A question I pondered recently.
- Thread starter JagHammer
- Start date
- Status
JayRob
TigaPaw
Well, someone just said that all gods are essentially the same. People just call them by different names.
If Krishna means "black", does this mean the European made Jesus Christ was actually Black? I say no because he never existed, however the Egyptian god Horus was Black for sure. Most if not all later "gods" are carbon copies of this Egyptian god.
Dr H..
Active Member
European God, there is no such thing as a European God and such like for Jesus. The Jesus of the bible was Jewish, by religion with a brown to dark complexion. As such was; is the Egyptians.
The truth is Jesus, spent several years in Egypt and we do not know to what degree He was influenced by the Egyptian culture. And the same can be said during the time of Moses.
The point is the existence of Jesus, not the color of His skin, the texture of His hair or where He lived.
My question to you is, why do you continue to debate the existence of someone (Jesus). If you do not believe in His existence. I have asked this question before, but you failed to answer the question.
The truth is Jesus, spent several years in Egypt and we do not know to what degree He was influenced by the Egyptian culture. And the same can be said during the time of Moses.
The point is the existence of Jesus, not the color of His skin, the texture of His hair or where He lived.
My question to you is, why do you continue to debate the existence of someone (Jesus). If you do not believe in His existence. I have asked this question before, but you failed to answer the question.
JayRob
TigaPaw
Dr H.. [QUOTE said:
See, this is what happens when folks forget their history. The Jesus of the bible was created by the Romans to keep its people under their control and to bring in pagans.
They added pagan teachings along with copying and plagiarised information from other cultures about their gods and incorporated many of those same teachings to their new religion and called it Christianity. It's not hard to find.
Outside of the bible, where do you get this "evidence" that Jesus lived in Egypt? As for Moses, there's no historical documentation of him or a supposed exodus of 2-3 million ex-Hebrew slaves. No neighboring historians or people who existed at that time wrote about any Moses or exodus of millions out of Egypt.
If his skin color means nothing, why is he always shown to be White by the creators of this religion? I grew up believing in a myth. Thankfully I came to the reality that the Christian religion is just like most religions, which were stolen and retold stories from other cultures.
Heck, the ENTIRE BOOK OF REVELATION has been proven for centuries to be a copied version from one of the Persian religions. That's proven fact, yet folks think it was inspired by Jesus to a man named John.
Because folks need to be enlightened and know that there's another side to the story that they may not be aware of like I wasn't for most of my life until the curtains were pulled back. Why hold facts back from folks who may not know? Would you hold back facts if you knew something false was being pawned off as fact?
Now when has JayRob not answered one of your questions? Any question you've ever asked me, I've answered, maybe not to your liking, but answers were granted nevertheless. Now please answer my above questions and I have one more.
HOW WAS THE BOOK OF REVELATION REVEALED TO JOHN WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY STOLEN FROM THE PERSIANS AND ADDED TO THE BIBLE?
Dr H..
Active Member
JR
Apparently you have not been outside of the U.S., I have traveled in Europe and have seen many pictures of dark complexion Madonna / Jesus, for whatever that is worth. The European complexion "Jesus" is like looking at the Hispanic TV Channel, they are all white.
All religion have borrowed from each other.
You cannot prove that Moses did not live in Egypt. Your problem is, you are always asking someone to prove something, however when you are asked to submit proof, you have failed.
Because you do not believe, does not mean that others are wrong.
Apparently you have not been outside of the U.S., I have traveled in Europe and have seen many pictures of dark complexion Madonna / Jesus, for whatever that is worth. The European complexion "Jesus" is like looking at the Hispanic TV Channel, they are all white.
All religion have borrowed from each other.
You cannot prove that Moses did not live in Egypt. Your problem is, you are always asking someone to prove something, however when you are asked to submit proof, you have failed.
Because you do not believe, does not mean that others are wrong.
JayRob
TigaPaw
Dr H.. [QUOTE said:
All European versions of the Jesus character and Mary are not White. Many Catholic churches, especially in Eastern Europe, have the mother Mary being Black. I'm sure you've heard of the Black Madonna holding a Black Jesus.
All religions have NOT borrowed from each other. How could Hinduism have borrowed from Christianity when Christianity wasn't even in existence.
How could the Egyptian or Babylonian religions have borrowed from religions that hadn't been formed yet like Christianity, Islam or Judaism? That's it, it's impossible.
Fact of the matter is that Western religions are basically carbon copies of previous religions they've labelled as being pagan. The Catholic church has already admitted such. Please at least catch up with them.
I've stated my case of Moses being a fictional character on several occasions. I even posted scientific, geological, archaeological and historical evidence proving that neither Moses nor "the exodus" ever existed. They're merely borrowed and made up stories.
Scientists have scoured the Middle Eastern desert with modern scientific instruments and have admitted that there's not a shred of evidence supporting a Moses or an exodus from Egypt.
Surrounding nations and contemporary historians mentioned not ONE word of hundreds of thousands of slaves being let go from Egypt during that time. Keep in mind that this would've been one of, if not THEE greatest happening during that time, but every major historian who lived during that time said not one word about any Moses or any exodus from Egypt.
Only in the bible and Koran does this story exist, and guess who they copied it from? The religion of Judaism.
Here's an article from Hebrew scientists admitting that after all archaeological digging, the findings are that there's no evidence to support an exodus from Egypt as described by the bible.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html
Some comments from the article states: Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."
"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."
Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.
It's your choice to investigate with an open mind and it's also your choice to not investigate with a closed mind.
If there's no evidence, then what are you believing? It's called faith. That's all you're left with. Faith equates to fiction when there's no evidence to support it.
JayRob
TigaPaw
In addition to the above regarding the Black Madonna or Black Mary, the following has been docunented:
The first "Black Madonna and Child" statutes and portraits were of Isis and Horus, and these were taken throughout the world by the Roman Empire. When other religions became more popular, these statues were not destroyed, but simply had their names changed. In India, Isis and Horus became Maya and Buddha in Buddhism or Devaki and Krishna in Hinduism. The Chinese called Isis Kwa-yin, and the Japanese changed the name to Kwannon.
In his 1985 book entitled "The Cult of the Black Virgin", Ean Begg was able to identify over 450 images of a Black virgin and child in Europe with over 190 statutes in France alone. J.A. Rogers says that Paris was actually named for Isis because Para-isis means "Place of Isis." He also says that Note Dame means "Our Lady" and that the cathedral is nothing more than an enlargement of the original Isis temple.
Millions of pilgrims visit the Black Madonna shrines annually because they are believed to possess magical powers, although the statues are now called Mary and Jesus. It is believed that only the Black statues are magical and all pilgrimages stopped whenever the statues were painted white.
The first "Black Madonna and Child" statutes and portraits were of Isis and Horus, and these were taken throughout the world by the Roman Empire. When other religions became more popular, these statues were not destroyed, but simply had their names changed. In India, Isis and Horus became Maya and Buddha in Buddhism or Devaki and Krishna in Hinduism. The Chinese called Isis Kwa-yin, and the Japanese changed the name to Kwannon.
In his 1985 book entitled "The Cult of the Black Virgin", Ean Begg was able to identify over 450 images of a Black virgin and child in Europe with over 190 statutes in France alone. J.A. Rogers says that Paris was actually named for Isis because Para-isis means "Place of Isis." He also says that Note Dame means "Our Lady" and that the cathedral is nothing more than an enlargement of the original Isis temple.
Millions of pilgrims visit the Black Madonna shrines annually because they are believed to possess magical powers, although the statues are now called Mary and Jesus. It is believed that only the Black statues are magical and all pilgrimages stopped whenever the statues were painted white.
Dr H..
Active Member
Like I said, because you do not believe that does not mean that the existence of "God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit" does not exist. Yes, it is faith, because your lack of faith, does not validate their none existence.
I have asked you this before, can you prove that the Godhead does not exist. Why don't you follow the lack of wisdom of Noah's wife and curse God.
You should not have a problem with this, because in your mind the Godhead does not exist, so start cursing.
I have asked you this before, can you prove that the Godhead does not exist. Why don't you follow the lack of wisdom of Noah's wife and curse God.
You should not have a problem with this, because in your mind the Godhead does not exist, so start cursing.
JayRob
TigaPaw
So you're not even going to comment on the article regarding no historical or archaeological proof of the Jerusalem of the bible or the exodus that never happened or the non-existence of a Moses? You're going to just ignore that? If so, that's not being very honest.
You present rhetoric with no supporting documentation, I present scientific, archaeological, geological and historical data. That's how I roll. You can roll with blind faith if you want to.
As far as proving that the biblical god doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim in the affirmative. This means that the party making the claim is responsible for proving that existence.
One thing I do know is that the bible, which you claim was inspired by the biblical god, is full of hundreds of errors, false science, inaccurate history and copied material from previous religions and cultures. That alone is enough to prove that the biblical god doesn't exist because NO all knowing, all powerful "being" would allow such errors, false science, inaccurate history and copied material and then sign off on it. LOL!!
Last edited:
Dr H..
Active Member
Exactly, therefore, you are making the claim, that God does not exist. so where is your proof.
As it relates to the articles you posted. The truth is I can find articles to the contrary, so what does that prove. I do know, and that the Hebrew were not slaves in Egypt, they were servants, the word has been loosely translated over the years.
Lesson:
Many do not understand that the only difference between the Egyptians and Hebrews were their religious belief, not the color of their skin, they are all from Ham (Hamitic or Shemitic -Non Gentile).
One thing I have learned, the spelling of every name or place is not the same as it is spelled in English.
Like yourself, you can find articles that, for example, say Joseph is mythical and I can find several to the contrary:
Was Joseph a real or mythical character:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/joseph.htm
Noah's Flood
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ev...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/12/archaeologist-claims-evidence-noahs-biblical-flood/
http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noahs_flood.htm
Jesus, believe it or not.
If Jesus is a mythical character, so is the Great Roman Empire as well as their great writer.
Was "Jesus" white, no. He was a Hebrew (by name) and Jewish by religious belief / teaching (Judah). The word Hebrew, is derived from the word Eber, Genesis 14:14, meaning "across or the opposite side, referring to the other side of the Euphrates. Yeshua (Jesus) is descended from (Shem - Semitc, Non-Gentile) "Abram the Hebrew." Jews are also called "Hebrews", and the language of the Jews is "Hebrew.
Skin Complexion, not "European" but a brown complexion. Now I agree the "European Jesus, is a myth" but not the person Jesus.
Note: The Whites [Europeans (Romans, Greeks)] are from Japheth (Caucasian - Gentiles, "peoples" or "nations".) Genesis 10:1-5. He moved to the Island of Gentiles - (Goy /gentilis ). Question is there a such place, well let's see, its the Western Mediterranean.
The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).
Pontius Pilate, is mentioned in the gospels and governor per se' of Judea AD 26–36, served under Tiberius.
Tiberius, (Tiberius Caesar Augustus) Roman Emperor from 14 AD to 37.
"It wasn't long ago when many scholars were questioning the actual existence of a Roman Governor with the name Pontius Pilate, the procurator who ordered Jesus' crucifixion. In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."
http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html
Conclusion, if Jesus was mythical, then was Pontius Pilate and Tiberius.
Great Books of The Western World, page 168; paragraph 44.
Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240)
Write about darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
The Gnostics (Knowledge) writing, which is not part of the bible, talks about Jesus.
Conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Christians are follows or Christ, so if Christ did not exist, therefore, Christians nor their belief exist.
Moses, what do you consider as proof?
I understand, you are looking for cities, toll booth tickets, houses and such like. Like I said before, this appear to be beyond your understanding.
"As for the lack of archaeological evidence for the wilderness sojourn, the Hebrews were nomads. They built no cities; they planted no crops and they left behind no footprints. The ancient "Hebrews" were Nomads, Bedouins.
Note: If the bible "English" (Noah "Noe" David, Moses, Joseph, Abraham, Jesus ) is incorrect so is the Quran "Arabic / Hebrew Language" ( Nûḥ, Dawid, Musa,Yūsuf, Ibrahim,`ÃŽsâ )
So what you are saying, is JR is correct and all the other proof is wrong.
JayRob
TigaPaw
Dr H.. [QUOTE said:
My claim is in the "negative" that he didn't exist as described in the bible. The burden of proof is on the one claiming that he did exist.
The articles you posted show no valid archaeological, geological or historical evidence. It does show bits and pieces of actual people that were copied from previous writings and ADDED just to try and make the "Jesus" story as valid as possible. I'll discuss each one on an individual basis.
This is not true. There was no Hebrew language back then. It was created hundreds of years after a supposed Moses. There's not a shred of historical evidence proving that 2-3 million slaves ( or servants as you call them) ever left Egypt overnight. Not one historian recorded this mass exodus, an event that would've been one of the greatest events of that day. Not one historian outside of the bible recorded this supposed phenomenon. Not even Egypt's enemies shed light on such of an event and why? Because it never happened.
Again, you're taking bits and pieces of stories from actual history and adding in characters like Joseph and Moses who never existed. It's called copying and plagiarism.
Spelling isn't the only issue with a problem here. There's no actual history of such events in the first place. You're taking the name of an obscure man named Joseph and putting the name of someone else named Imhotep in his place just to try and prove your point.
The pieces of the puzzle you're trying to make don't fit anymore than the glove did on Ojay's hand.
The article says "probably". That doesn't sound too definitive to me.
You're taking information from what Christians would call "pagan" and using them to try and prove and validate your own religion. How ironic.
By the way, the articles you presented were written by a man named John Wyatt who was neither an archaeologist, historian or geologist. His works and articles were disproven and thrown out decades ago by archaeologists and proven to be fables. You should've known this before you used his articles.
The articles I presented weren't mere "stories". It consisted of actual data, scientific inquiries, historical data, geological data and admittance by Israeli and Jewish historians that the exodus story is a myth.
JayRob
TigaPaw
One note regarding the above. Keep in mind that the stories in the bible were written long after the events had supposedly occurred, so any person could easily have copied it and added it to their religion and claimed it as part of their own stories.
Cont'd Part 2--
This article proved nothing. It clearly stated that the shipwrecked boat dates back to only 500 B.C. The biblical flood story dates back thousands of years earlier. The article also states that several cultures have "flood" stories which pre-date the biblical flood such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Many historians have shown that the biblical flood is a plagiarism of that particular story. The only difference is the biblical author's "god" caused it.
Neither article proves there was any flood 4600 years ago. Data clearly show that water has covered the earth for millions of years in certain areas.
The Egyptian Sphinx pyramid is much older than the biblical flood. Had there been a worldwide flood as described in the bible, there would be clear water damage to the Sphinx. According to archaeologists and geologists, there's no damage, thus adding more evidence to disprove a worldwide flood as described in the bible 4600 years ago.
Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?
Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity.
Again, the book of Genesis is rife of copied and plagiarised stories stolen from previous cultures and placed in a book which claims that the author's god caused the flood rather than the gods of the people living in cultures the information was taken or stolen from.
Here's an article asking dozens and dozens of scientific, geological, archaeological and historical questions which clearly brings doubt to a biblical worldwide flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Jesus, believe it or not.
The myth of Jesus in no way whatsoever requires the Roman Empire or any historian to be mythical.
Again, you're getting information from the bible which is not an accurate source for most of it's history. Some of it's history is accurate but most isn't.
Biblical characters in that part of the world at that time were would've been Black or dark skinned. The olive covered Arabs didn't arrive until the the AD's during the Islamic conquests.
The bible is a European written book, yet you claim their European Jesus is a myth? If their European Jesus is a myth, why not the European bible as well? LOL!
Greeks and Romans at that time were NOT White. Most Greeks and Romans are dark-skinned or olive complexion. Greeks being White is another myth for the purpose of stealing history that didn't apply to them.
The supposed biblical geneology is not accurate.
If Japheth consists of Caucasian people, then how are todays Jews (who are White) not considered to be his descendants? They're considered descendants of the mythical Shem.
The term "christ" wasn't the name of a person back then. It was a "title". There were several men given the title of "christ or chrestus" and many lived during the first century.
During the second century there was some confusion between the terms. Chrestian comes from the Greek chrestos having the meaning of good manners or morals, pleasant, better, useful, beneficial, kind, gracious. Christos on the other hand means to be anointed. These are scans from 'The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible'. Although the Greek in the manuscripts appears in upper case, and the concordance displays these terms in lower case, the similarites in appearance can still be observed.
Tacitus gave no indication that there was any "Jesus" Christ but he mentioned one chrestus, which again is a mere TITLE given to many men during that time.
What does this have to do with the authenticity of a "Jesus Christ"? Nothing. It's nothing to add a valid historical name to the story for the purpose of authenticating a fictional name called "Jesus Christ".
Besides, Pontius Pilate never claimed to raise the dead nor did he claim that he would rise from the dead after three days, so this is no proof of any Jesus Christ. It's just possible proof that Pontius Pilate lived.
I think some would see this as an insult to your savior for you to base his existence on the likelihood of Pontius Pilate being real.
Where did Tacitus ever mention the name "JESUS CHRIST" or even "Joshua Christ"? Nowhere did he mention such a name. That alone speaks volumes. Chrestus does not mean Christ? Both are spelled differently and have totally different meanings, so in essence, Tacitus says nothing at all about any Jesus savior.
Cont'd Part 2--
This article proved nothing. It clearly stated that the shipwrecked boat dates back to only 500 B.C. The biblical flood story dates back thousands of years earlier. The article also states that several cultures have "flood" stories which pre-date the biblical flood such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Many historians have shown that the biblical flood is a plagiarism of that particular story. The only difference is the biblical author's "god" caused it.
Neither article proves there was any flood 4600 years ago. Data clearly show that water has covered the earth for millions of years in certain areas.
The Egyptian Sphinx pyramid is much older than the biblical flood. Had there been a worldwide flood as described in the bible, there would be clear water damage to the Sphinx. According to archaeologists and geologists, there's no damage, thus adding more evidence to disprove a worldwide flood as described in the bible 4600 years ago.
Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?
Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity.
Again, the book of Genesis is rife of copied and plagiarised stories stolen from previous cultures and placed in a book which claims that the author's god caused the flood rather than the gods of the people living in cultures the information was taken or stolen from.
Here's an article asking dozens and dozens of scientific, geological, archaeological and historical questions which clearly brings doubt to a biblical worldwide flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Jesus, believe it or not.
The myth of Jesus in no way whatsoever requires the Roman Empire or any historian to be mythical.
Again, you're getting information from the bible which is not an accurate source for most of it's history. Some of it's history is accurate but most isn't.
Biblical characters in that part of the world at that time were would've been Black or dark skinned. The olive covered Arabs didn't arrive until the the AD's during the Islamic conquests.
The bible is a European written book, yet you claim their European Jesus is a myth? If their European Jesus is a myth, why not the European bible as well? LOL!
Greeks and Romans at that time were NOT White. Most Greeks and Romans are dark-skinned or olive complexion. Greeks being White is another myth for the purpose of stealing history that didn't apply to them.
The supposed biblical geneology is not accurate.
If Japheth consists of Caucasian people, then how are todays Jews (who are White) not considered to be his descendants? They're considered descendants of the mythical Shem.
The term "christ" wasn't the name of a person back then. It was a "title". There were several men given the title of "christ or chrestus" and many lived during the first century.
During the second century there was some confusion between the terms. Chrestian comes from the Greek chrestos having the meaning of good manners or morals, pleasant, better, useful, beneficial, kind, gracious. Christos on the other hand means to be anointed. These are scans from 'The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible'. Although the Greek in the manuscripts appears in upper case, and the concordance displays these terms in lower case, the similarites in appearance can still be observed.
Tacitus gave no indication that there was any "Jesus" Christ but he mentioned one chrestus, which again is a mere TITLE given to many men during that time.
What does this have to do with the authenticity of a "Jesus Christ"? Nothing. It's nothing to add a valid historical name to the story for the purpose of authenticating a fictional name called "Jesus Christ".
Besides, Pontius Pilate never claimed to raise the dead nor did he claim that he would rise from the dead after three days, so this is no proof of any Jesus Christ. It's just possible proof that Pontius Pilate lived.
I think some would see this as an insult to your savior for you to base his existence on the likelihood of Pontius Pilate being real.
Where did Tacitus ever mention the name "JESUS CHRIST" or even "Joshua Christ"? Nowhere did he mention such a name. That alone speaks volumes. Chrestus does not mean Christ? Both are spelled differently and have totally different meanings, so in essence, Tacitus says nothing at all about any Jesus savior.
Last edited:
JayRob
TigaPaw
Cont'd Part 3
Julius Africanus wasn't even an eye witness to the so-called crucifixion. He was born 130 years after the fact.
In addition, if there was a total eclipse at that time in that area of the world, why didn't othe historians record such an event? Outside of the bible, there's no documentation anywhere of there being an eclipse just like there's no evidence of any Herod slaughtering hundreds of newborn babies just so he could luckily kill a baby later to be called Jesus.
Many of these practices before the Jesus stories were ever developed. People in the area called Essenes had similar practices and they were people who had good morals and practiced good deeds. This is clearly outlined in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Remember that the original meaning of the word "christ" at that time meant, title for one who does good deeds, thus the term christians. Nowhere is the name "JESUS" mention.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
So what? The following says otherwise: Scholars argue that the Talmud provides no evidence of Jesus as a historical individual, instead they view the Talmudic references as reaction to Jesus as the messiah of Christianity. Van Voorst (2000) describes this as a spectrum of opinion:
On one side stand Johann Maier (1978) and those broadly sympathetic to his conclusions such as John P. Meier and Jacob Neusner. Maier discounts accounts with no mention of the name Jesus, and further discounts those that do mention Jesus by name, such as Sanh. 43a and 107b, as later medieval changes.[48] Arguments against the current form of Talmudic references to Jesus being evidence of a historical individual include contextual evidence, such as chronological inconsistencies, for example the original contexts of accounts in the Tosefta and Talmud take place in different historical periods. Maier also views that the tradition first seen in the writings of Celsus can not be regarded as a reliable reference to the historical Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud
The Gnostics totally disagreed with any Jesus and they certainly didn't believe that a man was "god". As mentioned earlier, the Dead Sea scrolls completely ignore a Jesus who practiced good deeds but it does mention Essenes or Christians who practiced good deeds.
Keep in mind that these Christians were around long before the Jesus character supposedly came on the scene.
There's no overwhelming evidence of any Jesus but there's overwhelming hype and fiction about such a character, especially if one is not knowledgeable about the history of Christianity.
Again, the term "christ" is merely a title and can refer to good deeds. Christians are those who practice good deeds.
Obviously it's beyond your understanding. Neither Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Julius Africanus, the Talmud or any Gnostic provide concrete evidene of a real Jesus.
The information is there for all to see that the Jesus character is a created story stolen from other cultures and mixed in with real characters to help this person appear to be real.
The bible said the Hebrews left by the millions. Where's the historical documentation from neighboring countries? There's documentation of the Hyksos moving from place to place and even the Bedouins. They were nomadic people.
There's documentation of the Hittite kingdoms. There's documentation of the Babylonian and Sumerian cultures but for some odd reason, there's not a shred of historical documentation to verify a biblical Israelite kingdom that supposedly conquered certain nations as described in the bible. Where did they go? Where did their history go? Nowhere because it never existed as described in the bible.
The Old Testament was taken from Judaism and Islam was obviously taken from the Old Testament. Judaism was taken from various Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian cultures.
The Hebrew people took their language from the Hyksos and Canaanite peoples as well as parts of their religious practices.
There's no history of any powerful Israelite Kingdom having been ruled by a David or Solomon. Most of those were small insignificant peoples, not the powerful twelve tribes as described in the Old Testament.
Up to this point, you've provided no valid proof of your claims. You tried and I applaud you for at least having the courage to do so, but you failed to show that such a person named Jesus actually lived, of any Moses, of any Joseph of any worldwide flood as mentioned in the bible, or any Noah's ark.
You presented mere stories and tried to prove them as non fictional stories when they were fictional stories mixed in with authentic characters.
Julius Africanus wasn't even an eye witness to the so-called crucifixion. He was born 130 years after the fact.
In addition, if there was a total eclipse at that time in that area of the world, why didn't othe historians record such an event? Outside of the bible, there's no documentation anywhere of there being an eclipse just like there's no evidence of any Herod slaughtering hundreds of newborn babies just so he could luckily kill a baby later to be called Jesus.
Many of these practices before the Jesus stories were ever developed. People in the area called Essenes had similar practices and they were people who had good morals and practiced good deeds. This is clearly outlined in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Remember that the original meaning of the word "christ" at that time meant, title for one who does good deeds, thus the term christians. Nowhere is the name "JESUS" mention.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
So what? The following says otherwise: Scholars argue that the Talmud provides no evidence of Jesus as a historical individual, instead they view the Talmudic references as reaction to Jesus as the messiah of Christianity. Van Voorst (2000) describes this as a spectrum of opinion:
On one side stand Johann Maier (1978) and those broadly sympathetic to his conclusions such as John P. Meier and Jacob Neusner. Maier discounts accounts with no mention of the name Jesus, and further discounts those that do mention Jesus by name, such as Sanh. 43a and 107b, as later medieval changes.[48] Arguments against the current form of Talmudic references to Jesus being evidence of a historical individual include contextual evidence, such as chronological inconsistencies, for example the original contexts of accounts in the Tosefta and Talmud take place in different historical periods. Maier also views that the tradition first seen in the writings of Celsus can not be regarded as a reliable reference to the historical Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud
The Gnostics totally disagreed with any Jesus and they certainly didn't believe that a man was "god". As mentioned earlier, the Dead Sea scrolls completely ignore a Jesus who practiced good deeds but it does mention Essenes or Christians who practiced good deeds.
Keep in mind that these Christians were around long before the Jesus character supposedly came on the scene.
There's no overwhelming evidence of any Jesus but there's overwhelming hype and fiction about such a character, especially if one is not knowledgeable about the history of Christianity.
Again, the term "christ" is merely a title and can refer to good deeds. Christians are those who practice good deeds.
Obviously it's beyond your understanding. Neither Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Julius Africanus, the Talmud or any Gnostic provide concrete evidene of a real Jesus.
The information is there for all to see that the Jesus character is a created story stolen from other cultures and mixed in with real characters to help this person appear to be real.
The bible said the Hebrews left by the millions. Where's the historical documentation from neighboring countries? There's documentation of the Hyksos moving from place to place and even the Bedouins. They were nomadic people.
There's documentation of the Hittite kingdoms. There's documentation of the Babylonian and Sumerian cultures but for some odd reason, there's not a shred of historical documentation to verify a biblical Israelite kingdom that supposedly conquered certain nations as described in the bible. Where did they go? Where did their history go? Nowhere because it never existed as described in the bible.
The Old Testament was taken from Judaism and Islam was obviously taken from the Old Testament. Judaism was taken from various Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian cultures.
The Hebrew people took their language from the Hyksos and Canaanite peoples as well as parts of their religious practices.
There's no history of any powerful Israelite Kingdom having been ruled by a David or Solomon. Most of those were small insignificant peoples, not the powerful twelve tribes as described in the Old Testament.
Up to this point, you've provided no valid proof of your claims. You tried and I applaud you for at least having the courage to do so, but you failed to show that such a person named Jesus actually lived, of any Moses, of any Joseph of any worldwide flood as mentioned in the bible, or any Noah's ark.
You presented mere stories and tried to prove them as non fictional stories when they were fictional stories mixed in with authentic characters.
Dr H..
Active Member
With all of that said. As I requested before!
Are you willing to follow the idea of Job's wife?
"Are you still maintaining your integrity? Curse God and die!"
Job 2:9
What do you have to loose, if God does not exist. Why are you acting like a coward, with your empty words and lack of faith. Just curse God and be done with it. Then, you will not waste your time attempting to prove your point. Why do you continue to debate year after that "god does not exist" You believe in God, but something happened to you in your past. This particular event have caused you to loose some of your faith.
Question: Why are you afraid to curse God?
Are you willing to follow the idea of Job's wife?
"Are you still maintaining your integrity? Curse God and die!"
Job 2:9
What do you have to loose, if God does not exist. Why are you acting like a coward, with your empty words and lack of faith. Just curse God and be done with it. Then, you will not waste your time attempting to prove your point. Why do you continue to debate year after that "god does not exist" You believe in God, but something happened to you in your past. This particular event have caused you to loose some of your faith.
Question: Why are you afraid to curse God?
JayRob
TigaPaw
If you need somebody to curse something, why don't you test out your "biblical god theory" and curse him yourself and see what happens?
Since you want me to waste time cursing something that's fictional, why ask me to do something you're not willing to do?
All of this talk about something happening to me is an easy diversion. I posted very detailed facts and evidence that you tried to refute, however each one of your disputes have been debunked.
I took each of your points and refuted each one with facts and all you have to say is "curse" some god? Your diversionary tactic is quite obvious and answers not one refute posted earlier.
As far as cursing anything, that was automatically done by me years ago when I denied the existence of the biblical god and the thing the bible calls the holy spirit.
All of this occurred AFTER I came to the enlightenment that the bible is a concoction of plagiarised stories and characters; historical inaccuracies, scientific inaccuracies and supposed miracles that never occurred.
This is what convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt.
major095
ASU4real
You're worried about wasting time cursing God, but spend hours on here trying in vain to prove he doesn't exist. I hope you don't do it. I want to finally meet you outside of gate #7. Jesus loved me while I was yet an unbeliever. He loved all of us when we were unlovable.
As to the point and purpose of this thread. How would we recognize Jesus if he was walking the Earth today? We'll he is walking the Earth today. As a believer I am a reflection (or I'm supposed to be) of Jesus. He lives through me. Any goodness people see in me is not me at all, but is, in fact Jesus. But if the God, made man Jesus was here (what I believe was meant) sadly (thankfully) he'd live his life radically different and would be easy to spot IMHO. He would be surrounded by the disenfranchised. Those we call unworthy are the people Jesus would keep company with. We would find him having dinner with drug dealers, prostitutes, and the biggest criminals of them all, politicians. We would find him serving people instead of being served or worse, serving himself. He would live a radically different life than most people and still radically different from those of us who identify as Christians.
As to the point and purpose of this thread. How would we recognize Jesus if he was walking the Earth today? We'll he is walking the Earth today. As a believer I am a reflection (or I'm supposed to be) of Jesus. He lives through me. Any goodness people see in me is not me at all, but is, in fact Jesus. But if the God, made man Jesus was here (what I believe was meant) sadly (thankfully) he'd live his life radically different and would be easy to spot IMHO. He would be surrounded by the disenfranchised. Those we call unworthy are the people Jesus would keep company with. We would find him having dinner with drug dealers, prostitutes, and the biggest criminals of them all, politicians. We would find him serving people instead of being served or worse, serving himself. He would live a radically different life than most people and still radically different from those of us who identify as Christians.
JayRob
TigaPaw
Dude, I didn't bring no curse, the previous poster did. It would make no sense to curse a fictional character. LOL!!
Jesus is a plagiarized version of dozens and dozens of previous outdated gods.
- Status