₦airaland Forum

From the side by side analysis of the Gospels I have done above so far, we have found out that-

1. Mark's Gospel was the first to be written, and Mathew and Luke were so lazy that they copied hundreds of verses word for word from him.

2. The story Jesus in each Gospel do not corollate, instead they contradict each other.

Again I ask - if these Gospels were actual "eye witness" accounts of the life and story of Jesus, why do they contradict each other?

Let us move on to a point @MaxinDhouse brought up about the words of Flavius Josephus and if this proves Jesus really existed.

cornelboy:
See this Oteneaaron guy sha. No be him wan give us one ticket each for research abroad

Lol.

Go and read those threads very well.

No de loose guard.

Give ticket for wetin?

The Jesus of the Gospel of John.

In this Gospel, he is almost like Superman and goes against the standard of the other Jesus's from the other Gospels.

Not only is he no secret Messiah at all, he has a radically different personality, much more large and in charge, in total control at all times.

1. This Jesus knows he’s God, and he doesn’t care who knows it! He is constantly talking about his divinity and declaring himself to be the bread of life (6:35, and again in 6:41 and 6:48),

The living bread that came down from Heaven (6:51),

The light of the world (8:12 and 9:5),

From above and not of this world (8:23),

The Son of Man (8:28),

The good shepherd (10:11),

The resurrection and the life (11:25),

The way, and the truth, and the life (14:6),

The true vine (15:1) and even says “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am” (8:58).

2. John’s Jesus is not born of a virgin; he matter-of-factly states that Jesus is Joseph’s son without comment (1:45).

3. Nor is he born in Bethlehem; John consistently denies any Bethlehem link, insisting that Jesus comes from Nazareth in the Galilee (1:45-46; 7:41-42, 52,)

4. Unlike the other Gospels, when John the Baptist says he’s not fit to baptize him, John agrees – no baptism for the perfect and sin-free Messiah in this Gospel.

5. The ministry of John’s Jesus is in striking disagreement to the other Gospels, which say that it lasted only about a year, took place mainly in the Galilee, and that Jesus came to Jerusalem only once, at the very end of his life.

In contrast, John stretches it out over three years and centers action mostly in Judea around Jerusalem, where he goes back and forth often.

6. In the previous Gospels, Jesus drives the moneychangers from the Temple at the very end of his career, in the week before his crucifixion (Mark 11:15-18, Matt 21:12-13, Luke 19:45-47).

Mark even tells us this is why the Jewish leaders start plotting his death (Mark 11:18).

But not John’s tough-guy Jesus; his 3-year career begins by thrashing those defilers of the Temple with a homemade scourge (John 2:13-16).

7. John’s Jesus also has an entirely different speaking style. He gives no parables, no snappy Cynic-style comebacks, no Sermon on the Mount (like Matthew) or Sermon on the Plain (like Luke),

8. No Beatitudes: no Blessed are the Meek, no Love thy Neighbor, no Suffer the Little Children, no Consider the Lilies of the Field, no Turn the other Cheek.

The poor and the suffering may be the focus of his ministry in the other Gospels, but they barely get a mention from John’s Jesus.

There is more, but let's stop here for now...

Again I ask, if the Gospels were truly "eye witness" accounts, why are there stark differences between the Jesus in each Gospel?

You know the answer.

But we still have more issues to trash out.

Let us continue.

The Jesus in the Gospel of Luke -

1. Right from the manger, Luke’s Jesus is wonderful and faultless. Even as a boy of twelve, he amazes his exasperated parents when they lose him for a few days only to finally find him in the temple, confounding the teachers of the law with his knowledge (2:40-52).

2. He never feels despair, doubt or fear and remains unfazed in tight corners.

Jesus is surprised to be unable to work miracles in Mark 6:5-6;

Matthew says he was unsurprised and able but just unwilling (13:58);

Luke’s Jesus tops them both. Not only is his Jesus not surprised, he even anticipates all this difficulty, and then effortlessly breezes out of the clutches of a lynch mob for good measure (4:16-30).

3. Unlike Mark’s Jesus who was in anguish in the moments before his death (and Matthew’s copycat Jesus),

Unlike them, he doesn’t feel the need to take Peter, James and John along for any moral support. Nor does he become distressed or agitated, or “sorrowful unto death.” He doesn’t collapse to the ground but simply kneels (22:41) and

4. He prays just once (not three times), asking God politely, if he would be willing, to please remove the cup (22:42).

5. He doesn’t berate the disciples, like Mark’s and Matthew’s Jesuses. Instead, he rouses them just once, as Judas is arriving (22:46).

6. While Mark’s Jesus dies in anguish and despair, Luke’s Jesus exits with composure and acceptance.

Luke dispenses with the words of the 22nd Psalm altogether and takes his Jesus’ parting line from Psalm 31:5: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (23:46).

7. And contradicting Mark’s Jesus, Luke repeats Matthew’s parable, in virtually identical language, that the Lord will NOT be right back during his followers’ lifetimes after all (12: 42-46).

Still again I ask - if the Gospels were all "eye witness" accounts, why do they contradict each other?

Why is Jesus in each Gospel different from each other?

Let us analyze the Jesus of Mathews Gospel (remember that I mentioned earlier that Mathew copied about 607 direct verses from Mark) -

1. Matthew’s Jesus is also a most Jewish Jesus, a rabbi who upholds the Torah, insisting “not one jot or stroke of the Law will pass away” (5:17–19).

2. He wears a prayer shawl tasseled with tzitzit (9:20-22),

3. Observes the Sabbath (12:1-8 ), teaches, worships and heals in synagogues as well as the Temple (4:23; 9:35; 14:21).

4. Matthew doesn’t just correct mistakes Mark makes, he also fixes mistakes Mark’s Jesus makes, even removing anything that makes his Jesus look less than perfect.

For example, in Mark 6:5-6, Jesus is unable to do any “mighty work” in his (unnamed) hometown and is amazed at their unbelief (even though just 3 verses before the crowds are astonished by his learning).

Matthew will have none of that. He cuts out Jesus being taken by surprise, and changes “could not” do mighty works to “did not” (13:58).

5. Contrary to Mark’s Jesus, Matthew’s Jesus doesn’t say that he will return any moment now. Instead his Jesus says he will come back … some day, and gives a parable against slacking off just because the Lord delays his coming (Matt. 24: 42-51).

6. Matthew switches Jesus’ lasts words from Aramaic to Hebrew so that he cries out “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” not “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.” Mark wanted the bystanders to think Jesus is calling for Elijah (Mark 15:34-35).

Unfortunately, his play on words only works in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. It makes no sense for the bystanders to think that Jesus is calling for the prophet Eli if Jesus was saying “Eloi.”

7. Matthew changes the quote to Hebrew; this is historically incorrect for someone like Jesus to have spoken, but at least it makes the pun work (27:46).

As we have seen, the Jesus in Mark and the Jesus in Matthew bear unique differences.

Why should this happen if they were both eye witness accounts?

Shouldn't the stories at least corollate?

Let's investigate the Jesus of of the Gospel of Luke and John.

Stay with me.

oteneaaron:
Moving on to the Gospels -

Mark, Mathew, Luke and John are the only sources we have of a "biographical" Jesus

But were these reports really eye witness reports?

I don't think so, and this is why -

Like I mentioned earlier, the letters of Paul are the earliest writings in New testament - written around 58CE

And Mark as the first Gospel written after Paul's letters, that is even after the Jewish - Roman War between 66 - 70 CE

But there is still evidence that the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were even written much later after 90CE

One reason is that many of the early Christian writers didn't speak much about these gospels.

For example, in the first letter of Clement of Rome (written c. 95 C.E.), he cited the Old Testament as “scripture” over a hundred times, and frequently refers to Hebrews and some of Paul’s letters, though he considers them as “good counsel,” not scripture.

But oddly, Clement never refers to any Gospel. - Why?

This means Clement of Rome a prominent church leader had no knowledge of the Gospels.

Moreso, it is also well known that the Gospel of Mathew and Luke were even written later because a careful study these Gospels show that they are both direct copies from the Gospel of Mark.

Check this for yourself -

Out of the 661 verses of the Gospel of Mark,

Luke uses about 360 direct verses and Mathew uses about 607 direct verses from the Gospel of Mark.

If Matthew and Luke were actual eye witness accounts why did they have to copy that much verses from Mark?

... I am not done yet

Still on the Gospels,

If they were eye witness accounts why is there no consistent image of Jesus from each gospel accounts?

Why do they contradict each other?

Let's investigate the comparison of Jesus in each Gospel shall we?

Stay with me, it gets fuzzy from here..

The Jesus of the book of Mark--

1. Mark’s Jesus is a fallible, suffering human.

2. There is no miraculous account of his birth; his story begins when he becomes God’s son at his baptism (1:11),

3. He is a “secret messiah,” not only denying that he is God (10:18), but hiding his true identity, disguising his message and teaching his followers in secret: “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables, in order that they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand . . .” (4:11-12).

4. Mark’s Jesus uses traditional pagan magic techniques (spit and magic words) to heal the blind and deaf, but not always successfully (7:32-35; 8:23-25).

5. He loses his temper sometimes, both with people (8:33; 9:19), and with inanimate objects – infamously cursing (and withering) a fig tree after failing to find figs on it – because it was not yet fig season (11:12-14).

6. He can even be a bit of a jerk. He initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Gentile woman's daughter, telling her it is not right to take the children of Israel’s bread and toss it to the dogs (7:25-27).

7. In the garden of Gethsemane, Mark’s Jesus fares the worst. He is distressed and agitated (14:33), even “sorrowful unto death” (14:34).

He goes off on his own, and then breaks down completely, falling to the ground on his face (14:35) and prays three times to take away the cup of suffering from him (14:36,39,41), stopping in between to scold the disciples for falling asleep on the job (14:37-38,40) before finally telling them sarcastically, “Fine, go ahead and sleep now; look, here they come to arrest me” (41-42).

8. Mark’s Jesus repeatedly tells people he will return during their lifetimes (9:1; 13:30; 14:62) and dies in despair on the cross crying words cribbed from the opening line of the 22nd Psalm: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Moving on to the Gospels -

Mark, Mathew, Luke and John are the only sources we have of a "biographical" Jesus

But were these reports really eye witness reports?

I don't think so, and this is why -

Like I mentioned earlier, the letters of Paul are the earliest writings in New testament - written around 58CE

And Mark as the first Gospel written after Paul's letters, that is even after the Jewish - Roman War between 66 - 70 CE

But there is still evidence that the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were even written much later after 90CE

One reason is that many of the early Christian writers didn't speak much about these gospels.

For example, in the first letter of Clement of Rome (written c. 95 C.E.), he cited the Old Testament as “scripture” over a hundred times, and frequently refers to Hebrews and some of Paul’s letters, though he considers them as “good counsel,” not scripture.

But oddly, Clement never refers to any Gospel. - Why?

This means Clement of Rome a prominent church leader had no knowledge of the Gospels.

Moreso, it is also well known that the Gospel of Mathew and Luke were even written later because a careful study these Gospels show that they are both direct copies from the Gospel of Mark.

Check this for yourself -

Out of the 661 verses of the Gospel of Mark,

Luke uses about 360 direct verses and Mathew uses about 607 direct verses from the Gospel of Mark.

If Matthew and Luke were actual eye witness accounts why did they have to copy that much verses from Mark?

... I am not yet done

I am sorry my responses came in late guys.

Unforunately I don't live and breath on Nairaland, plus I had to take sometime to run a few errands and most definitely gather the points from my research.

It is better I take my time to submit my points than rush to post things I can't defend.

I will continue my submissions.

Thank you!

MaxInDHouse:
I told you that "whatever you want to use as proof should be applied on other historical figures"
Did all historical figures write their own stories? NO!
The only place where Jesus walked was Judea and the Romans destroyed that city after Jesus but on the other hand archeologists have discovered evidences pointing to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth!


Flavius Josephus a Jewish historian (though never a Christian) lived in Judea around the year 37 c.e
Google what he wrote about Jesus of Nazareth!

Paul was not a direct eyewitness of Jesus' life and ministry so he couldn't have written what he never witnessed unlike Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who were Jesus' disciples and worked with him.
However Paul became a Christian and his assignment according to Jesus Christ (whom he met on his way to Damascus) is to go and establish Christianity among the gentiles! Act 9:15 compare to 1Timothy 2:7

Gospel Writer Place year
Matthew Matthew Israel 41 c.e.
Mark Mark Rome 60-65 c.e
Luke Luke Caesarea 56-58 c.e
John John Ephesus 98 c.e


All Paul's letters were written between 60-65 c.e

I knew you would mention Josephus.

Be calm.

I am not done yet.

Allow me to finish.

I didn't interrupt you when you laid your points.

Remember I asked you more than once if you were done.

When I am through, you can poke all the holes you want.

Be patient.

MaxInDHouse:
Intelligence is keeping your stupid friend oteneaaron on the hot seat he created for himself!

Lol

What hot seat?

Why are you calling me stupid?

Why the insults and name calling?

Now on to our main question - Did Jesus exist or is he just a myth based on ancient mystery religions like Horus, etc?

According to popular methodology, to know if a person actually existed in history, we must investigate the sources and these sources must be reliable.

Still about sources, there are three factors that determine if a source can be addressed as reliable -

1. Direct evidence from the person of interest (if the person wrote about him or herself, the persons house, etc )

2. Secondary Sources like eye witness accounts, stories told about the person etc.

3. Contemporary sources that come from the period of the person's life -

So what do we have about Jesus using the above criteria?

1. Direct evidence - There is NO archeological proof that shows that Jesus actually existed, there have been claims but they cannot be verified.

If Jesus did really exist in history, shouldn't there by actual archeological proof to show this?

At least when we talk about Horus from ancient Egypt, we can still point to the Temple of Luxor that describes the passion of his story.


2. Contemporary sources -

Let's start with Paul.

The Letters of Paul are on record the very earliest of writings of the new testament, which means it came before any of the four gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

Throughout the letters of Paul, why is there no mention to the actual historicity of the Jesus of Nazareth?

Paul was literally the first writer in the new testament and his letters were written at least a couple of decades after the date set for the death of Jesus, so why does He (Paul) not at least mention the historicity of Jesus?

True he mentioned Jesus through out his work, but he was referring to the Spiritual Christ - not a literal man.

And this is exactly what the mystery religions taught in ancient Egypt - no wonder historians describe Paul as a Gnostic Christian.

Like Alvin Boyd Khun said in his book - Who is this king of glory :

“For Paul to write fifteen Epistles, basic treatises on the religion that this man founded, and find no reason to refer even once to anything he said or did would be on the order of one’s writing a thorough treatise on the American Revolution and never once mentioning George Washington!”

I am not done yet.

cornelboy:
Is this some sort of story story story or your supposed evidence?

The information is out there for you to find.

The temple of Luxor in Egypt is still standing till this very day.

MaxInDHouse:
I told you from the onset that many myth are copies of real events that has been rebranded with fabrications.
So can you put this Horus story through the same scrutiny like i did with Jesus?
Place of birth.
Genealogy.
Occupation.
Friends.
Modern day adherents of teachings.

Lies won't survive all these my friend!

I'm not done yet.

I am just getting started.

Today is a Sunday and I am handling other chores, so please be patient with me as my replies will be coming in slow.

Thank you for understanding.

cornelboy:
You didn't answer my questions

The Myth of Horus was written in STONE on the walls of the Temple of Luxor in ancient Egypt.

If you can find out when the temple of Luxor was built, then you can find out when the myths were first written.

That is why from the beginning, I gave a definition what a myth refers to in this context.

The basic teaching of the mystery religions was that there is a spark of the divine in every man.

These myths were dramatized as stories that showed how men too could become God's just like the God-man in the story of Horus.

This is the same message every other mystery religion was passing - the God-in-man

It was after the Nicean creed that modern Christianity now made the whole story LITERAL.

Which then put Jesus on a pedestal so high that it was literally difficult for anyone to become like him unless you were actually born perfect and of a virgin just like him.

That is why the early Gnostic Christians took it how it really was - a myth that dramatizes the divinity that is existent in EVERY MAN.

cornelboy:
I know the history about these gospel books. No books were written by Thomas, Mary and Judas. Those books were authored by someone else.

So if you believe those books were authored by someone else, what makes you think the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were written by those same men?

cornelboy:
When were these myths written and who started them?
How did Jews get access to these Egyptian materials?
Are there no chances that the myths about Horus was copied from the BIBLE?

Which came first?

The "Bible" as you know it today contains only 66 books.

In the new testament, there are only four Gospels.

But did you know that there were over 20 gospels and the Catholic Church only selected the four gospels as Canon, and that is why you currently have them in the Bible today?

Have you heard of the Gospel of Thomas, Mary, and Judas Iscariot?

Kindly go and read about the Nag Hammadi Scriptures that were dug out of a cave in ancient Egypt.

Now it is important for you to understand that before the Nicean Creed and before the emergence of the Holy Roman Empire, there we two distinct forms of Christianity:

1. We had the Gnostic Christians who believed not a literal Jesus, but in a spiritual form of Christianity based on the teaching of the "God-in-man" .

Their teachings were based on the teachings from the ancient Egyptian Mystery Schools, and other mystery schools like Mithranism, etc.

2. We had the other Christians who believed in a literal Jesus as the "only begotten son/sun" of God.

I want you to keep this mind as I move further into my other points...

cornelboy:
We thought you already have it figured out.
Did you start doing your research?

Lol.

Be patient.

I am just getting started.

cornelboy:
Are these also myths or real events?
What's your proof that these stories/myths weren't copied from the Bible?

Which came first?

Ancient Egypt that literally gave the world everything it knows today, or the Bible that was compiled later on?

oteneaaron:
Lol.

Good things take time.

No rush.

I will be updating the thread as I go.

This has not been an easy research to embark on.

It has taken me months to study the materials related to the above subject matter.

So there is nothing wrong in me taking my time to submit my own part of the argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1CWBKRWIg0

The video above breaks down many of the myths, and symbology that about Jesus and Christianity that were copied from the ancient Egyptian Mystery Religion.

I am not done yet.

Give me some time to submit my findings and my own part of the argument.

I am just getting started.

GardenOfGod:
Going through all the arguments here, I must confess that Oteneaaron is below average in his position. MaxInDHouse is heating up the debate and has won the preliminary stage
Stage 2 loading guys....

Lol.

Good things take time.

No rush.

I will be updating the thread as I go.

This has not been an easy research to embark on.

It has taken me months to study the materials related to the above subject matter.

So there is nothing wrong in me taking my time to submit my own part of the argument.

To begin our investigation into whether the story of Jesus is not real but just a myth, let us first learn about the Mythology of similar God-Men from antiquity.

We shall begin from ancient Egypt (in Northern AFRICA)

As we already know, ancient Egypt is the home of the world's oldest religion that were termed as the "mystery cults".

Please note that it was only after the Rosetta Stone was found in July 1799 that archeologists and scholars were finally able to decipher what was written in stone by the ancient Egyptians.

See - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone

After translations were done, it was found out that on the walls of the temple of LUXOR in ancient Egypt, that the hieroglyphs spoke about a dying and resurecting God-man - and this was at the heart of the ancient Egyptian Mystery Religion.

And also by studying some ancient texts like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, we learn that it was a long held teaching in ancient Egypt, that each human had a spark of the divine deep inside them.

The goal of the mystery religion of ancient Egypt was in helping each adherent realize their own divinity, and to help them fully understand this, the mystery religion was dramatized as the myth of the God-man called HORUS.

HORUS was also known as IUSA or ISUSU and according to the ancient mysteries,

1. Horus was born of a Virgin called Meri

2. Like the “star in the east” of the Gospels, Sirius, the morning star in Egypt, heralded the birth of Horus.

3. Horus was baptized in the River Eridanus by a god figure named Anup the Baptizer, who was later beheaded.

4. Horus had no history between the ages of twelve and thirty.

5. Horus walked on water, cast out demons, and healed the sick.

6. Horus was crucified between two thieves, buried in a tomb, and resurrected. His personal epithet was Iusa (or Iusu), the “ever-becoming son” of Ptah, or the Father.

7. Horus has 12 disciples which represented the 12 signs of the Zodiac.

8. Horus was born in cave and 3 wise men/magi came to pay him homage...

Crysallis:
@oteneaaron
Why stalling?

The member you challenged has laid out his points. It really does not matter whether he wrote the archeological proof or not.

It is your turn to disprove what he wrote. Cheers

Thank you for your candid observation.

I am putting my points in order and will be updating the thread as I go.

Before I begin, we need to get some terminologies defined and understood in the right context.

MYTH - A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc.

ALLEOGORY - A symbolic representation which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, usually a moral or political one.

The crux of my argument is this -

1. Before the Bible was ever written, there have been many God-men from antiquity with life and stories that are an uncanny copy of the Jesus of the Bible.

2. The life and story of Jesus should not be taken literal history but as a MYTH and ALLEOGORY that dramatises the eventual ascent of man into what the ancient mystery schools called the "Christ Consciousness"

With this out the way, let us begin...

MaxInDHouse:
Get to work!
I have presented my points it's your turn to prove me wrong.
Historicity!
No one ever walked this planet has one percent of credence of Jesus' historicity.
Archeologists have done their own job so you only need to check it out. Jesus' teachings is upheld by Jehovah's Witnesses globally and everything he said is happening to them just as it's written in the Bible!

That is all I wanted.

Before I continue, just for the benefit of doubt @MaxinDhouse

Are the points you laid up above undeniable proof that -

1. Jesus really existed and is not a mythical figure,

2. Jesus really existed and there is archeological proof to show , and

3. The life and teachings of Jesus are original and not a copy of the life and teachings of HORUS from ancient Egypt and other similar Christ figures from antiquity?

I just want to be absolutely sure that the points you gave above are your UNDENIABLE PROOF.

Kindly revert before I continue.

MaxInDHouse:
I'm ever relaxed on this matter because i know that there's no evidence whatsoever that any human ever lived on this planet in ancient times if you want to argue the historicity of the man whose name, birth place, occupation, friends, teachings and modern day adherents is known globally!

No problem.

Thank you for your patience.

In the meantime, I am still waiting for your archeological proof of Jesus's existence.

MaxInDHouse:
Just as you often say "i don't need to spoon-feed you Sir"
Google and YouTube are your friends. Go and find out from archeologists not just listening to some good for nothing idiots spewing gibberish about what is boldly written in the history of mankind: Jesus of Nazareth!

Hahahahaha

But this is a challenge isn't it?

When I begin laying down my points, I will add proof to show you.

It was one of the requirements of the challenge.

Show me archeological proof.

MaxInDHouse:
Where is oteneaaron?
U thought you've prepared for what to say to disprove the historicity of Jesus Christ!
Please i give you all the time in the world to go and make all your research but don't forget that your own ancestors never existed if they can't meet up with the credentials i presented regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth!

Calm down.

Good things take time.

MaxInDHouse:
I'm done!
So bring anything you can find anywhere to dispute the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth but don't forget the points i listed above because there's no historical figure that has one percent of credence like the greatest man who ever lived on this planet: Jesus of Nazareth!

Good to know.

But you didn't say anything about archeological proof to show that Jesus truly existed.

You simply asked me to search it on YouTube.

SHOW ME.

MaxInDHouse:
Please refute what i typed with whatever research you've made. It's not about lengthy epistles but simple and undeniable FACTS!

Let me know when you're done.

Wait a minute.

Is that all @MaxinDhouse??

Is this the UNDENIABLE PROOF I asked for?

Is this the result from your extensive research?