4kings:

There are numerous evidence for the existence of Abraham Lincoln, Mr.Man.

I like your points

Let me say something
There is the Bible and there is history behind the Bible. Most of us know the Bible but don't know the history behind it

I was born a Christian (Catholic I don't go there again). I believe there is God
The most powerful figure of our this civilization is Jesus Christ. No one can doubt but there is an issue here how and why did Jesus Christ reach that status and is it possible for a fabricated figure to become that influential in our civilization. My answer is yes and no

N.B let us remember that there is also a debate that Williams Shakespeare never existed.

As a rational human being and a student of history there is a possibility that Jesus Christ might just be a concept to keep people humble and enslaved. My reason

Where was Christ when people were using his name to exploit Africans has he punished the British for what they did.
Has he punished king Leopold d 2nd.
Why is it that when nation remove Christianity/Islam they move forward.
There was nothing new in what Jesus taught we Africans were practising what he said before Christianity came.

Do you know that all the apostles died painful death even some Bible describe how they died at the back page till I don't understand why everything that has to do with Islam and Christianity has to do with pain and death. Upon everything they do for so called peace loving God they all die painful death, why didn't ascend into heaven like their founder.

When most people pray and it happens they feel Christ has answered their prayers. They don't know we all have the power to create our own reality. In fact everylaw in the Bible can be explained by theoretical physics and law of attraction.

I was asked this question in Igbo land where I come from for Jesus to become popular is it that our religion was inefficient or we were forced to accept Jesus. I found out that we were forced to accept Christ ( many black Americans that know history hate Christ). We were forced to accept Christ so we can be their slaves forever that is what most of us on this forum have become

Think of this white people who has never wanted your progress will show you a way to Paradise don't that on its own look fishy

The people that compile the Bible selected books to be included and not to be included that means it is the work of human hands e.g Pope has given order to rewrite our Lord's prayer what does that tell you?


Peter said in Corinthians that Paul teaching is confusing and hard to understand

karlboss:


I like your points

Let me say something
There is the Bible and there is history behind the Bible. Most of us know the Bible but don't know the history behind it

I was born a Christian (Catholic I don't go there again). I believe there is God
The most powerful figure of our this civilization is Jesus Christ. No one can doubt but there is an issue here how and why did Jesus Christ reach that status and is it possible for a fabricated figure to become that influential in our civilization. My answer is yes and no

N.B let us remember that there is also a debate that Williams Shakespeare never existed.

As a rational human being and a student of history there is a possibility that Jesus Christ might just be a concept to keep people humble and enslaved. My reason

Where was Christ when people were using his name to exploit Africans has he punished the British for what they did.
Has he punished king Leopold d 2nd.
Why is it that when nation remove Christianity/Islam they move forward.
There was nothing new in what Jesus taught we Africans were practising what he said before Christianity came.

Do you know that all the apostles died painful death even some Bible describe how they died at the back page till I don't understand why everything that has to do with Islam and Christianity has to do with pain and death. Upon everything they do for so called peace loving God they all die painful death, why didn't ascend into heaven like their founder.

When most people pray and it happens they feel Christ has answered their prayers. They don't know we all have the power to create our own reality. In fact everylaw in the Bible can be explained by theoretical physics and law of attraction.

I was asked this question in Igbo land where I come from for Jesus to become popular is it that our religion was inefficient or we were forced to accept Jesus. I found out that we were forced to accept Christ ( many black Americans that know history hate Christ). We were forced to accept Christ so we can be their slaves forever that is what most of us on this forum have become

Think of this white people who has never wanted your progress will show you a way to Paradise don't that on its own look fishy

The people that compile the Bible selected books to be included and not to be included that means it is the work of human hands e.g Pope has given order to rewrite our Lord's prayer what does that tell you?


Peter said in Corinthians that Paul teaching is confusing and hard to understand

Nice points.
Though Shakespeare existed and he was buried in a church in England but the writings attributed to him are contended by some.

4kings:

If you don't understand how those questions counters the video then i won't bother debating with you.

Bros, most history scholars and experts agree on the existence of Jesus of Christ here on earth. But obviously, you and the OP are in the insignificant minority, and I am yet to see any sufficient evidence (not questions o, but evidence) to counter the fact that Jesus once lived on earth.

A reputable historian called Josephus Flavius made references to the existence of Jesus...mind you, Josephus made this reference in a book he wrote and called "the Antiquities of the Jews" which was written around 93-94 AD. And most historians...Christians/Non-Christian historians rely on the authenticity of Josephus' records...

The burden of proof is now left on you and the OP to prove a reputable historian in Josephus wrong on the accounts of forgery...and also, prove to us that leading history experts and scholars around the world are fools to believe that Jesus once lived on earth.

I would put references outside of the Bible that points to the existence of Jesus here on earth thus, proving He once lived and died and ressurected on this earth.

I hope 10,000 years from today, someone won't erroneously conclude you never even existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Sources
Main article: Sources for the historicity of Jesus

Judea Province during the 1st century
All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death. The Christian Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus. Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events that are mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

Non-Christian sources which are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels, and are usually independent of each other; for example, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that, while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery. Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1, and only a small number of scholars dispute it. There are three references to the name 'Jesus' in Book 20, Chapter 9: "Jesus, who was called Christ" (i.e. ' Messiah'); "Jesus, son of Damneus", a Jewish High Priest (both in Paragraph 1); and "Jesus, son of Gamaliel", another Jewish High Priest (in Paragraph 4).


The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (written ca. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44., describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He says that their founder was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus), that he was executed under Pontius Pilate, and that the movement of his followers, initially checked, then broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself. Some scholars question the historical value of the passage on various grounds.



Historian Michael Grant wrote that:

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

Op - What one believes or not is between one and God Himself, as He is the only Judge. However, if one doesn't believe the Lord Jesus came to earth and/or exists perpetually... as he always has being the "everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6), Who reigns forever (Luke 1:32-34, Revelation 11:15)... then one cannot believe in Him. If one cannot or does not believe in Him... therein lies a predicament, a problem for the unbeliever.

-----
"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” - John 3:36

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” - Acts 4:12

Remember that... "The Lord is near to those who have a broken heart, And saves such as have a contrite spirit." - Psalm 34:18

For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" - Romans 10:13


Peace!

There are gazillions of evidence for Jesus too.

4kings:

There are numerous evidence for the existence of Abraham Lincoln, Mr.Man.

OkaiCorne:


Bros, most history scholars and experts agree on the existence of Jesus of Christ here on earth. But obviously, you and the OP are in the insignificant minority, and I am yet to see any sufficient evidence (not questions o, but evidence) to counter the fact that Jesus once lived on earth.

A reputable historian called Josephus Flavius made references to the existence of Jesus...mind you, Josephus made this reference in a book he wrote and called "the Antiquities of the Jews" which was written around 93-94 AD. And most historians...Christians/Non-Christian historians rely on the authenticity of Josephus' records...

The burden of proof is now left on you and the OP to prove a reputable historian in Josephus wrong on the accounts of forgery...and also, prove to us that leading history experts and scholars around the world are fools to believe that Jesus once lived on earth.

I would put references outside of the Bible that points to the existence of Jesus here on earth thus, proving He once lived and died and ressurected on this earth.

I hope 10,000 years from today, someone won't erroneously conclude you never even existed.

Bros, this your argument has been dealt with in the past.

You can go through my discussion in this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/3267097/athiest-view-arguement-against-christianity/1#48188935
Or this by sarassin https://www.nairaland.com/3775468/what-value-josephus-writings/1#56209262

4kings:

Bros, this your argument has been dealt with in the past.

You can go through my discussion in this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/3267097/athiest-view-arguement-against-christianity/1#48188935
Or this by sarassin https://www.nairaland.com/3775468/what-value-josephus-writings/1#56209262

I have gone through them.

That still doesn't erase the fact that most historian experts attest to the validity and authenticity of Josephus and Tacitus' work.


All I see are people's opinion in that thread with zero reference to any source. I am yet to see tangible evidence or sources disproving Josephus and Tacitus' historical work on the existence of Jesus Christ.


1.) Do you have sufficient evidence to prove that their work is fraudulent or tampered with?
2.) If Jesus never existed, for what reasons did the Apostles and the early church martyrs die for? to a protect a lie even under slow agonizing torture and eventual death?
3.) Christians that were fed to lions or crucified for their belief in Jesus...they were all deceived into believing Jesus existed abi?
4.) Perhaps...even the wise men or the Bethlehem star was also false evidence of Jesus' birth too abi? Do you know there are softwares available to help simulate the state of stars and heavenly bodies 2000 years ago to prove or disprove this?


Arguing that Jesus never existed just doesn't add up.

I don't want hearsay or opinion, I want raw evidence.

Asides these ones, there are many other evidences on the internet, in Israel and even as far as Nepal...

It'll be fun seeing how you will counter each of them with your research and facts...if they are unbiased anyways...

4kings:

Bros, this your argument has been dealt with in the past.

You can go through my discussion in this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/3267097/athiest-view-arguement-against-christianity/1#48188935
Or this by sarassin https://www.nairaland.com/3775468/what-value-josephus-writings/1#56209262

Take out time to watch this National Geographic documentary.

This should address your concerns on how Jesus' blood was sourced for testing. And the result of the DNA test.

Afterall, National Geographic channel should be somewhat reliable with scientific findings.

If you are patient enough, that's a 45 minutes video with historical and archaeological evidences you can relate to

The Blood of Christ and the Phaistos Disc

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/videos/the-blood-of-christ/

cheers

OkaiCorne:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Sources
Main article: Sources for the historicity of Jesus

Judea Province during the 1st century
All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death. The Christian Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus. Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events that are mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

Non-Christian sources which are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels, and are usually independent of each other; for example, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that, while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery. Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1, and only a small number of scholars dispute it. There are three references to the name 'Jesus' in Book 20, Chapter 9: "Jesus, who was called Christ" (i.e. ' Messiah'); "Jesus, son of Damneus", a Jewish High Priest (both in Paragraph 1); and "Jesus, son of Gamaliel", another Jewish High Priest (in Paragraph 4).


The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (written ca. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44., describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He says that their founder was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus), that he was executed under Pontius Pilate, and that the movement of his followers, initially checked, then broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself. Some scholars question the historical value of the passage on various grounds.



Historian Michael Grant wrote that:

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

Although I am not Christian I believe and accept that Jesus lived, that is to say that a first century Jewish itinerant apocalyptic preacher of that name whose ministry came to eventually supersede that of John the Baptist lived and died. Those who do not accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth also have a point because, in historical terms it is increasingly clear that the Jesus that lived bears only the vaguest and most passing resemblance to the Jesus depicted in the gospel writings.

The problem with quoting Josephus as an impeccable source is the fact that we do not have Josephus’ original writings. All his works were re-copied by Christian trans-scribers, in fact early church authorities at the likely instigation of Eusebius went from house to house, particularly of the elites, retrieving copies of the original works of Josephus and confiscating them, therefore the argument over the Testimonium Flavianum is rather superfluous, there is nothing to offer in comparison. None of the other historical sources you quote offer a standalone confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, you have to dig deeper.

OkaiCorne:


Take out time to watch this National Geographic documentary.

This should address your concerns on how Jesus' blood was sourced for testing. And the result of the DNA test.

Afterall, National Geographic channel should be somewhat reliable with scientific findings.

If you are patient enough, that's a 45 minutes video with historical and archaeological evidences you can relate to

The Blood of Christ and the Phaistos Disc

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/videos/the-blood-of-christ/

cheers

Sarassin has addressed your evidence issue.
As per your documentary, the Turin Shroud is fake, it's not even blood.

Sarassin:


Although I am not Christian I believe and accept that Jesus lived, that is to say that a first century Jewish itinerant apocalyptic preacher of that name whose ministry came to eventually supersede that of John the Baptist lived and died. Those who do not accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth also have a point because, in historical terms it is increasingly clear that the Jesus that lived bears only the vaguest and most passing resemblance to the Jesus depicted in the gospel writings.

The problem with quoting Josephus as an impeccable source is the fact that we do not have Josephus’ original writings. All his works were re-copied by Christian trans-scribers, in fact early church authorities at the likely instigation of Eusebius went from house to house, particularly of the elites, retrieving copies of the original works of Josephus and confiscating them, therefore the argument over the Testimonium Flavianum is rather superfluous, there is nothing to offer in comparison. None of the other historical sources you quote offer a standalone confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, you have to dig deeper.

Hmm, what's your view on the esoteric interpetations of who jesus is/was and the miracles he perfomed?

4kings:

Sarassin has addressed your evidence issue.
As per your documentary, the Turin Shroud is fake, it's not even blood.

So you are implying National Geographic channel is a channel of liars...

it's nice seeing you debunk the very science you believe in, even if experts gives you evidence.

Don't worry, we are just getting started. I'll love to see you debunk a lot of evidences one by one...

The body of Science cannot even conclude unanimously on this matter... too bad...

That makes it four liars you have spotted today abi? first video na lie...even NatGeo a globally reputable channel they are lying too abi...lol

That's not even enough...even the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus are fraudulent too abi? Lmao

More items coming up for you to "debunk"...

Sarassin:


Although I am not Christian I believe and accept that Jesus lived, that is to say that a first century Jewish itinerant apocalyptic preacher of that name whose ministry came to eventually supersede that of John the Baptist lived and died. Those who do not accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth also have a point because, in historical terms it is increasingly clear that the Jesus that lived bears only the vaguest and most passing resemblance to the Jesus depicted in the gospel writings.

The problem with quoting Josephus as an impeccable source is the fact that we do not have Josephus’ original writings. All his works were re-copied by Christian trans-scribers, in fact early church authorities at the likely instigation of Eusebius went from house to house, particularly of the elites, retrieving copies of the original works of Josephus and confiscating them, therefore the argument over the Testimonium Flavianum is rather superfluous, there is nothing to offer in comparison. None of the other historical sources you quote offer a standalone confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, you have to dig deeper.

4kings:

Sarassin has addressed your evidence issue.
As per your documentary, the Turin Shroud is fake, it's not even blood.

Slowly read Sarassin's comments again...he believes Jesus once lived on earth...but please let us know where you stand.

Did Jesus live on earth? Yes or No

Sarassin:


Although I am not Christian I believe and accept that Jesus lived, that is to say that a first century Jewish itinerant apocalyptic preacher of that name whose ministry came to eventually supersede that of John the Baptist lived and died. Those who do not accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth also have a point because, in historical terms it is increasingly clear that the Jesus that lived bears only the vaguest and most passing resemblance to the Jesus depicted in the gospel writings.

The problem with quoting Josephus as an impeccable source is the fact that we do not have Josephus’ original writings. All his works were re-copied by Christian trans-scribers, in fact early church authorities at the likely instigation of Eusebius went from house to house, particularly of the elites, retrieving copies of the original works of Josephus and confiscating them, therefore the argument over the Testimonium Flavianum is rather superfluous, there is nothing to offer in comparison. None of the other historical sources you quote offer a standalone confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, you have to dig deeper.

A few questions for you...even the Bible was translated by several scribes into various languages...yes there might have been errors here and there...but do you think these errors were so critical that it twisted the core message passed across?

Does this mean that the Bible is completely useless? The Christian trans-scribers that worked on Josephus' original writing, are you implying they tampered with the original documents to suit their selfish or hidden agenda? if so, what of another independent roman source in Tacitus? was his work on Jesus tampered with too?

hopefulLandlord:

If you are a Christian, of course, the existence of Christ is a matter of faith but should non-Christians believe in Jesus so readily? Here are my top 9 reasons to claim that Jesus never existed.

If a non Christian believes in Jesus , he’s automatically Christianized

[quote author=4kings post=64613379]
Sarassin has addressed your evidence issue.
As per your documentary, the Turin Shroud is fake, it's not even blood.

[/quote

so 100% of the documentary was about the shroud of Turin...and nothing more abi? very interesting

OkaiCorne:






Slowly read Sarassin's comments again...he believes Jesus once lived on earth...but please let us know where you stand.

Did Jesus live on earth? Yes or No

I mentioned the Ebionites in this thread.
And i also said to Omudia11 in the last page that; Jesus was a gnostic concept that got twisted along the line in history.

That has always been my stance.

OkaiCorne:
so 100% of the documentary was about the shroud of Turin...and nothing more abi? very interesting

What relevant point did you get from the documentary?

OkaiCorne:


So you are implying National Geographic channel is a channel of liars...

it's nice seeing you debunk the very science you believe in, even if experts gives you evidence.

Before you talk crap, can you explain the "science" you're referring to.
I told you this documentary was done by the popular Ryon Wyatt, why not go and read about his other discoveries and how there were welcomed in the scientific world.

4kings:

I mentioned the Ebionites in this thread.
And i also said to Omudia11 in the last page that; Jesus was a gnostic concept that got twisted along the line in history.

That has always been my stance.

Kindly share your evidence for analysis.

Bhudda existed...no problem

Muhammed existed ... no problem

Moses existed ... no problem

Jesus existed ... big problem! He's a gnostic concept...

If I may ask you, what would motivate a rational human being (i.e. the Apostles and early Christian martyrs) to suffer slow and agonizing death all in a bid to defend a lie?

4kings:

Before you talk crap, can you explain the "science" you're referring to.
I told you this documentary was done by the popular Ryon Wyatt, why not go and read about his other discoveries and how there were welcomed in the scientific world.

Bros, before you talk "crap" bear in mind that I've read all sorts of jargons trying to attack one simple consistent story about a man who lived on earth and is still a hot cake in the news 2,000 years after...

I've heard all sorts of crap like;

> He never died, he escaped from the tomb to live out His life in either France or Egypt...infact, the latest crap I heard was that He (Jesus) fled to Japan...

> Some other people said, He didn't die on the cross, rather Judas was switched in His place while He ascended into Heaven...

> I even heard that His tomb was discovered in France...another one I heard was India, then today...I heard of Japan...

> Now I'm adding yours to the list...that He never even existed, that He's a gnostic concept...

Which of these lies and errors and conspiracy theories even makes sense

Bros, majority of history experts and scholars and even archaeologists have sufficient proof for the existence of this man...DNA tests were performed on the blood samples of John the Baptist and Jesus...

But as I thought...that of Jesus must always be a big deal...hence the denial...

I understand bro

4kings:

Hmm, what's your view on the esoteric interpetations of who jesus is/was and the miracles he perfomed?

I think it is fairly clear that at the outset, the doctrinal message of Jesus was gnostic in nature, the gospel of Mark is gnostic in outlook, the Hebrew Matthew is also highly gnostic, if we look further afield to the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas with the reputed sayings of Jesus, it is exceedingly gnostic, esoterica closely follows gnostic beliefs. Virtually all extant early Christian writings that have been discovered to date and dated prior to the 4th century, with the exception of the later gospels, i.e Matthew, Luke and John are gnostic in nature. Therefore it is not far-fetched to say that the central doctrinal themes of Jesus’ message was gnostic in nature.

With respect to Miracles, we have it on Roman authority that Jesus was believed to be a miracle worker, that in itself is no big issue, Jesus had been accused of practising sorcery, there is a long tradition of Palestinian miracle workers, for instance, the likes of Honi, the circle drawer who lived around 63BCE who brought rain down on the spot by entreating Yahweh, there was also the likes of Apollonius of Tyanna some of whose miraculous works it seems later came to be attributed to Jesus, it was de-rigeur that the messiah had to be a miracle worker.

In my view Jesus performed certain miracles, (particularly healing) but a lot of the miracles ascribed to him in the gospels are simply demonstrably untrue or are attributed to him in a bid to further certain doctrinal aspects of orthodoxy.

4kings:

Sarassin has addressed your evidence issue.
As per your documentary, the Turin Shroud is fake, it's not even blood.

I doubt if you understood the documentary you watched. How can the shroud called "The Sudarium" resident in Oviedo, Spain translate automatically into the shroud of Turin which is resident in another different country (Italy I presume)?

By the way, the Sudarium is the core of what the documentary is about...although oil and wax stains on the shroud would adversely affect carbon testing results of such material.

That notwithstanding...alternative tests were performed on the Sudarium to prove it was indeed a burial cloth used to wrap the face of Jesus...and DNA tests were performed on the blood samples...AND TEST RESULTS FROM SCIENCE EXPERTS SHOWS THAT THE BLOOD SAMPLES HAS NO EARTHLY FATHER SOURCE

OkaiCorne:



A few questions for you...even the Bible was translated by several scribes into various languages...yes there might have been errors here and there...but do you think these errors were so critical that it twisted the core message passed across?

Does this mean that the Bible is completely useless? The Christian trans-scribers that worked on Josephus' original writing, are you implying they tampered with the original documents to suit their selfish or hidden agenda? if so, what of another independent roman source in Tacitus? was his work on Jesus tampered with too?

But we are not discussing errors in the bible due to translations, I am referring specifically to the issue of Josephus’ works being rewritten by Christian scribes, not translated. Early church fathers were unaware of the insertion of the Testimonium Flavianum in the copies they had, else they would have made mention of it in furtherance of their doctrinal agenda. My point is, if the mention was there in the first place, then why bother with the re-write?

Tacitus’ mention just like that of Josephus is anecdotal, he wrote in the year 116CE and was not a witness to events.

As I stated earlier my point is not that Jesus did not live, but that the evidence commonly accepted is simply not conclusive and that it is by design and not by accident.

4kings:

Sarassin has addressed your evidence issue.
As per your documentary, the Turin Shroud is fake, it's not even blood.

I've gone through the link, also check this out;

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4036930/jesus-face-turin-shroud-torture-blood-st-john-the-baptist-cathedral/

Apparently, the link you gave me shows nothing but criticism with insufficient evidence to counter this...

Elvio added that the research marked the first study of "the nanoscale properties of a pristine fibre taken from the Turin Shroud".

The research was carried out by the Instituo Officia dei Materiali in Trieste and the Institute of Crystallography in Bari, both under Italy's National Research Council, as well as the University of Padua's Department of Industrial Engineering.

I need facts, and not blind criticism. By the way, I am not even defending the validity of the shroud of Turin...as it's not something I've done an indepth research on.

Rather, what I find irritating is the baseless reply of the author in the link you gave me, who cannot even counter the findings of the research work done on the shroud of Turin with his own tests...just noise and noise and noise. He cannot sponsor a research team in a well known University to counter the findings made at Instituo Officia dei Materiali and the other institutes I earlier mentioned...

Noise, noise, noise...

Sarassin:


But we are not discussing errors in the bible due to translations, I am referring specifically to the issue of Josephus’ works being rewritten by Christian scribes, not translated. Early church fathers were unaware of the insertion of the Testimonium Flavianum in the copies they had, else they would have made mention of it in furtherance of their doctrinal agenda. My point is, if the mention was there in the first place, then why bother with the re-write?

Tacitus’ mention just like that of Josephus is anecdotal, he wrote in the year 116CE and was not a witness to events.

As I stated earlier my point is not that Jesus did not live, but that the evidence commonly accepted is simply not conclusive and that it is by design and not by accident.

The truth about the past is can be obtained by the sketchy evidences of today...

By the way, if I might ask...what makes the gospel of Hebrew-Matthew and Mark gnostic gospels?

On your view about Josephus' works on Jesus being anecdotal...bear in mind that the Jews had a very strong oral tradition which accurately passed down the details of the Torah for thousands of years...therefore, the exploits of Jesus even years after His death and resurrection was common news in Judea and Israel generally...before these were documented into papyrus and other writing materials...

The average Jew had a strong retentive memory and attention to details, thanks to the gruesome act of reading and memorizing stuffs while growing up...unlike our generation that has comparatively weaker memories since everything is now externalized in e-books and disk drives and all other forms of external memory.

Sarassin:


But we are not discussing errors in the bible due to translations, I am referring specifically to the issue of Josephus’ works being rewritten by Christian scribes, not translated. Early church fathers were unaware of the insertion of the Testimonium Flavianum in the copies they had, else they would have made mention of it in furtherance of their doctrinal agenda. My point is, if the mention was there in the first place, then why bother with the re-write?

Tacitus’ mention just like that of Josephus is anecdotal, he wrote in the year 116CE and was not a witness to events.

As I stated earlier my point is not that Jesus did not live, but that the evidence commonly accepted is simply not conclusive and that it is by design and not by accident.

Do you have evidence to show that the original works of Josephus were re-written by Christian scribes.

Do you have at least three instances where different people at that point in time compared the original works of Josephus to the re-written one and as a result, exposed the Fraud?

OkaiCorne:


The truth about the past is can be obtained by the sketchy evidences of today...

By the way, if I might ask...what makes the gospel of Hebrew-Matthew and Mark gnostic gospels?

I will deal with the gospel of Mark, no doubt you are aware that this was the first gospel to be penned and that the two other synoptic writers drew their inspiration mostly from the gospel of Mark and partly from the as yet undetermined “Q” source.
In the first instance neither the author of the Gospel of Mark nor its readers believe in the virgin birth. We know this because it completely omits the nativity. That very omission lays the grounds for the gnostic nature of the book, its earliest believers held that it was at the presentation of Jesus before John the Baptist at the banks of the Jordan that the spirit of Christ descends on Jesus, in fact Irenaeus of Lyon tells us that early gnostics believed that this spirit departed the body of Jesus prior to his crucifixion and transmigrated into the body of his cross bearer Simon the Cyrene.

Gnostic Christians held that Jesus came to reveal “Gnosis” or knowledge and that this is borne out in the following verse Mark 4: 10-11 where he reveals “secret knowledge” to his inner circle and to those at large he addresses in parables.
In Mark 1:23-24, we see that Demons recognise Jesus, the theology behind that statement is hugely gnostic but beyond the scope of our discussion here so I will not go into it.

In Mark 15:34 Jesus cries out “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me..” it is of course a cry of anguish for the departing spirit of the Christ, a very Gnostic concept indeed.

OkaiCorne:

On your view about Josephus' works on Jesus being anecdotal...bear in mind that the Jews had a very strong oral tradition which accurately passed down the details of the Torah for thousands of years...therefore, the exploits of Jesus even years after His death and resurrection was common news in Judea and Israel generally...before these were documented into papyrus and other writing materials...

Oral tradition does not translate into historical facts. It is subject to redaction, obfuscation, embroidery and bombast.

OkaiCorne:

The average Jew had a strong retentive memory and attention to details, thanks to the gruesome act of reading and memorizing stuffs while growing up...unlike our generation that has comparatively weaker memories since everything is now externalized in e-books and disk drives and all other forms of external memory.

The less said about this, the better.

OkaiCorne:


Do you have evidence to show that the original works of Josephus were re-written by Christian scribes.

Do you have at least three instances where different people at that point in time compared the original works of Josephus to the re-written one and as a result, exposed the Fraud?

Na wa ooo, i don't think Sarassin should reply this post since you can't even digest the simple explanations he has given.

OkaiCorne:


Kindly share your evidence for analysis.

Bhudda existed...no problem

Muhammed existed ... no problem

Moses existed ... no problem

Jesus existed ... big problem! He's a gnostic concept...

Gnosticism existed during that period, most of the Ebionites i mentioned were Gnostics.
Gnostic interpretations of some parts of the old testaments were also known then.

I don't know if Buddha truly existed, but he does not have a concept of hell waiting for me if i don't believe.
Obviously Mohammed existed, records speak well of this.
And Moses most likely never existed.

If I may ask you, what would motivate a rational human being (i.e. the Apostles and early Christian martyrs) to suffer slow and agonizing death all in a bid to defend a lie?

What's the evidence of the Apostles martydom? lol

OkaiCorne:


I've gone through the link, also check this out;

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4036930/jesus-face-turin-shroud-torture-blood-st-john-the-baptist-cathedral/

Apparently, the link you gave me shows nothing but criticism with insufficient evidence to counter this...

Elvio added that the research marked the first study of "the nanoscale properties of a pristine fibre taken from the Turin Shroud".

The research was carried out by the Instituo Officia dei Materiali in Trieste and the Institute of Crystallography in Bari, both under Italy's National Research Council, as well as the University of Padua's Department of Industrial Engineering.

I need facts, and not blind criticism. By the way, I am not even defending the validity of the shroud of Turin...as it's not something I've done an indepth research on.

Rather, what I find irritating is the baseless reply of the author in the link you gave me, who cannot even counter the findings of the research work done on the shroud of Turin with his own tests...just noise and noise and noise. He cannot sponsor a research team in a well known University to counter the findings made at Instituo Officia dei Materiali and the other institutes I earlier mentioned...

Noise, noise, noise...

Wow.
What's the scientific dating for this shroud?
Guess what around the 14th century.

When was this shroud found?
Guess; around the 14th century.

Was this shroud know before the 14th century?
Can you guess, Big NO.

How the fu{k did it get to france?

Was it originally accepted by the pope and catholic bishops? No

Has any credible scientist found evidence of blood? No, only a set of scientists handpicked by the catholics.

Isn't contamination meant to affect this research? No answer.

Saying research conducted on this "blood" does not reveal human attributes makes it, and making it assertion from this that Jesus did not have a human father is dumb. If it's not normal then it's not freaking blood.

Have there been scientific research showing evidence of paint? Yes.

According to the bible and jewish history jesus was wrapped with linen strips(Jn 19:40 and Lk 24:12), the shroud of turing does not match this description.

Is this research widely accepted in the scientific community? Hell NO.