The Jesus Myth

[S-word]

Well the Truth and facts are that it is only YOU and those like you that quote story book tales as legitimate truth when you have zero = zip = 0 to legitimately support you and those like you and for my 50 years of searching those like you can't even legitimately get your story book tales to legitimately support your story book religious ideologies. The trinitarians are a classic example of frauds and ALL story book Jesus believers are frauds to boot, and in all my 50 years of searching not a single alleged genuine Jesus believer ever legitimately manifested the promises their story book Jesus has already allegedly given to a so called genuine believer to demonstrate their alleged genuine faith. The test of faith is a test of their faith, not a test of their God, for those promises have allegedly already been given.

My tally so far: Genuine story book Jesus believers that legitimately manifest the test of their faith and story book Jesus' promises = 0
Fraudulent and pretend Jesus believers that make a myriad of pathetic and fraudulent claims as to why they fail = 100%

You are welcome to try to legitimately break my 50 year record?

How sad that is, 50 years of wasted life, cos you aint never gonna convince nobody what believes in the Biblical God, that they are wrong, you've wasted 50 years, why dont you go out and get a life you poor wasted soul.

Matey, I'm 70 years old and wise enough not to attempt to try to convince anyone of anything. I simply put my views forward and attempt to answer all sensible questions, of which you are incapable of asking. I'm not here to waste my valuable time on useless arguments with godless disbelievers, which arguments lead nowhere. Believer or disbelieve. If you think that I am scripturally incorrect, by all means, attempt to show me scripturally where you believe me to be in error. But as you are scripturally inept, you will end up by being so embarrassed at your total ignorance of the truth revealed therein. Your only argument against anything scriptural is, “Nothing in the Bible’s true, “Na-na na-nah nahhh.”

Go to bed and have a good nights sleep, perhaps the cloud may lift while you sleep, you never know, stranger thing have happened dont you know?

 

[McBell]

Well the Truth and facts are that it is only YOU and those like you that quote story book tales as legitimate truth when you have zero = zip = 0 to legitimately support you and those like you and for my 50 years of searching those like you can't even legitimately get your story book tales to legitimately support your story book religious ideologies. The trinitarians are a classic example of frauds and ALL story book Jesus believers are frauds to boot, and in all my 50 years of searching not a single alleged genuine Jesus believer ever legitimately manifested the promises their story book Jesus has already allegedly given to a so called genuine believer to demonstrate their alleged genuine faith. The test of faith is a test of their faith, not a test of their God, for those promises have allegedly already been given.

My tally so far: Genuine story book Jesus believers that legitimately manifest the test of their faith and story book Jesus' promises = 0
Fraudulent and pretend Jesus believers that make a myriad of pathetic and fraudulent claims as to why they fail = 100%

You are welcome to try to legitimately break my 50 year record?

What I find rather interesting is how you do not hold yourself to the same standards as you demand from those who hold the Bible in such esteem.

Your record?
And does this record exist outside your own mind?
How are you prepared to verify this record so that we may know the legitimacy of it?

Cause to be quite frank about it, I suspect that your "record" has about as much validity as you give the Bible.

 

[McBell]

How sad that is, 50 years of wasted life, cos you aint never gonna convince nobody what believes in the Biblical God, that they are wrong, you've wasted 50 years, why dont you go out and get a life you poor wasted soul.

Matey, I'm 70 years old and wise enough not to attempt to try to convince anyone of anything. I simply put my views forward and attempt to answer all sensible questions, of which you are incapable of asking. I'm not here to waste my valuable time on useless arguments with godless disbelievers, which arguments lead nowhere. Believer or disbelieve. If you think that I am scripturally incorrect, by all means, attempt to show me scripturally where you believe me to be in error. But as you are scripturally inept, you will end up by being so embarrassed at your total ignorance of the truth revealed therein. Your only argument against anything scriptural is, “Nothing in the Bible’s true, “Na-na na-nah nahhh.”

Go to bed and have a good nights sleep, perhaps the cloud may lift while you sleep, you never know, stranger thing have happened dont you know?

*climbs up on pontoon boat*

 

[dogsgod]

If you think that I am scripturally incorrect, by all means, attempt to show me scripturally where you believe me to be in error.

I, an atheist, had to correct you. You stated,

"Remember, or should I say, have you read of the time that Jesus, as a twelve year old boy, sat in th temple, and for three days astounded the Jewich teachers with his knowledge of Scripture? And when his mother finally found him and chastised him for wandering off by himself, and He said to her; "Why did you have to search for me? Surely you knew I would be in my fathers house etc." His mother didn't have a clue what he was on about, because she knew who his physical father was."


I had to point out that you were referring to Luke wherein, had you known your bible, the angels had a conversation with Mary before Jesus was born and informed her that her son would be called the Son of God.35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Mary most certainly would have known what Jesus was on about, just you didn't know until an atheist showed you the way.

 

[fallingblood]

Matey you can believe what ever you choose to believe, as to your statement that I do not support what you say, and cannot answer questions in a logical manner, anyone reading all my posts in response to your questions will see that I have supported everything that I have said with Biblical evidence, the fact that you reject all biblical statement as non-evidence is your lose matey,

If as you have proven, you are unable to debate scripture, then for your own benefit, find a subject about which you know something, there you may have some success and not be such a bitter and sacastic person. Have a good one Matey.

You list large amounts of mumbo jumbo that you claim support your idea of what the scriptures say, even though you are clearly distorting what they do say. If you argued with the scriptures in a logical manner, then I would accept what you were saying to a higher degree. But what you state, for the majority, is unfounded ideas that the Bible does not even support, and none of your God-fearing or God-loving scholars would agree with.

Also, not all godless believe the Jesus is a myth. That you could claim such a thing shows that you are not in here for a debate and are highly ignorant on the subject. But I'm sure you will just throw out another insult, as you are so known to do.

 

[S-word]

You list large amounts of mumbo jumbo that you claim support your idea of what the scriptures say, even though you are clearly distorting what they do say. If you argued with the scriptures in a logical manner, then I would accept what you were saying to a higher degree. But what you state, for the majority, is unfounded ideas that the Bible does not even support, and none of your God-fearing or God-loving scholars would agree with.

Also, not all godless believe the Jesus is a myth. That you could claim such a thing shows that you are not in here for a debate and are highly ignorant on the subject. But I'm sure you will just throw out another insult, as you are so known to do.

quote=fallingblood; You list large amounts of mumbo jumbo that you claim support your idea of what the scriptures say, even though you are clearly distorting what they do say.

Please place before me that which you have failed to understand because of your lack of knowledge as to what the words of the bible are actually referring to, which I realise, that to a child in the secret wisdom department, would seem to be mumbo jumbo and I will attempt to dumb it down to your level of understanding.

quote=fallingblood; If you argued with the scriptures in a logical manner, then I would accept what you were saying to a higher degree. But what you state, for the majority, is unfounded ideas that the Bible does not even support, and none of your God-fearing or God-loving scholars would agree with.

The majority of people who claim to believe the Bible, are like yourself, they have been deceived into believing that an eternal and immortal god who was the co-creator of the cosmos had entered into the womb of some supposed virgin, something that can be found nowhere in scripture except where the Hebrew word for “unmarried woman,” was changed to “Virgin” and Matthews translation of the passage in Isaiah which stated that an unmarried woman would be with child, was changed to virgin also. There in the womb of that supposed virgin, his father with who he had created the cosmos, and who had never sired him because apparently he existed with his father and was his own father from all eternity, created for him a human like body, which was not of the seed of Adam and therefore not under the penalty of the original sin.

The fact that he was born of a daughter of Adam, is side stepped as they believe that she was born of immaculate conception herself, which means that her mother had to have been born of immaculate conception also add infinity so the entire female linage of their Jesus, had to have existed before Adam, in fact before their god, because they worship this supposed virgin as the mother of god. So it become obvious as you have stated, that none of those supposed God-fearing or God-loving scholars would agree with me, who claims that Jesus came as a normal human being, born of human parent as verified by the holy scriptures, and was chosen as the first to be raised from the dead past of the Son of Man and was given divine glory by the God of our ancestors and is now incontestably divine.

When I attempt to debate the scriptures with those supposed god-fearing poor deceived souls, I have to shovel away the tons of bull crap, which has been heaped upon them and upon godless people such as yourself, who believe that the rubbish that they have substituted for the truth, can somehow be found in Gods Holy word.

quote=fallingblood; Also, not all godless believe the Jesus is a myth. That you could claim such a thing shows that you are not in here for a debate and are highly ignorant on the subject. But I'm sure you will just throw out another insult, as you are so known to do.

Show to me one of your godless friends who believes that the Biblical Jesus is not a myth, and I will show you a true believer and follower of Christ and the truth that he proclaimed.

This is how I respond to the majority of your posts. By breaking them down into their individual statements and answering each one independly, so stop making a total fool of yourself by saying that I do not answer your questions, something of which I can show, that you never do. You avoid giving an answer by simply saying that the question was rubbish.

 

[Quagmire]

i) Please re-read my previous posts I will not repeat them ad nauseum.

I'm sure you would if you thought it would help you cover up the fact that your original point is ridiculous.

#f1: The problem is yours.

I have made it repeatedly clear e.g. Those contemporary at the time of the NT story book documents appearing, condemned the frauduent claims of the NT story book character Jesus.

This isn't what you said at all, you're just trying to save face at this point. You, as anyone who wants to read this back and forth from the beginning could plainly see, were trying to claim that religious leaders living in the 4th decade of the 1st. Cent. were already condemning the Gospel accounts in spite of the fact that none of them had been written yet.

Since the topic of this thread is whether of not there actually was a living, breathing Jesus living and teaching in the a fore mentioned time period, bringing up the fact that later religious leaders condemned the books after they had been written would be pointless (even if you could prove they did, which you can't. You can only surmise these things).

e.g. #1: According to the Genesis-Eden Torah narrative, Man, being dependent on the Torah story book Tree of Life, was already subject to death before it is claimed that man sinned and brought death upon them.

So some one / any one claiming that death was caused by sin, is a fraud for a number of reasons -

e.g. People were dying after the story book Jesus was crucified and before that, any ministry claiming that death was brought about by sin is a lie because of the Genesis-Eden Torah writings. (See #1: above) (Source: Page15#145)

Of course those Pharisees and Sadducees (Sanhedrin) could condemn text that hadn't yet been written based upon the following from their Torah however IF anything were to be written, then it could rightly be condemned -

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2) KJV story book

Those that were later to examine the additional text against their Torah could also determine IF the claims made in that new text was legitimate.


The NT Jesus DID NOT manifest the teachings of the Torah because a) They added to God's Word according to Deut. 4:2 and b) the NT Jesus story book text claimed that death was brought about by man sinning and this Jesus could atone for that. This was a lie according to the Torah (Genesis) because being dependent on the Tree of Life, man was already subject to death BEFORE it was claimed that he brought death upon himself for his sins.

None of the above has anything to do with what we're talking about and I'm sure you know that. You're just trying to burry your original point under a lot of irrelevant text to call attention away from the fact that you're original point was ridiculous.

On an up-note, the fact that you are trying so desperately to hide your original premise and make it look as if you've been saying something else all along is a promising indicator that you, on some level at least, realize now that it was ridiculous.

Points for that at least.

 

[McBell]

This is how I respond to the majority of your posts.

Exactly.
You merely respond.
Problem is that your "response" rarely has anything to do with what you are "responding" to.

By breaking them down into their individual statements and answering each one independly,

Thats just it though, you are not "answering" anything.
You are merely "responding" to what was written.

so stop making a total fool of yourself by saying that I do not answer your questions,

Since you rarely actually answer anything and merely "respond" with irrelevant nonsense, it is not he is looking like the fool.

Unless, of course, you are saying that you are not about to stop with your atypical non-answer responses, so he is a fool to think you will...

 

[fallingblood]

Please place before me that which you have failed to understand because of your lack of knowledge as to what the words of the bible[/FONT][/COLOR] are actually referring to, which I realise, that to a child in the secret wisdom department, would seem to be mumbo jumbo and I will attempt to dumb it down to your level of understanding.

Logical fallacy number one, attacking the messenger and not the message. I've already showed where you have been inaccurate. No point in order to reiterate those points.

The majority of people who claim to believe the Bible, are like yourself, they have been deceived into believing that an eternal and immortal god who was the...

Another logical fallacy, that is number 2. No need to respond to rest of that paragraph as it is nothing more than unfounded "rubbish" that neither I, nor the majority of serious scholars believe.

The fact that he was born of a daughter of Adam, is side stepped as they believe that she was born of immaculate conception herself, which means that her mother had to have been born of immaculate conception also add infinity so the entire female linage of their Jesus, had to have existed before Adam, in fact before their god, because they worship this supposed virgin as the mother of god. So it become obvious as you have stated, that none of those supposed God-fearing or God-loving scholars would agree with me, who claims that Jesus came as a normal human being, born of human parent as verified by the holy scriptures, and was chosen as the first to be raised from the dead past of the Son of Man and was given divine glory by the God of our ancestors and is now incontestably divine.

Logical fallacy number 3. Twisting what I said in order to prove your own point is not ethical by any means. The first half was nothing more than you preaching, and the second half was a complete lie that you made up in order to further your ideas. The fact is, God-fearing and loving scholars believe that Jesus was born a regular birth. For you to try to twist what I said and make it the opposite, even though I've stated over and over again my stance and the stance of the majority of scholars, is unethical, and a logical fallacy. Strike three, that means you would be out.

When I attempt to debate the scriptures with those supposed god-fearing poor deceived souls, I have to shovel away the tons of bull crap, which has been heaped upon them and upon godless people such as yourself, who believe that the rubbish that they have substituted for the truth, can somehow be found in Gods Holy word.

And another example of a logical fallacy. Attacking the messenger once again. Unethical, and simply not worth replying to as it is unsubstantiated, and irrational.

Show to me one of your godless friends who believes that the Biblical Jesus is not a myth, and I will show you a true believer and follower of Christ and the truth that he proclaimed.

Twisting my words again huh? Is that number four or five now? I never stated that they believed that a Biblical Jesus existed. There is a difference between a Biblical Jesus, and a Historical Jesus. Both are the same basic person, but the Historical Jesus is taken with out believing that the Bible is 100% literal. There should be no reason to make this distinction, but because of people like you, this distinction must be made.

However, before you twist this around, the Historical Jesus is the same Jesus as the one portrayed in the Gospels; however, the myths (being born of a virgin, the miracles, the resurrection, etc) are all tossed to the side as they never happened by were later additions to the story. A Biblical Jesus takes the Gospels as 100% literal.

This is how I respond to the majority of your posts. By breaking them down into their individual statements and answering each one independly, so stop making a total fool of yourself by saying that I do not answer your questions, something of which I can show, that you never do. You avoid giving an answer by simply saying that the question was rubbish.

And that rounds off the entire post by you by totaling 6 illogical fallacies (of course, they were different, mainly you insulting me and others who believe differently). I've answered what you've said, as I have here. Yes, after realizing how you debate, I do ignore a majority of what you say in other sections. However, when you direct something at me, I do respond and I do show my evidence.

By continuing in the way that you have, by attacking all who disagree and claiming that we never answer your questions, you are simply showing how one can argue in an unethical manner. It is as simple as that. And even if you would stop insulting everyone, and twisting their words around, you still have yet to provide evidence for your statements. If you don't want to do such, then there is no reason for you to debate these subject.s

 

[Composer]

The students (in this case christians) should never be held accountable for the quality of the teachers (in this case the Pope, Cardinals, Ministers, Priests et al).

So when students fail it's always the teachers fault?

 

[Agnostic75]

My vote is that if a man named Jesus existed, he was just an ordinary man.

 

[McBell]

My vote is that if a man named Jesus existed, he was just an ordinary man.

As Do I.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Though the New Testament has many historical errors, the fact is that many of its points have been proven historically correct. Roman historians, Jewish historians, the finding of the Gnostic materials at Nag Hammadi and now the finding of Caiaphas' burial cave, establishes an historic fact that Jesus lived.

No it doesn't...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh thank God you showed up!

Your savior is here....

 

[logician]

"
My vote is that if a man named Jesus existed, he was just an ordinary man."

Very ordinary, since no contemporary historian ever heard of such a man, but according to the bible had "multitudes" of people following him.

 

[LittleNipper]

"
My vote is that if a man named Jesus existed, he was just an ordinary man."

Very ordinary, since no contemporary historian ever heard of such a man, but according to the bible had "multitudes" of people following him.

We certainly know that people were executed for their belief in the LORD CHRIST JESUS. If the SAVIOR was not real to them, they would have simply capitulated and lived. Obviously, they witnessed the changes in the lives of those who accepted CHRIST as their personal SAVIOR and noticed how their own lives were transformed when they came to believe...

An ordinary man does not change behavior patterns of the world. Nor do people give theri lives for a dead man. What exactly would be the point?

 

[Agnostic75]

We certainly know that people were executed for their belief in the LORD CHRIST JESUS.

And we certainly know that many Japanese Kamikaze pilots and Muslim terrorists have died for their religious beliefs.

Today, if all Muslims were forced to give up their religious beliefs or be killed, it is probable that many millions of them would refuse to give up their religious beliefs.

It is interesting to note that Islam is growing faster than Christianity is, and will probably become larger than Christianity is within 100 years. Still, there is not a necessary correlation between the truth and how many people believe it.

There are many secular reasons why Christianity became a large religion.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We certainly know that people were executed for their belief in the LORD CHRIST JESUS. If the SAVIOR was not real to them, they would have simply capitulated and lived. Obviously, they witnessed the changes in the lives of those who accepted CHRIST as their personal SAVIOR and noticed how their own lives were transformed when they came to believe...

An ordinary man does not change behavior patterns of the world. Nor do people give theri lives for a dead man. What exactly would be the point?

We've had plenty of ordinary men who have changed the world. The thing that appears to make the Biblical Yeshua "greater" is the hyped up story around him....(assuming he existed at all)...

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

The first historian to document a "christ" was Josephus and he was born in 37 AD, four years after the supposed death of Jesus.. hardly a eye-witness...

Actually even Josephus never wrote about of Jesus, most don't realize the earlier copies of Josephus makes no mention of Jesus and it's only later copies which seemed to be tampered and inserted into out of context if you read closely. It's said that Eusebius might be responsible for the insertions.
Also another little known fact, which I discovered on my own, is that Josephus was related in a round about way to the 100 BC character used as part of the image of the Jesus mythology. He married a relative of Yeshu the son of Mary of 100BC.
Josephus never mentions this relative but mentions a few messianic figures who came later who were also used for the image and accounts of Jesus. Josephus accounts Yehuda of Galilee and Theudas the figure by the Jordan River (both accounted as christ figures in the Book of acts).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually even Josephus never wrote about of Jesus, most don't realize the earlier copies of Josephus makes no mention of Jesus and it's only later copies

:biglaugh: