₦airaland Forum

Adullam001:
Please if you have been reading and following my posts, I will like to read your comments and encouragements.

So If you have any comments, encouragement or observations, kindly post it here. It will be highly appreciated.

Keep at it brother, you've been inspiring.

guysbewise:
Then why were there no Jewish writers that wrote about Jesus christ during his ministry, the first historical writing about christ was around AD 95 and was written from the royal palace in Rome, which historian has claimed did resemble what will come from a Jew.

Why did Jesus not mention that the Romans and their soldiers occupying his home land will be punished in hell, but it was his own people he was alway angry with that they will be punished in hell.

Josephus wrote briefly about Jesus in his work Antiquities of the Jews, which was completed around 93-94 AD, several decades after Jesus' death, in writing to the interest of his nation. In contrast, the Gospels were written between 70 AD and 100 AD, with Mark being the earliest (around 70 AD), followed by Matthew and Luke (around 80-90 AD), and John (around 90-100 AD). Thus, Josephus' reference to Jesus comes after the Gospels, but it is still within the same general timeframe, as the Gospels were circulating in Christian communities during his writing.

The Gospels and other Christian writings were produced after Jesus’ death, and they were not primarily concerned with being objective historical accounts but with spreading the message of Jesus as the Messiah.



2nd question: I'll answer this and I'll be done with you because you don't even fact check the things you're sending my way.

Jesus understood himself as fulfilling the prophecies of the Jewish Messiah, but his role was not to be a political king who would lead Israel to freedom from Roman occupation. Instead, he came as a spiritual leader. The Kingdom of God that he preached was not of this world (John 18:36). His goal was not to address the temporary political situation, but to invite people to eternal life.
As for Rome, there were no direct condemnations from Jesus. In fact, Jesus' message was largely non-political. He even said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21), which can be interpreted as a message of non-resistance to Roman authority. His focus was on eternal salvation and spiritual matters.

Jesus called both the Jews and the Romans to Repentance.

It all goes back to the Torah, unless you believe the Torah too was edited by the Romans.

I'm not responding to any question of yours again.

guysbewise:
You need to ask yourselve these questions:

1. That if the Jews were stoning people during Roman occupation then why have the jews not continue to do till today, since Muslems are still doing such today?

2. What was Jesus christ pro Roman empire in the New Testement even though the Roman empire was occupying his home land, but was always angry with his fellow Jews?

3. Why does the image of the official Roman empire religion resemble the image of Jesus christ before Constantine made Christainity the official religion?

The first 2 questions are for you to answer them.
Do your homework.

The 3rd question:

The image of the Roman Empire wasn't of Jesus Christ (who we do not actually know by face even by the Bible), but of a pantheon of gods. The Roman Empire wasn't an empire fixated on the worship of one God.

guysbewise:
This is what the Jews have in their Talmud from their oral tradition as the Roman empire controlled all information at the time. The New Testament is a story invented in Rome at the time. The Jews have no records of the New Testament events taken place around them.

"On the eve of Passover, they hanged Yeshu. And the herald went out before him for forty days, saying, 'He is going to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare it.' But they did not find anything in his favor, and they hanged him on the eve of Passover."

"It was taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah. These are the names of the disciples of Yeshu who were hanged."

The claim that the Romans "controlled all information" at the time is not entirely accurate:

While the Romans controlled official documents and propaganda, they did not suppress all local records or oral traditions. Jewish texts like the Talmud (the one you like to cite) and the Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved independently of Roman oversight.

If the New Testament were a Roman invention, it’s puzzling why it includes so much criticism of Roman authorities (e.g., Pilate’s weakness, Roman soldiers mocking Jesus), which would undermine its purpose as imperial propaganda.

guysbewise:
This is what the Jews have in their Talmud from their oral tradition as the Roman empire controlled all information at the time. The New Testament is a story invented in Rome at the time. The Jews have no records of the New Testament events taken place around them.

"On the eve of Passover, they hanged Yeshu. And the herald went out before him for forty days, saying, 'He is going to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare it.' But they did not find anything in his favor, and they hanged him on the eve of Passover."

"It was taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah. These are the names of the disciples of Yeshu who were hanged."

Calm down and analyse what you wrote.
The passage you quoted describes:

A figure named Yeshu who was hanged (interpreted by some as crucifixion) on the eve of Passover.

Allegations against him of sorcery and leading Israel into apostasy.

A process of announcing the charges for 40 days, allowing others to defend him, which aligns with Jewish legal traditions but not Roman judicial practices.


If this passage is about Jesus, it provides a very different perspective on his trial and execution, portraying him as a heretic and sorcerer [/b]rather than the [b]Messiah, the claim to be the Messiah was what led to his death in the NT, hence the cry for crucifixion by Pontius Pilate.

In Roman executions, there was no Jewish-style public proclamation or 40-day period for presenting evidence, as described in the Talmudic account.
This discrepancy suggests that the Talmudic account is not a direct historical record but a reflection of Jewish oral traditions or polemics.

If truly the Hanging in the Talmud is a crucifixion which was never carried out by the Jews but the Romans, there could not have been a 40-day period for presenting evidence as the Romans overrode the judicial powers of execution, including their legal traditions like proclamations.

The only time Jews hung anybody was after they stoned the person to death, the hanging was done to disgrace the person even upon death, as ordained in their Torah.
Hanging by crucifixion of a sorcerer or heretic is not in line with Jewish traditions, they stone to death.

guysbewise:
The invention was to upgrade Christainity to look like a Jewish religion and that's why the Jews did not accept Christainity and Jesus christ as their messiah.

According to the Historia Augusta's collection: A letter by Hadrian is purported to have addressed a letter from Egypt to his elderly brother-in-law Servianus, who was Roman consul in AD 134 (by which time Hadrian himself was back in Rome). In Alexandria, he relates: "There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis" (The Four Tyrants, VIII.1).

These are some other images where the present Christian image came from. Yes Christianity was there before but was a pagan religion which was upgraded to now look like a Jewish religion.

Just as Christains will not accept Mohammed as a messager of the Christian God is also the same way Jews will not accept Jesus christ as the son of the Jewish God.

The Jews did not accept Christianity not because of some upgrade.

At the time of Jesus, most Jews expected a Messiah who would be a political and military leader, liberating Israel from Roman oppression and restoring the Davidic kingdom.

Jesus’ message of spiritual salvation and his crucifixion (seen as a curse under Jewish law, Deuteronomy 21:23) did not align with these expectations.

This is why the majority of Jews rejected Jesus, not because Christianity was a "pagan upgrade."

Also, about Serapis: Both Judaism and early Christianity were strictly monotheistic and opposed to pagan gods. The idea that Jesus or Christianity had roots in Serapis worship conflicts with their foundational beliefs.

guysbewise:
But Christians fought in Constantines army before Christainity became the official religion of the Roman empire:

Some historical accounts suggest that Constantine's army included Christian soldiers and even a Christian legion. There are stories about Constantine having Christian symbols on his soldiers' shields during battles, including the famous "In hoc signo vinces" (In this sign, you will conquer) vision.

Also why are these pagan idols under the Vertican and other Churches in Rome from the early days of Christainity? Where St. Peter was the first pope of the Catholic Church. He was one of Jesus's original 12 disciples.

And why is there Secret Archives within the Vatican that is the head quarters of Christainity?

Underneath The Vatican is Lucifer, Medusa, Isis, Pagan Gods & Idols

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awto-pKmXbI&t=6s

Again?

By Constantine's time (4th century), Christianity had already existed for nearly 300 years. It had grown as a grassroots movement despite significant Roman persecution. Constantine’s embrace of Christianity reflects a political decision to unify his empire under a single religion, not its invention, before Constantine, emperors like Nero, Decius, and Diocletian actively persecuted Christians. These persecutions show that earlier Roman rulers viewed Christianity as a threat, not as a tool they created.

After Constantine legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan (313 CE), the church gained prominence in Rome and began constructing churches. This was part of Christianity’s institutionalization, not evidence that the Romans invented the religion.

The Vatican as the “headquarters” of Christianity evolved much later, as the Catholic Church solidified its power in the medieval period. Its existence doesn't prove Roman authorship of the religion; it reflects the church’s later administrative and theological developments.
Also, there's an error people make, they say Peter was the first Pope, absolute nonsense.

Finally, there’s no credible evidence that these Vatican archives contain proof of Christianity’s invention. The archives are a repository for church history, or something else but not a repository containing proof of Christianity's invention by the Romans.

Nachmonides:
Still on the first matter.
Atwill made an extraordinary claim which demands an extraordinary evidence. Do you even know that his theory is based on speculative inferences and not credible documentation?

That's like saying, the country Nigeria is unsafe because you see insecurity in some parts of the North East. While it may be true that those parts are insecure and unsafe, it's wrong to say such of the whole of Nigeria.

In same fashion, Atwill takes specific observations, such as perceived parallels between the Gospels and Josephus’ writings or Roman political motivations, and generalizes them to make sweeping claims about the entire origins of Christianity. This is similar to saying all of Nigeria is unsafe based on isolated cases of insecurity in certain regions.


Does it make sense to you?

Nachmonides:
Are you serious? Lol, it seems you didn't actually read and process your comment. Let's start with the first argument


On the first:

While it’s true that 1st-century Judea was politically volatile, there’s no concrete evidence that the Romans created Jesus as a way to manipulate Jewish resistance.

Jewish messianic hopes at the time were centered on a military leader who would overthrow Roman rule, not a peaceful figure preaching love and turning the other cheek. If the Romans created Jesus, they created a Messiah entirely opposite to what would have appealed to Jewish rebels.

Groups like the Zealots and Sicarii continued to actively resist Roman control, culminating in the Jewish-Roman wars (66–73 CE and 132–135 CE). This undermines the claim that Jesus was fabricated to pacify the Jews since Jewish uprisings persisted even after the rise of Christianity.


Rome indeed co-opted religions to unify its empire, but this process occurred gradually over centuries, especially through the adoption of Christianity in the 4th century under Constantine. This occurred long after Jesus’ life and the writings of the New Testament.

Far from being a Roman tool, early Christianity was considered a threat to Roman stability. Christians were persecuted for refusing to worship Roman gods or the emperor, with figures like Nero blaming Christians for events like the Great Fire of Rome (64 CE).

Question on Timing; If Christianity was a Roman invention, why would the Roman Empire spend over 250 years persecuting Christians before adopting it? This is inconsistent with the idea of Jesus as a tool for Roman control.

Still on the first matter.
Atwill made an extraordinary claim which demands an extraordinary evidence. Do you even know that his theory is based on speculative inferences and not credible documentation?

guysbewise:
Rubbish! See below to know that the debunkers have been debunked.

1. No Historical Evidence of a Roman Conspiracy
Counterargument:

Historians like Robert Eisenman (James the Brother of Jesus) and John Dominic Crossan have argued that the political environment of 1st-century Judea was ripe for manipulation by Roman authorities. The Romans had a vested interest in pacifying the volatile Jewish population, and creating or co-opting a messianic figure could have been a calculated move to undermine Jewish resistance.
The Roman Empire frequently used propaganda to maintain control over its subjects. As historian Michael Grant has pointed out, Rome skillfully manipulated religion to unify and pacify its diverse empire, such as through the adoption and adaptation of foreign gods into Roman pantheons. Christianity could have been another such adaptation, presented in a Jewish context to quell uprisings.
The absence of direct evidence of Roman involvement in creating Jesus does not disprove the theory. As Richard Carrier notes, history often lacks explicit documentation of covert actions, and conspiracies are often inferred from circumstantial evidence rather than explicit records.

2. Misinterpretation of Josephus
Counterargument:

Josephus was closely aligned with the Flavian emperors, particularly Vespasian and Titus, and his writings reflect their political agenda. Scholars like Neil Faulkner (Rome: Empire of the Eagles) have noted that Josephus’ works serve as pro-Roman propaganda, recasting the Jewish revolt as a justified Roman victory.
Atwill’s claim of parallels between Josephus’ The Jewish War and the Gospels is not entirely baseless. Historian Steve Mason (Josephus and the New Testament) has highlighted that Josephus shaped his narratives to appeal to his Roman patrons. While Mason does not endorse Atwill’s theory, he acknowledges Josephus’ tendency to frame events in ways favorable to Roman authority, leaving room for potential ideological overlaps.
Historians like Richard Horsley (Jesus and the Spiral of Violence) have also pointed out that the New Testament reflects a political context tied to the Roman occupation, suggesting the possibility of deliberate Roman influence on its content.

3. Jewish Context of Jesus
Counterargument:

While Jesus’ teachings are rooted in Jewish traditions, this does not preclude Roman involvement in shaping the narrative. Historian Hyam Maccoby (Revolution in Judea) argues that early Christianity reflects a synthesis of Jewish and Hellenistic ideas, which may have been influenced by Roman political goals to pacify Jewish resistance.
The concept of a crucified Messiah may seem unappealing, but historian Paula Fredriksen (From Jesus to Christ) notes that early Christians reframed the shame of crucifixion into a narrative of redemption. This reframing could have been orchestrated to portray submission and suffering as virtuous, aligning with Roman interests.
Additionally, the inclusion of Jewish elements in Christianity could have been a strategic move to lend the religion credibility among Jews while promoting Roman ideals of obedience and peace.

4. Historical Consensus on Jesus’ Existence
Counterargument:

While the majority of historians agree on the existence of a historical Jesus, this consensus often relies on sources that are heavily contested. For instance, the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus’ works is widely regarded as partially or wholly interpolated by Christian scribes, as argued by historians like Geza Vermes (The Changing Faces of Jesus).
Mythicist scholars like Richard Carrier (On the Historicity of Jesus) and Robert Price (The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems) argue that the evidence for Jesus is not as strong as many believe. They highlight the lack of contemporary, independent accounts and the reliance on later, Christian-biased sources.
The consensus itself may reflect the dominance of Christian historiography rather than an objective analysis of the evidence. Historian E.P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus) admits that many details about Jesus’ life remain speculative, leaving room for alternative interpretations of his origins.

5. Flawed Logic in Atwill's Argument
Counterargument:

Critics of Atwill often dismiss his theory as speculative, but historian Joseph Atwill himself argues in Caesar’s Messiah that parallels between Josephus and the Gospels cannot be entirely coincidental. Scholars like R.G. Collingwood (The Idea of History) emphasize that history is often a matter of interpreting patterns and probabilities, not just hard evidence.
While Atwill’s approach may involve confirmation bias, his critics also risk dismissing the theory without engaging with its specific claims. For example, Richard Carrier, while critical of Atwill, acknowledges that Roman involvement in shaping Christianity is a plausible hypothesis, even if Atwill’s specific arguments are flawed.
Historians like Will Durant (Caesar and Christ) and Tom Holland (Dominion) have noted the adaptability of Christianity within the Roman Empire, suggesting that the religion’s growth and success may have been facilitated, if not directly influenced, by Roman interests.

Are you serious? Lol, it seems you didn't actually read and process your comment. Let's start with the first argument


On the first:

While it’s true that 1st-century Judea was politically volatile, there’s no concrete evidence that the Romans created Jesus as a way to manipulate Jewish resistance.

Jewish messianic hopes at the time were centered on a military leader who would overthrow Roman rule, not a peaceful figure preaching love and turning the other cheek. If the Romans created Jesus, they created a Messiah entirely opposite to what would have appealed to Jewish rebels.

Groups like the Zealots and Sicarii continued to actively resist Roman control, culminating in the Jewish-Roman wars (66–73 CE and 132–135 CE). This undermines the claim that Jesus was fabricated to pacify the Jews since Jewish uprisings persisted even after the rise of Christianity.


Rome indeed co-opted religions to unify its empire, but this process occurred gradually over centuries, especially through the adoption of Christianity in the 4th century under Constantine. This occurred long after Jesus’ life and the writings of the New Testament.

Far from being a Roman tool, early Christianity was considered a threat to Roman stability. Christians were persecuted for refusing to worship Roman gods or the emperor, with figures like Nero blaming Christians for events like the Great Fire of Rome (64 CE).

Question on Timing; If Christianity was a Roman invention, why would the Roman Empire spend over 250 years persecuting Christians before adopting it? This is inconsistent with the idea of Jesus as a tool for Roman control.

guysbewise:
Also hear is an official documentary from university professors who have gone through official Roman records to find out that Jesus christ was invented by the Roman empire


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmEScIUcvz0

This is rubbish. This video is based on the same book title by Joseph Atwill which has been debunked severally.


Joseph Atwill's theory in Caesar’s Messiah has been widely debunked by historians, theologians, and biblical scholars for lacking credible evidence and employing faulty reasoning.

1. No Historical Evidence of a Roman Conspiracy

There is no documented evidence from the Roman period or early Christianity suggesting that the Roman Empire fabricated the story of Jesus. The writings of Roman historians like Tacitus and Suetonius refer to Jesus and his followers as a nuisance to Roman authority, which contradicts the claim that the Romans created Jesus to pacify the Jews.

2. Misinterpretation of Josephus

Atwill claims parallels between the works of Flavius Josephus (a Jewish historian) and the New Testament. However, most scholars argue that these parallels are superficial or coincidental. Josephus’ writings and the Gospels have completely different purposes and tones, making the claim of deliberate coordination implausible.

3. Jewish Context of Jesus

Jesus’ teachings are deeply rooted in Jewish traditions, ethics, and prophetic literature. Early Christianity emerged as a Jewish sect, not a Roman creation. The concept of a crucified Messiah would have been unappealing to both Jews and Romans, making it an unlikely tool for political control.

4. Historical Consensus on Jesus’ Existence

The majority of historians, including secular ones, agree that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Judea. While debates exist about the specifics of his life and teachings, the theory that Jesus was entirely invented by the Romans is considered fringe and lacks support from reputable scholars.

5. Flawed Logic in Atwill's Argument

Atwill’s argument relies heavily on finding "parallels" between Roman history and the Gospels, but this approach is criticized for confirmation bias. By selectively picking passages, one can draw parallels between almost any two texts. Scholars have also pointed out his lack of understanding of ancient languages, historical context, and the nuances of biblical texts.

On Scholarship:

Bart Ehrman (New Testament scholar): While a critic of Christian orthodoxy, Ehrman dismisses Atwill’s theory, stating it is "more sensationalist than scholarly" and "unsupported by evidence."

Richard Carrier (historian): Carrier, a skeptic of Christianity, has called Atwill’s theory "poorly constructed" and reliant on speculative connections.


I can email you links if you prefer to read more about these debunks.

guysbewise:
How did you test that Jesus christ is real or fiction?

With the tools for testing that which is true or false according to the sciences.

Do your homework.

guysbewise:
If superman comic storybook was around 2000 years ago the same way you'll believe today that superman was real. 
Your mind is made up so that no matter the facts I present, you will hold on to your belief that Jesus christ was real even when the Jews have shown that he did not fulfill any prophecy from their Torah.

You're wrong with that.

There are stories that have been around for more than 2000 years ago and I've not believed them to be real, why? — there are methods for testing that which is real, true, fake, false.

gohf:
Acts 5:3-4 Peter did not call the Holy Spirit God. Ananias lied to Peter, and Peter said he has lied also to the Holy Spirit and to God. Except you are saying Peter is the Holy Spirit or that he is God?

1Cor.3.16 - Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

Yes we are God's temple and the spirit of God dwells in each of us, God doesn't dwell in us, He abides among us, He is with us and not in us. Here again it doesn't call the spirit of God God, does it?

2Cor.3.17 - Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
2Cor.3.18 - But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Now because God is Spirit doesn't mean He is the one that Jesus sent to us and neither does it mean we worship the Holy Spirit but we worship in the Holy Spirit.

John.4.24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Neither of these verses call the Holy Spirit God has clearly as you stated neither does it do so indirectly.

But if you still believe that the Holy Spirit is God then answer me this.

Rev.4.5 And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.


How many Gods are before God?

Seven spirits of who?


God.
So it's God's, they are no different from God or separate from God, since they are seven spirits of God, right?


Also, would another person be dwelling in God's temple besides God?

Nachmonides:
You know, it's interesting to know that the cards will crumble if you say it's before the prophets because the prophets actually made references to the Torah, in teaching, and many times exact statements.
That means, the Romans also altered the prophets and the entire story to fit the one narrative in which yields what we see of Christianity today. In which also, many of these books don't belong to the same time age, and had begun before the Roman Empire even in the Roman Empire's history catalogue.

You'll be concluding that the entire bible is false in that case, because every book of the bible draws inspiration from the Torah.


Even the Romans will deny such accusations, history is available for all to see.

If you say it's after the prophets, you'll be saying the Romans somehow went back in time to make sure things in the several old testament books aligned with one another even though they were written years apart, hundreds of years apart, and thousands of years apart.

Nachmonides:
In your assertion, when (year or period) was the Torah manipulated? — During or after the time of the prophets?

You know, it's interesting to know that the cards will crumble if you say it's before the prophets because the prophets actually made references to the Torah, in teaching, and many times exact statements.
That means, the Romans also altered the prophets and the entire story to fit the one narrative in which yields what we see of Christianity today. In which also, many of these books don't belong to the same time age, and had begun before the Roman Empire even in the Roman Empire's history catalogue.

You'll be concluding that the entire bible is false in that case, because every book of the bible draws inspiration from the Torah.


Even the Romans will deny such accusations, history is available for all to see.

guysbewise:
So if the Torah had been in a Temple in the Benin Kingdom in 1987 when the Europeans came to the area they created now call Nigeria, and they took the Torah away to Europe and keept it from the public but returned a restored copy 150 years after and during the period the Torah was taken away to Europe the Benins have continued their religion and traditions orally which they now wrote down in their Talmud.

Now I'll put these questions to you:
Which one is more reliable?
1. Is it the restored Torah that was returned after 150 year that no one could verify?
Or
2. Is it the Talmud which was written from their oral religion and tradition they had continued to follow?  



Don't be weak, but gain wisdom from my posts.

In your assertion, when (year or period) was the Torah manipulated? — During or after the time of the prophets?

guysbewise:
Here is the arch Constantine built after the war he said Jesus christ gave him a victory sign to help him win. Instead the arch was dedicated to his Roman pagan gods and not to Jesus christ. This should tell you he invented Christainity to unify the Roman empire by combining all the main religions in the Roman empire at that time.

Scientific research has traced all humans to an arear around Ethiopia.

Show me where you got your information from?

Dtruthspeaker:
See wetin pagan Catholic church don cause

I don't know, he seems to be reading a script.

How can one say and believe that the Talmud is more reliable than the Torah!?

guysbewise:
When the Roman empire destroyed the Jewish second Temple in Jerusalem in Ad 70 they too the Torah away to Roman and was kept in the Royal palace where know one was allowed to see it. The also to Jewish prist with them to Rome, these were the prist that the made to re-write the Torah or Old testament we now have, which is not the original that was taken.

The Roman empire gave the re-written Torah back to the Jews 150 after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

But the Jews had their oral Religion and Tradition which they then wrote down in the Talmud which is why it's more reliable them the Roman re-written Torah.

Do away with the scripts written to you. What does history say about your claims?

Or will you now say the Romans changed the history of the whole world?

Because almost every country is related to Israel one way or the other and we can trace them using Non-Israel history.

guysbewise:
It means the Roman pagan religions were upgraged to become Chritianity and was made to resemble the Jewish religion as they were now Jews in the Roman empire after Rome conquered Isreal and it became part of the Roman empire.

For example:

The Christian cross is often cited as having origins in the pagan symbol of the ankh, an ancient Egyptian symbol representing life. Additionally, the solar cross (a cross inside a circle) was a common symbol in many ancient cultures, representing the sun or the four seasons.

Some pagan deities were replaced with Christian saints. For example, the Roman god Janus (associated with beginnings and transitions) was superseded by Saint Peter, who guards the gates of Heaven. Similarly, other gods associated with specific natural forces, like fertility or healing, were replaced by saints associated with those aspects.

The story of Virgin Mary has some similarities to earlier Mother Goddess figures such as Isis, Diana, or Artemis, all of whom were seen as protectors of the people and embodying fertility or motherhood.

Similarly, the figure of Christ as a savior and healer shares some similarities with pagan gods like Osiris, Attis, and Mithras, who were also seen as dying and resurrecting figures.

The image of Christ as the Good Shepherd has similarities to earlier depictions of pagan gods who were associated with shepherding and pastoral life, such as Pan, the Greek god of the wilds, and Mercury, who was often depicted with a caduceus, a symbol of fertility and guidance.

The Christmas tree itself comes from pagan traditions, especially from the Germanic and Norse cultures, where trees like the Yew or Oak were revered as sacred and symbolic of life. The idea of decorating trees at winter solstice festivals has been carried over into modern Christmas traditions.

Alright, so when we remove all these things, we'll find the true Christianity right?

guysbewise:
It is the Jewish oral religion and tradition passed down from old called the Talmud which is more reliable than the Old Testament or Torah which was re-written in Roman.

How can you say the Talmud is more reliable than the old testament, or Torah!

The Torah basically came before the Talmud, and the Talmud is an interpretation of the Torah. How can you say the interpretation of something is more reliable than the source of the interpretation?

By the way, the Torah was written before Rome even came into existence and there's a language it was written in, Hebrew. We have the Hebrew for ourselves today.

guysbewise:
Christianity is the pagan religions in the Roman empire upgraded to resemble the Jewish religion as the Roman empire was occupying Isreal at the time and the Roman empire decided to unify all the religion in the Roman empire in AD 330 to bring unity to the Roman empire.

If you think it's Constantine's handwork, and you are sure it's been upgraded, that means there's a well defined state, or version you know it was in, that is, you know exactly what Christianity is, and what non Christianity is. That's a heavy assertion that needs to be proven. You're in your assertion saying, "I know the true Christianity, and the one currently being practiced or the one we know to be Christianity is actually an upgrade of what was, and hey guess what, that means I know what the former was", if so, kindly tell us what true Christianity is and what the former is, their practices which were upgraded by the Roman emperor.

guysbewise:
This is the records the Jews have in their Holybook and who else to know more about their religion other than the Jews.

"On the eve of Passover, they hanged Yeshu. And the herald went out before him for forty days, saying, 'He is going to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare it.' But they did not find anything in his favor, and they hanged him on the eve of Passover.

It was taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah. These are the names of the disciples of Yeshu who were hanged."

A question, is this the Jewish Torah?

guysbewise:
That's the upgraded version of Christianity to make it resemble old testament biblical roots.

Wait, let me be clear in understanding.

Are you against Biblical Christianity or the modern Christianity as some classify under either biblical or associated with fakery and non-Christianity?

If anything significant, it's always been the biblical Satan engaging in copying and thwarting. I have cause to believe some of the modern understanding of Christmas and other symbols and ideas we know affiliated with Christianity have been copied and thwarted.

Nachmonides:
Do you even know what you're talking about?
Joseph whose father is Jacob, descendant of Isaac, descendant of Abraham all had standards for worshipping God and definitely did not partake in the mode of worship of those that were not of their clan that worshiped Yahweh. And you should figure out how Abraham was called by God, Abraham before his call, Abraham lived in Ur of the Chaldeans, a region steeped in idol worship and polytheism. His family, including his father Terah, worshipped other gods, as noted in Joshua 24:2:

> "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods.'"

So his fathers worshipped other gods and God didn't call them unto Abraham, why? — it's spelled out for me, he wasn't involved in idol worship or the worship of other gods. So there was a knowledge of a God who desired to be worshipped alone, for there to be a worship of other gods.

And why am I talking about Abraham, and Egypt find their root in Noah, and Noah directiy yeilded both of their fathers were involved in a blessing and curse circumstances.

Noah cursed Ham the ancestor of Egypt, and blessed Shem the ancestor of Abraham, and ever since then Shem and his descendants have been associated as people who worshipped the one true God, while Ham and his descendants have been associated with pagan; idol, and the worship of other gods.

Noah is a descendant of Methuselah, who is a descendant of Enoch, down to Seth, Adam's Son after Abel was killed.

The mode of worship has been the same ever since there was always pagan, idol and worship of other gods.

Abraham simply stuck to his mode of worship he learned from his parents because God was with him through the promise made to Noah. In Noah's time, there was the worship of other gods and idol worship and the bible describes Noah and his family as the only righteous people in a corrupt world (Genesis 6:9).


Do you think Israel went into Egypt to find anything new to their ancestors which Israel never knew about?

And same Christianity has its roots in Abraham; old testament biblical roots.

guysbewise:
Christianity was upgraded from pagan worship to now resemble that of the Jewish God in the Torah.

Do you even know what you're talking about?
Joseph whose father is Jacob, descendant of Isaac, descendant of Abraham all had standards for worshipping God and definitely did not partake in the mode of worship of those that were not of their clan that worshiped Yahweh. And you should figure out how Abraham was called by God, Abraham before his call, Abraham lived in Ur of the Chaldeans, a region steeped in idol worship and polytheism. His family, including his father Terah, worshipped other gods, as noted in Joshua 24:2:

> "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods.'"

So his fathers worshipped other gods and God didn't call them untill Abraham, why? — it's spelled out for me, he wasn't involved in idol worship or the worship of other gods. So there was a knowledge of a God who desired to be worshipped alone, for there to be a worship of other gods.

And why am I talking about Abraham, he and Egypt find their root in Noah, and Noah directiy yeilded both of their fathers were involved in a blessing and curse circumstances.

Noah cursed Ham the ancestor of Egypt, and blessed Shem the ancestor of Abraham, and ever since then Shem and his descendants have been associated as people who worshipped the one true God, while Ham and his descendants have been associated with pagan; idol, and the worship of other gods.

Noah is a descendant of Methuselah, who is a descendant of Enoch, down to Seth, Adam's Son after Abel was killed.

The mode of worship has been the same ever since there was always pagan, idol and worship of other gods.

Abraham simply stuck to his mode of worship he learned from his parents because God was with him through the promise made to Noah. In Noah's time, there was the worship of other gods and idol worship and the bible describes Noah and his family as the only righteous people in a corrupt world (Genesis 6:9).


Do you think Israel went into Egypt to find anything new to their ancestors which Israel never knew about?

genitori:
Reality is undebatable
Whether you accept it or not, they're facts.

Facts? — is that not another word for Reality, Truth, by the way I hear truth is truth only from a perspective. Look at it this way, I read a story the other day — some, I think 7, blind men feel an elephant, give different descriptions of what an elephant is, one said it was a wall, one said it was a squirmy worm, one said it was a fan, one said it was a spear, in similar fashion to the last. They were all wrong, yet they were all correct, it takes one outside their condition, one with sight, to know that they are all wrong and don't see the big picture, they only have a portion of the whole, or would I say, their truth.

And as we know, half a truth is a lie.

Therefore it can only mean there is just one truth. What do you think? I

MaxInDHouse:
YES!
God's spirit brings life to all creatures either angel or human but while we are in fleshy bodies they are spirit bodies!

If you can understand the difference between spirit and bodies, and yet still use both words in a sentence to make complete sense with no lie.

I wonder why understanding the concept/teaching of trinity is an issue.

You don't have to respond, it's a rhetorical comment.

Kobojunkie:
A religion set up by the very dogs — non-Israelites— Jesus Christ of Israel warned that could not partake in that which belonged only to the lost sheep of Israel—Israelites— has its roots in paganism as described by Jesus Christ Himself.

False.

This is false.
Christianity has its roots in the biblical old testament, which was ordained by God himself.