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.

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

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.

GeneralDae:

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

Don't quote me again till you exit earth.

The5DME:

Don't quote me again till you exit earth.

lol

GeneralDae:
lol

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, rather than academic scholarship.

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

‘Passion’ without ‘Knowledge’ = 0

Cheers!

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.

GeneralDae:

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.

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.

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.

GeneralDae:

Bart Erhmann, an atheist anf even a staunch critic of christianity has some lectures on this and many scholars( including atheist scholars) knows that the Christian authors were more interested in borrowing from the old testament than from gentiles sources. 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.

Absolutely! To me Bart Ehrman is the staunchest Atheist New Testament scholar and critic of the inerrancy of the Gospels.

Yet he wouldn’t entertain such childish conspiracy theory. In fact, I think to call such ‘ideas’ conspiracy theory is to make actual conspiracy theories look dumber.

Nnamdi Kanu’s dumb idea that a certain clone (or Jibril) is the President of Nigeria is actual a smarter idea than the garbage spread around by our passionate friends.

GeneralDae:

..Rome didn't create christianity from scratch but Amujale(the op) is not implying that and he is only just arguing for black power (which is good), but he doesn't seem to know...

As for your statement about Rome creating some parts of the doctrines of the present day Religion, I agree this may be true, but it happened at a later time most certainly from the evidence so far.

It's you who's poorly read on history and as such choose to argue pointlessly.

You refuse to take the time to study history for all that it's really worth.

Rome created the Christian doctrine from scratch.

As, the only people who Eurocentric refers to as 'Christian' before the ecumenical councils were in fact not followers of the fictional character Jesus.

They were various Hellenist religions, the most prominent of them being the followers of the church of Serapis.

GeneralDae:


So only one person went against Galatians as an historical document of the first century, and even according to this source you quoted, he had no historical grounds for his opinion.
Even the source you are quoting contradicts your stance.

You obviously have reading issues or your simply content at spouting falsehood.

There's nothing from within the Christian bible that has any bearing on history, that is to say it's all based on fakery and falsehood.

GeneralDae:

Constantine in first century?
Titus was an enemy of the early christian Church.
Vespasian and Titus were emperors.
What made you think I have not studied Roman history?
You are the one bringing up conspiracy theories and assertions here. If Romans want to create a religion to dominate the world, it wouldn't be such a contradictory religon like christianity. Also if the Romans created christianity, why did the Romans persecute them so much up until Constantine in the 4th century.

How can Titus have persecuted the followers of Jesus, when they had yet to invent the Jesus character?

The term 'Christ' predates the Roman manufactured ideology.

That is to say, there was hundreds of characters who was given the title Christ, again, the most prominent of them was Serapis, Serapis Christos as they named their Christ character.

Whoever told you that either hasn't study history or is simply lying.

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.

GeneralDae:

...Constantine in the 4th century.

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.

GeneralDae:

Titus was an enemy of the early christian Church....

And who were these so-called early Christian church?

It most definitely hadn't anything to does with the Jesus character.

As stated earlier, the people that Eurocentric historians refer to as the early Christians were the followers of the Church of Serapis.

Christian historian use that false narratives in an attempt to try and justify the horrific atrocities that this foreign extremist ideology perpetrated on the continent.

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.

The main reason that Eurocentric historians didn't, don't write a correct version of African history is due to "White Sociopathy" or what some people referto as"White Suprenacy".

What is "White Sociopathy"?

A Sociopath are certain individuals who possess a personality disorders, such disorder is said to manifest itself into extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour. i.e engaging in premeditated murder, looting, plunder, brainwashing, colonisation, chattel slavery of another human being.

Therefore, "White Sociopathy" is a mental disorder that may be cured by becoming exposed to truth.

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?

GeneralDae:

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

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.

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.

GeneralDae:


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.

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.

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.

GeneralDae:

This is, no doubt, why his work has suffered from such harsh critique in the scholarly world.

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

GeneralDae:

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.

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.

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]

GeneralDae:

So tell me why you think Ceasar's Messaiah is factual..

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.

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:

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.

GeneralDae:

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]

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.

GeneralDae:

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.

It's you who refuse to study history.

The Jesus character isnt a part of Roman history.

That's the whole point.

The Jesus character was invented, that means to say, that character never existed.

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.

GeneralDae:

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.

Is the Christian bible a true account of history?