₦airaland Forum

Sarassin:
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.

What of the possibility that "Jesus" was an esoteric symbol used by the Pneumatics to refer to Gnosis or Consciousness?
And what's your basis for judging "Jesus" miracles as true or untrue?

OkaiCorne:
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?

This makes no sense, yes people won't die for what they know to be "a lie" but history is littered with several instances of people suffering and/or dying for beliefs which turned out to be false, deceptive, poorly understood etc

examples are the jihadists but maybe that's a low hanging fruit or is overused so let's use other examples of people dying for what we now know to be a lie

German soldiers suffered and died during World War 2 because of the belief that they were the "master race" and its right to conquer other (inferior race) nations for more lands

39 members of heavensgate committed suicide thinking a comet would take them to their holy bliss in 1997

76 humans died in Texas cuz they believed that David Koresh was a true prophet of god

over 900 people killed themselves because they believed Jim Jones

The Japanese committed suicide rather than be captured cuz they believed they'll be tortured heavily by the Americans

amongst many other instances of people dying for what we know are lies, people kill themselves everyday for what they "know its true" even though its totally not true

hopefulLandlord:

Go read this books 'The Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by George MacDowel. And History and Christianity by John WarWick Montgomery. When you are done, come lets have this ducussion. Lets not just talk for talking sake. It's a new year.

sonmvayina:
The jewish religion or judaism started taking shape after their return from exile in babylon. prior to that time, they worshiped so many Gods and Goddess..it was after they left babylon that Ezra was commanded to write the law..He got his informations from babylon on the God of Cyrus(Marduk), Issaih was also at that time trying to make them understand that Marduk was the creater of all and it is God above all other( Issaih 45)..the jew did not believe him..the jews believe there was many Gods and Goddesses..and these have their cult groups..one of such cult was that of Inana and his belivered Dimuzi. she is also Aphrodite in the greeks religion and venus in the roman. one..she is the goddess of love and beauty..it is this cult that metamophosed to christainity where Inana was given the name of Mary..she is also Lucifer and the LovePeddler of babylon in Issaih 47 and the book of revelation..it has always been about her..there was no Jesus in the equation...that was an after thought..it was about the light within..it was much later the catholic church decided to make it a story about a man at the council of Florence in the 6Th century..the story is not a jewish one cos the messiah the jews are waiting for is a mortal man not a demi god....

Wrong.

4kings:
Na wa ooo, i don't think Sarassin should reply this post since you can't even digest the simple explanations he has given.

I have my reasons for asking, if you don't have any sufficient evidence to give in response to this post, just pretend you didn't see it.

I am not asking for explanations...I am asking for hard core evidence. Anybody can always explain away anything...but without sufficient evidence, it's all chaff...

Thanks

hopefulLandlord:
This makes no sense, yes people won't die for what they know to be "a lie" but history is littered with several instances of people suffering and/or dying for beliefs which turned out to be false, deceptive, poorly understood etc

examples are the jihadists but maybe that's a low hanging fruit or is overused so let's use other examples of people dying for what we now know to be a lie

German soldiers suffered and died during World War 2 because of the belief that they were the "master race" and its right to conquer other (inferior race) nations for more lands

39 members of heavensgate committed suicide thinking a comet would take them to their holy bliss in 1997

76 humans died in Texas cuz they believed that David Koresh was a true prophet of god

over 900 people killed themselves because they believed Jim Jones

The Japanese committed suicide rather than be captured cuz they believed they'll be tortured heavily by the Americans

amongst many other instances of people dying for what we know are lies, people kill themselves everyday for what they "know its true" even though its totally not true

You have given good examples of people dying for a lie...but what makes you think the early Christians were part of this?

They were persecuted all around the world in ancient times for believing a lie?

The instances you gave in your post is replete with suicide...but I was asking for what makes a rational human being not to recant his or her belief in Christ if indeed the existence of Jesus is a lie.

4kings:
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.


What's the evidence of the Apostles martydom? lol

You really asked for evidence of the Apostles martyrdom? Even when history is replete with the sadistic and senseless brutality of Roman Emperors like Nero who finished off Peter and Paul...and many other Christians especially after the great fire that consumed most parts of Rome?


Have you heard of the catacombs in Israel? Filled with the bones of martyred saints?

Do you want more experts' evidence including that of NatGeo which you'll still claim is a lie?

By the way, you have not mentioned much about the previous NatGeo documentary which has nothing to do with the shroud of Turin you talked of....

Lol.. you said Moses most likely never existed despite Egyptian and Ethiopian historic evidence pointing to the contrary...

Do you believe the garden of Eden also once existed?

4kings:
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.

Read my response slowly... I'm not defending the validity of the Turin shroud

Rather, give me another link with evidence and carbon dating test results that proves it is fake.

The one you gave earlier was just criticism of a man who has no results of his to prove its fake...

Give me references with results lemme learn further...

Sarassin:
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.



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


The less said about this, the better.

If Oral traditions doesn't translate into historical facts then I guess the Torah and the Talmud are full of errors and lies too...

Did you know that oral traditions about the recently discovered lost City of Atlantis was in circulation several thousands of years ago despite it being thought that the city of Atlantis was a fairy tale until Science discovered Atlantis under the Ocean?

OkaiCorne:
You have given good examples of people dying for a lie...but what makes you think the early Christians were part of this?

They were persecuted all around the world in ancient times for believing a lie?

The instances you gave in your post is replete with suicide...but I was asking for what makes a rational human being not to recant his or her belief in Christ if indeed the existence of Jesus is a lie.

I think you're muddling things up to fit your conclusion without seeing my point, suicide or not is beside the point

the point is Martyrdom is an expression of conviction, NOT truth.

Dying for something doesn't mean that thing is true, it simply means one believed/is convinced that thing to be true so much that one thinks its worth dying for

hopefulLandlord:
I think you're muddling things up to fit your conclusion without seeing my point, suicide or not is beside the point

the point is Martyrdom is an expression of conviction, NOT truth.

Dying for something doesn't mean that thing is true, it simply means one believed/is convinced that thing to be true so much that one thinks its worth dying for

Then what makes you think a rational human being would be convinced to die a slow and painful death instead of recanting what could be a lie?

The lie must be a perfectly good one at that too isn't it?

Let me ask you...was the existence of Jesus a lie?

hopefulLandlord:
I think you're muddling things up to fit your conclusion without seeing my point, suicide or not is beside the point

the point is Martyrdom is an expression of conviction, NOT truth.

Dying for something doesn't mean that thing is true, it simply means one believed/is convinced that thing to be true so much that one thinks its worth dying for

Sarassin and hopefulLandlord...please go through this NatGeo documentary and tell me what you think.

Afterall, these are science experts who carried out the tests. And please don't conclude it's the shroud of turin like someone earlier did, when obviously the documentary has nothing to do with the shroud of turin;

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

OkaiCorne:
Then what makes you think a rational human being would be convinced to die a slow and painful death instead of recanting what could be a lie?

The lie must be a perfectly good one at that too isn't it?

Let me ask you...was the existence of Jesus a lie?

I'll repeat the point I made previously "Martyrdom is an expression of conviction, NOT truth."

Yes, a rational human being can be convinced enough to die a slow agonising painful death instead of recanting "what could be a lie", people obviously suffer and die for islam and Christianity everyday, one or both is a lie so they're suffering and dying for what could be a lie; heck, spies are known to suffer and die slow agonising painful deaths while defiantly maintaining their cover that they're not spies; they could've been saved if they simply told the truth but they refused and kept up the ruse through the suffering and their eventual death

Many religions have stories of their martyrs dying such deaths in their history too, google is your friend (Many Jews suffered excruciating pain and died rather than recant Judaism during world war); and I do find it dishonest how you shifted from "a lie" to "what could be a lie" although it doesn't make your point any stronger

hopefulLandlord:
I'll repeat the point I made previously "Martyrdom is an expression of conviction, NOT truth."

Yes, a rational human being can be convinced enough to die a slow agonising painful death instead of recanting "what could be a lie", people obviously suffer and die for islam and Christianity everyday, one or both is a lie so they're suffering and dying for what could be a lie; heck, spies are known to suffer and die slow agonising painful deaths while defiantly maintaining their cover that they're not spies; they could've been saved if they simply told the truth but they refused and kept up the ruse through the suffering and their eventual death

Many religions have stories of their martyrs dying such deaths in their history too, google is your friend (Many Jews suffered excruciating pain and died rather than recant Judaism); and I do find it dishonest how you shifted from "a lie" to "what could be a lie" although it doesn't make your point any stronger

Please watch the NatGeo documentary and let me know what you think. No need to play around with words and meanings.

Did Jesus once live on earth? Yes or No...that's the point of this thread, so we don't derail.

There are scientific evidences and DNA blood test results in that documentary.

I would be awaiting your response after you have watched the documentary...roughly 28 minutes on the Jesus part.

Cheers...

hopefulLandlord:
I'll repeat the point I made previously "Martyrdom is an expression of conviction, NOT truth."

Yes, a rational human being can be convinced enough to die a slow agonising painful death instead of recanting "what could be a lie", people obviously suffer and die for islam and Christianity everyday, one or both is a lie so they're suffering and dying for what could be a lie; heck, spies are known to suffer and die slow agonising painful deaths while defiantly maintaining their cover that they're not spies; they could've been saved if they simply told the truth but they refused and kept up the ruse through the suffering and their eventual death

Many religions have stories of their martyrs dying such deaths in their history too, google is your friend (Many Jews suffered excruciating pain and died rather than recant Judaism during world war); and I do find it dishonest how you shifted from "a lie" to "what could be a lie" although it doesn't make your point any stronger

The next thing you should ask yourself is if these martyrs died for something true or not.

I am still waiting for your response on the NatGeo documentary.

OkaiCorne:
The next thing you should ask yourself is if these martyrs died for something true or not.

Which is exactly my point, you seem to be agreeing with me on a deeper level while appearing to disagree with me on a superficial level; people dying for a belief lends no credibility to their belief being true or not as history is littered with people dying for contradictory beliefs, in the same vein people recanting a belief won't make the belief false

martyrdom has everything to do with the believer and nothing to about the belief
also if you do look at the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc), it promises something more than this life so its no surprise people are willing to die for them, infact I'll be surprised if people aren't dying for them

I am still waiting for your response on the NatGeo documentary.

actually I cut in to address the part of your post about "dying for a lie", I stayed silent previously cuz I feel Sarassin, 4kings and you have agreed on some basis through this discussion which I don't agree with but I don't want to drag discussion back which might derail the discussion going on

I will watch the video though but hold my opinion on it as I'm enjoying the "threeway" going on for now

hopefulLandlord:
Which is exactly my point, you seem to be agreeing with me on a deeper level while appearing to disagree with me on a superficial level; people dying for a belief lends no credibility to their belief being true or not as history is littered with people dying for contradictory beliefs, in the same vein people recanting a belief won't make the belief false

martyrdom has everything to do with the believer and nothing to about the belief
also if you do look at the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc), it promises something more than this life so its no surprise people are willing to die for them, infact I'll be surprised if people aren't dying for them


actually I cut in to address the part of your post about "dying for a lie", I stayed silent previously cuz I feel Sarassin, 4kings and you have agreed on some basis through this discussion which I don't agree with but I don't want to drag discussion back which might derail the discussion going on

I will watch the video though but hold my opinion on it as I'm enjoying the "threeway" going on for now

Per the bolded...I doubt if it's just about the promise of a blissful afterlife...even tangible and critical matters of this current life lends credence to the validity or otherwise of a belief...

It's like being tortured for believing the sun will rise up in the sky tomorrow morning...

Even Socrates and Galileo (I think) were persecuted for what they believed in, of which the passage of time eventually proved to be true...however, these men were living ahead of their time in a dark age full of ignorance and errors and were persecuted for what was proven to be right with the passage of time...

OkaiCorne:
Per the bolded...I doubt if it's just about the promise of a blissful afterlife...even tangible and critical matters of this current life lends credence to the validity or otherwise of a belief...

Well, the part of my post you are holding unto isn't my main point though, its simply a side note, an addition to another point

It's like being tortured for believing the sun will rise up in the sky tomorrow morning...

To the radical Islamist, its like torturing them for such a belief, your point is?

it seems you still don't see how week this argument of yours is

Even Socrates and Galileo (I think) were persecuted for what they believed in, of which the passage of time eventually proved to be true...however, these men were living ahead of their time in a dark age full of ignorance and errors...

So? you're saying with passage of time all beliefs would become true or what? cuz last I checked (almost) all beliefs have their martyr stories; are you saying the Islamic suicide bombers might be proven true sometime in the future cuz they're ahead of their time?

you seem to be looking at your argument through the Christian tainted glasses alone

Martyrdom has everything to do with the believer and nothing to do with the belief

hopefulLandlord:
Well, the part of my post you are holding unto isn't my main point though, its simply a side note, an addition to another point

To the radical Islamist, its like torturing them for such a belief, your point is?

it seems you still don't see how week this argument of yours is
So? you're saying with passage of time all beliefs would become true or what? cuz last I checked (almost) all beliefs have their martyr stories; are you saying the Islamic suicide bombers might be proven true sometime in the future cuz they're ahead of their time?

Don't get my basic message twisted, I meant was is true remains true with the passage of time. The passage of time validates the TRUTH.

I assume you understand what logic and inference means, and how it can be applied.

Beliefs may be right or wrong, but the TRUTH is always right...that's my simple point. The next thing for you to consider is whether such beliefs aligns with the TRUTH or not...

And that is what I have been doing by putting evidences which I am still expecting to countered reasonably by logic or scientific findings.
(I'm not referring to the shroud of turin distraction 4kings brought up)

hopefulLandlord:
you seem to be looking at your argument through the Christian tainted glasses alone

Martyrdom has everything to do with the believer and nothing to do with the belief

Forget about Christianity here...Christianity or any religion for that matter does not hold absolute monopoly of the TRUTH...

I have moved on from that lower level of the food chain to seek the TRUTH in its raw form...

Cheers

OkaiCorne:
Don't get my basic message twisted, I meant was is true remains true with the passage of time. The passage of time validates the TRUTH.
I assume you understand what logic and inference means. Beliefs may be right or wrong, but the TRUTH is always right...that's my simple point. The next thing for you to consider is whether such beliefs aligns with the TRUTH or not...

it remains true with passage of time and is totally independent of whether someone wants to die for it or not!

And that is what I have been doing by putting evidences which I am still expecting to countered reasonably by logic or scientific findings.
(I'm not referring to the shroud of turin distraction 4kings brought up)

Exactly, saying people are willing to suffer and die for it neither lend nor reduces credence to/from it; people being willing to Martyr themselves is a neutral point speaking Frankly and logically

Forget about Christianity here...Christianity or any religion for that matter does not hold absolute monopoly of the TRUTH...

I have moved on from that lower level of the food chain to seek the TRUTH in its raw form...

Cheers

Okay

my point still remains "Martyrdom has everything to do with the believer and nothing to do with the belief"

hopefulLandlord:
it remains true with passage of time and is totally independent of whether someone wants to die for it or not!
Exactly, saying people are willing to suffer and die for it neither lend nor reduces credence to/from it; people being willing to Martyr themselves is a neutral point speaking Frankly and logically


Okay

my point still remains "Martyrdom has everything to do with the believer and nothing to do with the belief"

Per the bolded, I absolutely agree with you. People can know the TRUTH, but it's a different thing altogether if they are willing to die for the TRUTH they believe in...

Back to my earlier assertions...I was asking if the early Christian martyrs died because they believed in something True i.e. the existence of Jesus and the things He lived and died for...yes or no...

That is what this thread was opened for...to challenge the existence and authenticity of Jesus...

Did Jesus once live here on this Earth? Yes or No

Emmanystone:
Wrong.

Do your own research.....that is what I found out from my own...find out the identity of those I mentioned...

sonmvayina:
The jewish religion or judaism started taking shape after their return from exile in babylon. prior to that time, they worshiped so many Gods and Goddess..it was after they left babylon that Ezra was commanded to write the law..He got his informations from babylon on the God of Cyrus(Marduk), Issaih was also at that time trying to make them understand that Marduk was the creater of all and it is God above all other( Issaih 45)..the jew did not believe him..the jews believe there was many Gods and Goddesses..and these have their cult groups..one of such cult was that of Inana and his belivered Dimuzi. she is also Aphrodite in the greeks religion and venus in the roman. one..she is the goddess of love and beauty..it is this cult that metamophosed to christainity where Inana was given the name of Mary..she is also Lucifer and the LovePeddler of babylon in Issaih 47 and the book of revelation..it has always been about her..there was no Jesus in the equation...that was an after thought..it was about the light within..it was much later the catholic church decided to make it a story about a man at the council of Florence in the 6Th century..the story is not a jewish one cos the messiah the jews are waiting for is a mortal man not a demi god....

What religion were the Jews practicing shortly after the Mosaic Laws were given to them in the Torah via Moses?

I'm still waiting for someone to counter the findings by Historians, and DNA tests performed by Scientists on NatGeo concerning the existence of Jesus Christ...

Anyone with sufficient proof to counter this OR forever hold their peace?

4kings:
What of the possibility that "Jesus" was an esoteric symbol used by the Pneumatics to refer to Gnosis or Consciousness

I would not grant the possibility that Jesus was merely an esoteric “symbol” used to demonstrate Gnosis as you put it, if that pre-supposes the actual existence of Jesus. I believe (for my own reasons) that Jesus achieved “Christ consciousness” as did a select few. In my view his teachings, going by the evidence of the gospel of Mark and others were Gnostic in nature, I think early followers of Jesus believed this also.

4kings:
And what's your basis for judging "Jesus" miracles as true or untrue?

I do not “judge” the miracles of Jesus, I merely point out what we know, which is that several of the miracles attributable to Jesus could not have been performed by him. Take for instance the miracle of the Coin in the mouth of the fish.

In the Book of Matthew the question is asked "Doth not your master pay the shekel-tax?"

In reply, one sentence turns everything upside down:
Matt 17:25 "Yes he does he replied ……..What thinkest thou Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take tax or tribute? Of their own children or of strangers?”

Whereupon Simon is then commanded to take up his net head for the waters and catch the first fish.

That verse 17:25 makes no sense whatsoever if applied to the tax (Jewish temple duty) that was levied in the lifetime of Jesus. In reality, the writer of Matthew who wrote much later is referring to a tax that was levied at a much later period. We know that the story is an allegory, it was written under the reign of Emperor Domitian the last of the Flavian rulers who ruled Rome from 81CE to 96CE, it was he who levied a General tax of every grown Jewish man for the Capitoline of Jupiter his reign began fully 50 years after the passing of Jesus and therefore that story cannot be fully attributable as a miracle of Jesus.

There are similar issues with other miracles but I believe I have made my point.

OkaiCorne:
If Oral traditions doesn't translate into historical facts then I guess the Torah and the Talmud are full of errors and lies too...

Did you know that oral traditions about the recently discovered lost City of Atlantis was in circulation several thousands of years ago despite it being thought that the city of Atlantis was a fairy tale until Science discovered Atlantis under the Ocean?

Your guess would be as good as anyone else's. You will not find a standalone verse in the Torah or the Christian bible that states that everything contained between its covers are nothing but the truth. Those of us who have studied the Talmud understand it for what it is, a compendium of Jewish observances composed of the teachings and opinions of a vast array of Rabbis with differing viewpoints.

You talked about Atlantis, we have Plato's dialogue "Timaeus" to thank for our understanding of the events leading to the destruction of Atlantis.

Sarassin:
Your guess would be as good as anyone else's. You will not find a standalone verse in the Torah or the Christian bible that states that everything contained between its covers are nothing but the truth. Those of us who have studied the Talmud understand it for what it is, a compendium of Jewish observances composed of the teachings and opinions of a vast array of Rabbis with differing viewpoints.

You talked about Atlantis, we have Plato's dialogue "Timaeus" to thank for our understanding of the events leading to the destruction of Atlantis.

Before the TRUTH about Atlantis was documented in a written format in Plato's "Timaeus", the truth was passed down in oral traditions from generations to generations hence, Plato who was not a witness to the destruction of Atlantis could record it...

Which brings me back to the veracity of Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts on Jesus...

Even if they weren't live witnesses to see Jesus in flesh and blood, oral accounts of Jesus from first hand witnesses is sufficient enough for them to record their findings...and yes of course...individual findings would be corroborated against other findings to arrive at a pattern which would form the basis of their documentations...

Summary of the whole gist: Truth exists first in unwritten form before it becomes documented...

OkaiCorne:
Read my response slowly... I'm not defending the validity of the Turin shroud

So what's your deal with DNA research then?

Rather, give me another link with evidence and carbon dating test results that proves it is fake.

Search engines are very easy to use bro.
What i know is that the test was carried out in three different locations around the world at the same time and they revealed similar timeframe.

The one you gave earlier was just criticism of a man who has no results of his to prove its fake...

I am giving you detailed reasons why your "evidence" is absurd, instead of addressing them you're calling "cristicism". SMH

Give me references with results lemme learn further...

Again search engines are the best.

OkaiCorne:
You really asked for evidence of the Apostles martyrdom? Even when history is replete with the sadistic and senseless brutality of Roman Emperors like Nero who finished off Peter and Paul...and many other Christians especially after the great fire that consumed most parts of Rome?


Have you heard of the catacombs in Israel? Filled with the bones of martyred saints?

Do you want more experts' evidence including that of NatGeo which you'll still claim is a lie?

By the way, you have not mentioned much about the previous NatGeo documentary which has nothing to do with the shroud of Turin you talked of....

Lol.. you said Moses most likely never existed despite Egyptian and Ethiopian historic evidence pointing to the contrary...

Do you believe the garden of Eden also once existed?

Here we go again with Eusebius deceits.
Just like there was no documentation of Jesus or his death/ressurection before Eusebius, there is no documentation that infer that the romans knew who "christians" were then until of-course Eusebius.
The fire outbreak happened and people got punished in a cruel way, historians recorded this event without mentioning Christians, but only until Eusebius' time as usual did we record an alternating opinion of event.
Mr. Man Eusebius is a liar stop taking his words seriously.

OkaiCorne:
Before the TRUTH about Atlantis was documented in a written format in Plato's "Timaeus", the truth was passed down in oral traditions from generations to generations hence, Plato who was not a witness to the destruction of Atlantis could record it...

Which brings me back to the veracity of Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts on Jesus...

Even if they weren't live witnesses to see Jesus in flesh and blood, oral accounts of Jesus from first hand witnesses is sufficient enough for them to record their findings...and yes of course...individual findings would be corroborated against other findings to arrive at a pattern which would form the basis of their documentations...

Summary of the whole gist: Truth exists first in unwritten form before it becomes documented...

Whose truth? And what Truth? what were the influences that informed these “truths”? what about those who were actually contemporary to Jesus? in studying the historicity of Jesus don’t you find it curious that an historian like Josephus contemporary to Jesus who headed a garrison of soldiers in Jesus’ backyard of Gallilee, who recorded in great detail events such as the killing of James the brother of Jesus and the various Jewish uprisings, an historian so meticulous that he would record what Caesar had for breakfast would have nothing to say about the greatest personage of his time other than two throwaway disputed anecdotal statements?

What of Philo Judaeas, historian contemporary to Jesus who wrote in the court of Herod who no doubt would have been aware of Herod’s plan to commit infanticide…anything to say about Jesus? or his trial? Not a word. Or perhaps the celebrated historian and geographer Lucius Senecca? Or even Strabo, did any one of these illustrious historians of their times even so much as acknowledge the existence of Jesus? No.

Early Christian fathers were so aghast at the lack of historical provenance of Jesus that Paul tried to forge a letter from Senecca purportedly to himself acknowledging Jesus. You should ask yourself why?

4kings:
Here we go again with Eusebius deceits.
Just like there was no documentation of Jesus or his death/ressurection before Eusebius, there is no documentation that infer that the romans knew who "christians" were then until of-course Eusebius.
The fire outbreak happened and people got punished in a cruel way, historians recorded this event without mentioning Christians, but only until Eusebius' time as usual did we record an alternating opinion of event.
Mr. Man Eusebius is a liar stop taking his words seriously.

And the documentary on NatGeo are lies too?

Bros, please bring up sufficient evidence for analysis, and their source as well. As far as I'm concerned, all you have stated there are your opinions not backed up by any evidence that Jesus never existed...

Your opinion can become a fact if you can bring scientific evidence to counter the existence of Jesus. I have given you some already...

Sarassin:
Whose truth? And what Truth? what were the influences that informed these “truths”? what about those who were actually contemporary to Jesus? in studying the historicity of Jesus don’t you find it curious that an historian like Josephus contemporary to Jesus who headed a garrison of soldiers in Jesus’ backyard of Gallilee, who recorded in great detail events such as the killing of James the brother of Jesus and the various Jewish uprisings, an historian so meticulous that he would record what Caesar had for breakfast would have nothing to say about the greatest personage of his time other than two throwaway disputed anecdotal statements?

What of Philo Judaeas, historian contemporary to Jesus who wrote in the court of Herod who no doubt would have been aware of Herod’s plan to commit infanticide…anything to say about Jesus? or his trial? Not a word. Or perhaps the celebrated historian and geographer Lucius Senecca? Or even Strabo, did any one of these illustrious historians of their times even so much as acknowledge the existence of Jesus? No.

Early Christian fathers were so aghast at the lack of historical provenance of Jesus that Paul tried to forge a letter from Senecca purportedly to himself acknowledging Jesus. You should ask yourself why?

Did you realize a lot of records about the happenings in Israel were destroyed gradually by the zealots' uprising and subsequently the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70?

Have you heard of the Akashic records?

Have you also heard of the sleeping Nostradamus...Edgar Cayce?