when he said "I've heard this claim before and see no evidence for it in any Egyptian texts or iconography."

Ancient Egyptian religion texts and iconographies are all over museums across Europe and America. I have shown you papyrus picture of Horus holding an ankh (Egyptian name for cross) and there's even a stone carving showing the virgin birth of Horus and 3 wise men from the East bringing some gifts to him and mother.

Google Egyptian cross/ankh.

Google the virgin birth of horus inscribed on stone in Egypt.

Well the person also quoted those things you showed me and like I said the ankh is not a cross where people get crucified on, and this is what the person also said. All 3 answers on the matter said thesame thing, and scholars continue to say thesame thing till date, no evidence of a Horus, jesus crucifixion similarity.

musicwriter:
When you check you'll see where they got it. Meanwhile, it's interesting the bible has no reference or bibliography, yet you believe it without asking for sources.

Here's the second answer on stackexchange on the question of Horus crucifixion....


Short answer, no. There is no writing, inscription, artwork, statuary, or anything that indicates Horus (or Osiris) was crucified.
There is death and resurrection in Horus' story, though. The Metternich Stele relates the story of Horus dying by the sting of a scorpion. Budge has a nice summary:

musicwriter:
God created the world in 7 days. What's your source.

Moses divided the red sea. What's your source?

God spoke to Abraham. What's your source?

Jesus was born by a virgin. What's your source?

Jesus turned water into wine. What's your source?

Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the dead. What's your source?

You're using the bible to prove the bible? And you're talking about source?? Hahahahhahaha

Someone asked about Horus crucified on stack exchange, this is an answer he got with scholarly references and quotations....


[b]I've heard this claim before and see no evidence for it in any Egyptian texts or iconography. Acharya S is unscholarly, makes many silly mistakes, and thus is unreliable; and Maher's people obviously got his bullet points from the Acharya piece to which you linked in your question.

Acharya throws up numerous points hoping that some of them will stick, but they don't. She doesn't cite any Egyptian texts that support her view, which is not surprising because there are none and, I would argue, there can be none. This is because the idea that Horus can be crucified and resurrected is logically precluded by Egypt's mythology and religious thinking. While a person is alive (taking the king as the example), he is Horus. But once you die, you become Osiris and are not Horus, so it can only be Osiris who is resurrected.

Not having any Egyptian texts to rely upon, Acharya relies on images of Horus with his arms out from his sides, and the idea that the Egyptian ankh and Christ's cross are the same. See this article: Was Horus "Crucified?" However, the ankh sign comes not from a cross but from a sandal strap (see Gardiner sign S34). In Egyptian, the ankh glyph is used to mean "life" as well as for the verb "to live," but it never is an agency of death; in Egypt no one ever dies on an ankh, much less is crucified on one. There are no such images in the iconography, since crucifixion was not practiced in ancient Egypt (at least before Roman times).

Further, a figure holding out his arms in itself says nothing about death or crucifixion, or a cross or Christ. Acharya's notion reminds me of Tertullian's laughable interpretation of Moses' surveying the Hebrews' (led by Joshua) battle against the Amalekites (Exod.17:8-13), where by standing on a hill and surveying the battle below, Moses (with help from Aaron and Hur) held his hands out to his sides and so caused the Hebrews to prevail. Tertullian claimed that this posture prefigured Christ and the cross, foretelling the cross through which Christ would be victorious over death and bring salvation. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 3, Ch. 18.) No one would agree with such kinds of interpretations today. Yet Acharya relies on similarly ignorant/silly statements and wishful thinking by Church Fathers to support her claim.

In the past it has sometimes been claimed (e.g., by Wallis Budge, in his Legends of the Gods (1912), see this article; THE LEGEND OF THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF HORUS, AND OTHER MAGICAL TEXTS. (Among Egyptologists, Budge is no longer considered reliable)) that, in a myth recited on the Metternich Stela now on exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, the child Horus is stung by a scorpion (which is Seth's doing), dies from the poison, and is resurrected by Thoth. But I know of no modern reading/translation of this text that has him dying rather than just unconscious and on the brink of death. The Stela's text itself says that "the child was weak beyond answering," and "refused the jar [of drink]," which obviously means he is not dead. [/b]