There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Sgt. Pepper]

To say that Jesus never existed is nonsense since all scholars agree that Jesus existed and almost universally agree that Jesus was crucified.

It is questionable whether a man named Jesus (Yehoshua or Yeshua) lived in biblical times because not all scholars agree that he did.

The Jesus Controversy: Why historical scholarship cannot find the living Jesus

Opinion: These 5 historical truths suggest Jesus Christ may have never existed

A Growing Number of Scholars Are Questioning the Historical Existence of Jesus

Did this man actually exist, and was he crucified as the Bible claims? Based on my personal research, the answer depends on the historical scholar who writes the article and presents the evidence that they believe supports their thesis. In my opinion, everyone has an opinion on this subject based on what they believe is sufficient evidence to prove or disprove that Jesus actually existed and lived on this earth during biblical times. I have read quite a bit of information on both sides of this debate, and I lean towards the possibility that Jesus most likely existed, but he was just an ordinary man. I believe that he was just a popular but controversial religious teacher who inspired his devoted followers to the point where they fabricated elaborate stories about him being godlike or being God himself (miraculously healing the sick, performing supernatural miracles, resurrecting the dead, and rising from the dead).

Am I right? Maybe. I honestly don't know, but I do know that I've carefully considered and evaluated everything I've read in order to form my opinion on this subject. The articles I read by Christians and Christian scholars presented what they believed to be sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was who the Bible claims he was, and the articles I read written by non-Christians and non-Christian scholars presented what they believed to be sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was not who the Bible claims he was or that he never existed. To be honest, the evidence is compelling on both sides, but I have chosen the side that I believe to be the most accurate and convincing, which is what I mentioned in the opening paragraph of this response and what I've written in other posts. And it doesn't matter to me whether other people believe in Jesus, as long as they don't try to convert me by preaching and proselytizing.

 

[Copernicus]

It is questionable whether a man named Jesus (Yehoshua or Yeshua) lived in biblical times because not all scholars agree that he did.

The Jesus Controversy: Why historical scholarship cannot find the living Jesus

Opinion: These 5 historical truths suggest Jesus Christ may have never existed

A Growing Number of Scholars Are Questioning the Historical Existence of Jesus

Did this man actually exist, and was he crucified as the Bible claims? Based on my personal research, the answer depends on the historical scholar who writes the article and presents the evidence that they believe supports their thesis. In my opinion, everyone has an opinion on this subject based on what they believe is sufficient evidence to prove or disprove that Jesus actually existed and lived on this earth during biblical times. I have read quite a bit of information on both sides of this debate, and I lean towards the possibility that Jesus most likely existed, but he was just an ordinary man. I believe that he was just a popular but controversial religious teacher who inspired his devoted followers to the point where they fabricated elaborate stories about him being godlike (miraculously healing the sick, performing supernatural miracles, resurrecting the dead, and rising from the dead himself).

Am I right? Maybe. I don't know, but I do know that I've carefully considered and evaluated everything I've read in order to form my opinion on this subject. The articles I read by Christians and Christian scholars presented what they believed to be sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was who the Bible claims he was, and the articles I read written by non-Christians and non-Christian scholars presented what they believed to be sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was not who the Bible claimed he was or that he never even existed. To be honest, the evidence is compelling on both sides, but I've chosen the side that I believe to be the most accurate and convincing, which is what I mentioned in the opening paragraph of this response and what I've written on this subject in other posts.

I am completely neutral on the question. I just don't think we have any good evidence of a historical figure, but we also don't have good evidence in favor of a purely mythical figure. The argument from popularity of scholarship is often claimed without any real explanation of why mythicism is a minority position. Since a great many biblical scholars are believers in the subject matter they study, they are predisposed to believe in historicity, even in the face of flimsy evidence. Paul is notorious for having given almost no details about the actual person Jesus. Those stories came much later from ministries that were promoting a historical view of Jesus, which got incorporated into the orthodox movement that ultimately arose to suppress the plethora of competing Christian cults.


The most concrete evidence we have is from Paul's Galatians that he had met with someone he called "James" and the "brother of Jesus". Paul never met Jesus, and he was locked in a struggle with Peter over influence and control of the growing Christian movement among Hellenized Jews and non-Jews. Paul was trying to impress his audience with his own bona fides, and that meeting was part of his story to them. Moreover, it's even possible that he didn't mean "brother" in a familial sense, since members of fraternal cults could have used the term as a title of membership. Fraternal cults were widespread in the Empire at that time, so one can make a case that even that piece of evidence is a bit shaky.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To say that Jesus never existed is nonsense since all scholars agree that Jesus existed and almost universally agree that Jesus was crucified.

We agree there. The Jesus mythicists tend to be anti-Christian conspiracy theorists with an axe to grind, like the OP. I used to be one of them until I realized it didn't make sense at all.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I have more, I have the presence of the spirit of Jesus in my life which bears the conviction of the truth of his existence. The truths that Jesus taught in the gospels, even if he never existed have had the power to change the entire world. Your fake spaghetti God offers nothing but pessimistic despair. So blessed to have gift!

Coulter, if you benefit from belief in Jesus then by all means continue believing in him. I'm not trying to destroy people's faith, I'm just trying to give people both sides of the story. If after they hear the lack of evidence for Jesus they still want to believe in him then by all means do so. I've always said: use anything that helps you to get to end of the day with your sanity intact, whether it's sex, drugs, rock-and-roll and even Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

To be honest, the evidence is compelling on both sides, but I have chosen the side that I believe to be the most accurate and convincing, which is what I mentioned in the opening paragraph of this response and what I've written in other posts. And it doesn't matter to me whether other people believe in Jesus, as long as they don't try to convert me by preaching and proselytizing.

It also doesn't matter to me if other people don't believe in Jesus as long as they don't don't try to convert me away from believeing in Jesus by preaching and proselytizing.

 

[Trailblazer]

We agree there. The Jesus mythicists tend to be anti-Christian conspiracy theorists with an axe to grind, like the OP. I used to be one of them until I realized it didn't make sense at all.

Do you ever wonder why some people are so dead set on believing that Jesus never existed? I have some of my own ideas.
I hope you are doing okay. I am doing as well as can be expected under my circumstances.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I am completely neutral on the question. I just don't think we have any good evidence of a historical figure, but we also don't have good evidence in favor of a purely mythical figure. The argument from popularity of scholarship is often claimed without any real explanation of why mythicism is a minority position. Since a great many biblical scholars are believers in the subject matter they study, they are predisposed to believe in historicity, even in the face of flimsy evidence. Paul is notorious for having giving almost no details about the actual person Jesus. Those stories came much later from ministries that were promoting a historical view of Jesus, which got incorporated into the orthodox movement that ultimately arose to suppress the plethora of competing Christian cults.


The most concrete evidence we have is from Paul's Galatians that he had met with someone he called "James" and the "brother of Jesus". Paul never met Jesus, and he was locked in a struggle with Peter over influence and control of the growing Christian movement among Hellenized Jews and non-Jews. Paul was trying to impress his audience with his own bona fides, and that meeting was part of his story to them. Moreover, it's even possible that he didn't mean "brother" in a familial sense, since members of fraternal cults could have used the term as a title of membership. Fraternal cults were widespread in the Empire at that time, so one can make a case that even that piece of evidence is a bit shaky.

This point always gets lost in the discussion:

Christians claim: "Every scholar agrees Jesus lived". True. But which Jesus?

1. the ordinary man who was likely a rabbi and zealot and was crucified by the Romans for sedition? Yes, this is the Jesus scholars are referring to when they say a Jesus existed. They are NOT referring to

2. a divine son of a god born of a virgin who was spirited away to a foreign land as a baby because a king was trying to kill him, who returned to do great thing, suffered an ignominious if strange death on a hill who then rose and ascended into heaven.

You can read of a half dozen mythical gods or sons of gods with the EXACT same attributes as Jesus. Coincidence? I think not. In all likelihood, the gospel writers were borrowing details from the Old Testament and from other mythical gods when they wrote their Jesus stories.

That's the honest explanation Christians SHOULD give when they say that all scholars agree Jesus lived. But Christians will never give people the whole story, which is why I say Christians are always disingenuous when it comes to telling the whole truth of the matter because they are afraid a non-Christian contemplating joining Christianity will say, "I didn't know that. I think I'll pass on Jesus."

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I am completely neutral on the question. I just don't think we have any good evidence of a historical figure, but we also don't have good evidence in favor of a purely mythical figure. The argument from popularity of scholarship is often claimed without any real explanation of why mythicism is a minority position. Since a great many biblical scholars are believers in the subject matter they study, they are predisposed to believe in historicity, even in the face of flimsy evidence. Paul is notorious for having giving almost no details about the actual person Jesus. Those stories came much later from ministries that were promoting a historical view of Jesus, which got incorporated into the orthodox movement that ultimately arose to suppress the plethora of competing Christian cults.

The most concrete evidence we have is from Paul's Galatians that he had met with someone he called "James" and the "brother of Jesus". Paul never met Jesus, and he was locked in a struggle with Peter over influence and control of the growing Christian movement among Hellenized Jews and non-Jews. Paul was trying to impress his audience with his own bona fides, and that meeting was part of his story to them. Moreover, it's even possible that he didn't mean "brother" in a familial sense, since members of fraternal cults could have used the term as a title of membership. Fraternal cults were widespread in the Empire at that time, so one can make a case that even that piece of evidence is a bit shaky.

Very informative.

This point always gets lost in the discussion:

Christians claim: "Every scholar agrees Jesus lived". True. But which Jesus?

1. the ordinary man who was likely a rabbi and zealot and was crucified by the Romans for sedition? Yes, this is the Jesus scholars are referring to when they say a Jesus existed. They are NOT referring to

2. a divine son of a god born of a virgin who was spirited away to a foreign land as a baby because a king was trying to kill him, who returned to do great thing, suffered an ignominious if strange death on a hill who then rose and ascended into heaven.

You can read of a half dozen mythical gods or sons of gods with the EXACT same attributes as Jesus. Coincidence? I think not. In all likelihood, the gospel writers were borrowing details from the Old Testament and from other mythical gods when they wrote their Jesus stories.

That's the honest explanation Christians SHOULD give when they say that all scholars agree Jesus lived. But Christians will never give people the whole story, which is why I say Christians are always disingenuous when it comes to telling the whole truth of the matter because they are afraid a non-Christian contemplating joining Christianity will say, "I didn't know that. I think I'll pass on Jesus."

Well said, Thrillobyte.

 

[Quagmire]

Here's a clue that I don't think I've ever seen mentioned here:

Matt: 11 "While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers 13 and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day."

The bolded part is what caught my eye. Consider: Matthew is writing for a Jewish audience, and he's talking about a story that according to him is still circulating among them at the time of his writing.

His audience would have known whether or not there was such a story floating around in their sphere. If Matthew had just made it up and tried to pass it off as an already established bit of local folklore, it would have cost him in terms of credibility,

--- "You know what he's talking about Saul?".

--- "Beats me, Mordechai. Let's go read someone else's gospel".


So, apparently something like 50 years after the crucifixion there's a story circulating among the Jews about Jesus' disciples stealing his body.

Among other things this suggests:

--- that there actually was a body.

--- that there actually was an empty tomb (otherwise why would any explanation be necessary?).

--- that the event (the crucifixion) and the people involved were important enough that they were still being talked about 50+ years later

--- and, last and probably most obviously, someone named Jesus (Yeshua), with some measure of celebrity, who had disciples, and who was alleged to have come back from the dead actually had existed in first cent. Judea.

 

[Copernicus]

This point always gets lost in the discussion:

Christians claim: "Every scholar agrees Jesus lived". True. But which Jesus?

1. the ordinary man who was likely a rabbi and zealot and was crucified by the Romans for sedition? Yes, this is the Jesus scholars are referring to when they say a Jesus existed. They are NOT referring to

2. a divine son of a god born of a virgin who was spirited away to a foreign land as a baby because a king was trying to kill him, who returned to do great thing, suffered an ignominious if strange death on a hill who then rose and ascended into heaven.

You can read of a half dozen mythical gods or sons of gods with the EXACT same attributes as Jesus. Coincidence? I think not. In all likelihood, the gospel writers were borrowing details from the Old Testament and from other mythical gods when they wrote their Jesus stories.

That's the honest explanation Christians SHOULD give when they say that all scholars agree Jesus lived. But Christians will never give people the whole story, which is why I say Christians are always disingenuous when it comes to telling the whole truth of the matter because they are afraid a non-Christian contemplating joining Christianity will say, "I didn't know that. I think I'll pass on Jesus."

And, since the New Testament gospels do not all agree on the details of the life and crucifixion of Jesus, the most popular story of the details of that life is a composite picture that Bart Ehrman has described as something of a "fifth gospel" (IRRC from Did Jesus Exist?). Ehrman himself started out saying that he would not use the tactic of discarding mythicism with the claim that all scholars agree on historicity, and he dismissed many of the most common arguments for historicity. His support for historicity came down primarily to the evidence from Paul and reliance on the tactic that he said he wouldn't use--the popular belief among biblical scholars that a historical Jesus really did exist.

 

[SDavis]

There is NO secular historical evidence for Jesus, son of God or the apostles, period. Despite all the propaganda Christians put forth about there being so much evidence for Jesus in the historical record, it is just disinformation disguised as truth to keep Christianity afloat. The truth is there simply is no secular historical evidence an avatar god man named Jesus as described in the gospels ever lived--nor did the 12 men he supposedly gathered around him and walked with them for 3 years before being crucified. NONE of this is supported by historical fact. No historian mentions all the supernatural events that the gospels claim occurred after Christ's supposed crucifixion, even though the Gospels claim Jesus' fame spread far beyond the borders of Israel. There may be a possibility an ordinary man who was a Jewish zealot was crucified by the Romans for sedition against Rome but again no historian mentions one.

The two passages by Josephus so often cited by Christians as mentioning Jesus are so mired in controversy that they are dismissed by mainstream historians as having little to no value in trying to prove Jesus existed. Here are some pertinent facts that Christians should consider before they try to pass off these passages as proof of Jesus:

* The Testimonium Flavianum is never quoted by anyone until the 4th century (c. 324), when Bishop Eusebius begins quoting it. Scholars believe it was Eusebius who doctored the passage with references to Jesus' supernatural nature.

* It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a Jew working in concert with the Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

* Josephus is on record that the Emperor Vespasian was the messiah and had fulfilled prophecy.

* The second passage of Josephus, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.” is a scribal interpolation. There are several indications that the sentence fragment “who was called Christ” was not original to the text.

Here is a link to some research that will help to clear up the controversy surrounding the Josephus passages:

Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

The gospels were NOT written by the apostles or anyone connected to Jesus or the fictional apostles. The gospels were written 50-100 years after Jesus purportedly was crucified in 30 AD by anonymous Greek scholars who couldn't have known Jesus and certainly were not familiar with Israel's geographic terrain as evidenced by the numerous errors they made about towns' proximity to each other and to other natural terrain. The Romans were excellent record keepers of their trials but a trial of Jesus ben Joseph or similar name who was crucified under Pilate's order simply doesn't exist. The name Yeshua ben Joseph or Yeshua Moshiach (Jesus Christ) doesn't appear anywhere in the historical record. A few historians like Tacitus made reference to a man referred to as "Chrestus" but we have no idea who that is nor can we know or reasonably ascertain if they were referring to Jesus, the son of God or another Chrestus who had a following. What we Do know is that Christians are constantly trying to pass off this passage and similar ones using the term, "Christ" as proof secular historians mention Jesus. But they don't. There were dozens of "Christs" in Jesus' time. Any of them could lay claim to being the Messiah.

If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have left a mountain of evidence proving this that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise.

But God left no such compelling evidence. The proof for this fact is truth No 1 above. That would mean the Christian god, if he even exists, doesn't give a tinker's damn whether or not we believe in Jesus. God, if he exists, shows himself to not interfere or participate in human affairs. Thus, he could not have left any evidence for this Jesus fellow and this is exactly what we see in the secular historic record--NO mention of Jesus or the apostles.

An unassailable truth: prayers do not get answered, in contrast to what Jesus promises in the gospels. Millions upon millions of people pray every day for their sick loved ones to get well and their loved ones do not recover. If a person recovers it is usually on the order of 10% and here is the key thing: it occurs across all demographics with the SAME rate of frequency. Thus, a small percentage of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists all recover from serious illness at exactly the same rate. This proves without a doubt that praying to God has nothing to do with it; some humans are going to recover from their illness but ALL terminally ill people are going to die at some point in the near future. No one is cured as a result of prayer. Study after study has borne this fact out.

There is no reason for people to believe in Jesus as the savior son of God when we haven't a single entry in the secular historic record testifying that he is. People who choose to believe in Jesus as their savior are doing so in ignorance of all the above, or they are doing it on pure faith without any evidence for Jesus. It's a crying shame that people can throw their lives away so carelessly for a myth, but it's a free country and people are permitted to squander their lives on anything they want, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


View attachment 77669

Even when supplied with evidence of the existence of Jesus it is denied...... Or one will say well he may have lived but he was just a man and he didn't do miracles...... Well somebody saw some miracles being done are the people who passed it downward for word were reliable and believed because within two hundred years Rome which was the ruling Force of the ancient world, was becoming a Christian Nation.

Jesus himself did commission Paul to go and spread the gospel to the gentiles.
.

Jesus Mythicism 1: The Tacitus Reference to Jesus - History for Atheists

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was one of the most reliable of all Roman historians and many first century figures are known to us solely through his mention of them. This means his passing reference to Jesus in Annals XV.44 remains an fly in the ointment of the Jesus Myth hypothesis. Despite...

historyforatheists.com

Suetonius' Reference to "Chrestus" - UU Humanist Skeptic

Illustration of Suetonius in Hartmann Schedel’s World History also known as the Nurembergs Chronicle (1493). Table of Contents Introduction One of the factors which are taken by some New Testament scholars as being evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is a very brief statement made...

pmrb.net

Christos / Christus / Chrestus are all referring to the Greek given name to Jesus who's Hebrew name was Yeshua / Joshua / Yahshua - who's Roman name who established the first church was Christ and his followers were called Christians.

Jesus commissioned Paul to spread the word to the gentiles, which he did and the word is still going strong.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Again, I'm not trying to destroy a person's faith. If history said that the divine son of God did actually live and rose from the dead and I was going around saying he never existed, THEN that'd be a case of me trying to destroy a person's faith. While Christians are asking, "Why are you trying to destroy my faith" I'm asking, "Why are you NOT giving potential initiates the whole truth--that there is no historical evidence for a divine Jesus of the gospels; there's not even historical evidence for an ordinary man, but historians just assume he did live because otherwise how do we explain the presence of Christianity?"

If Christians were forthright and fully truthful in proselytizing to potential initiates about Jesus there'd be no need for me to be telling people the full story in a truly forthright honest manner.

If I am lying in any way shape or form please tell me how.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Even when supplied with evidence of the existence of Jesus it is denied

Which Jesus, the ordinary man or the divine son of God? Scholars agree on the first. They do NOT acknowledge the latter.

 

[Copernicus]

Jesus commissioned Paul to spread the word to the gentiles, which he did and the word is still going strong.

No, Paul never met with Jesus. He claimed to have met with his "brother" James. Moreover, Paul's ministry was opposed by Peter, who wanted Christians, including gentiles, to adhere to traditional Jewish customs such as a kosher diet and circumcision. Paul felt that his followers did not need to adhere to those traditions. The advantage of Peter's viewpoint would have been that the Christians could have promoted themselves as an officially sanctioned branch of Judaism, rather than a banned cult, in the eyes of Roman law. However, Paul's version was more popular among non-Jews and Hellenized Jews, so that may be why it prevailed in the long run. It was better adapted to the lifestyles of non-Jews.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is questionable whether a man named Jesus (Yehoshua or Yeshua) lived in biblical times because not all scholars agree that he did.

The Jesus Controversy: Why historical scholarship cannot find the living Jesus

Opinion: These 5 historical truths suggest Jesus Christ may have never existed

A Growing Number of Scholars Are Questioning the Historical Existence of Jesus

Did this man actually exist, and was he crucified as the Bible claims? Based on my personal research, the answer depends on the historical scholar who writes the article and presents the evidence that they believe supports their thesis. In my opinion, everyone has an opinion on this subject based on what they believe is sufficient evidence to prove or disprove that Jesus actually existed and lived on this earth during biblical times. I have read quite a bit of information on both sides of this debate, and I lean towards the possibility that Jesus most likely existed, but he was just an ordinary man. I believe that he was just a popular but controversial religious teacher who inspired his devoted followers to the point where they fabricated elaborate stories about him being godlike or being God himself (miraculously healing the sick, performing supernatural miracles, resurrecting the dead, and rising from the dead).

Am I right? Maybe. I honestly don't know, but I do know that I've carefully considered and evaluated everything I've read in order to form my opinion on this subject. The articles I read by Christians and Christian scholars presented what they believed to be sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was who the Bible claims he was, and the articles I read written by non-Christians and non-Christian scholars presented what they believed to be sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was not who the Bible claims he was or that he never existed. To be honest, the evidence is compelling on both sides, but I have chosen the side that I believe to be the most accurate and convincing, which is what I mentioned in the opening paragraph of this response and what I've written in other posts. And it doesn't matter to me whether other people believe in Jesus, as long as they don't try to convert me by preaching and proselytizing.

Some do not listen to each and everyone called a scholar. Because, as we know, even scientists can say something and be wrong. Or make things up. Or say what they think may have happened but really do not know.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, Paul never met with Jesus. He claimed to have met with his "brother" James. Moreover, Paul's ministry was opposed by Peter, who wanted Christians, including gentiles, to adhere to traditional Jewish customs such as a kosher diet and circumcision. Paul felt that his followers did not need to adhere to those traditions. The advantage of Peter's viewpoint would have been that the Christians could have promoted themselves as an officially sanctioned branch of Judaism, rather than a banned cult, in the eyes of Roman law. However, Paul's version was more popular among non-Jews and Hellenized Jews, so that may be why it prevailed in the long run. It was better adapted to the lifestyles of non-Jews.

Jesus met Paul in a vision. You don't have to believe it, I do believe it.

 

[Thrillobyte]

No, Paul never met with Jesus. He claimed to have met with his "brother" James. Moreover, Paul's ministry was opposed by Peter, who wanted Christians, including gentiles, to adhere to traditional Jewish customs such as a kosher diet and circumcision. Paul felt that his followers did not need to adhere to those traditions. The advantage of Peter's viewpoint would have been that the Christians could have promoted themselves as an officially sanctioned branch of Judaism, rather than a banned cult, in the eyes of Roman law. However, Paul's version was more popular among non-Jews and Hellenized Jews, so that may be why it prevailed in the long run. It was better adapted to the lifestyles of non-Jews.

Further, the earliest Christians were Jewish and they wanted to keep the new faith pure Jewish. Paul was the first who got in there and said, "Look, if we try to keep this faith in Jesus only among the Jews our religion will never grow. To bulk up our numbers we MUST include the gentiles. But gentiles will never accept all the kosher laws so we have to get rid of those." Thus:

“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim 4:4-5)

and

"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died." Romans 154:14-16

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, I'm not trying to destroy a person's faith. If history said that the divine son of God did actually live and rose from the dead and I was going around saying he never existed, THEN that'd be a case of me trying to destroy a person's faith. While Christians are asking, "Why are you trying to destroy my faith" I'm asking, "Why are you NOT giving potential initiates the whole truth--that there is no historical evidence for a divine Jesus of the gospels; there's not even historical evidence for an ordinary man, but historians just assume he did live because otherwise how do we explain the presence of Christianity?"

If Christians were forthright and fully truthful in proselytizing to potential initiates about Jesus there'd be no need for me to be telling people the full story in a truly forthright honest manner.

If I am lying in any way shape or form please tell me how.

I learned a while ago that faith is one of the gifts of the spirit. It took me prayer and a while to recognize that. Even while Jesus was on the earth, his claim to be the son of God was contested by some, plus the Sanhedrin was mainly against him. He knew what the scriptures said about the messiah and he also knew he would be put to death by those who did not like him.

 

[YoursTrue]

Further, the earliest Christians were Jewish and they wanted to keep the new faith pure Jewish. Paul was the first who got in there and said, "Look, if we try to keep this faith in Jesus only among the Jews our religion will never grow. To bulk up our numbers we MUST include the gentiles. But gentiles will never accept all the kosher laws so we have to get rid of those." Thus:

“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim 4:4-5)

and

"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died." Romans 154:14-16

That does not back up what you say. Paul reasoned on the matter, yes the first followers of Christ were Jews, but by divine direction it was opened to all those having faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is questionable whether a man named Jesus (Yehoshua or Yeshua) lived in biblical times because not all scholars agree that he did.

The Jesus Controversy: Why historical scholarship cannot find the living Jesus

Opinion: These 5 historical truths suggest Jesus Christ may have never existed

A Growing Number of Scholars Are Questioning the Historical Existence of Jesus

Did this man actually exist, and was he crucified as the Bible claims? Based on my personal research, the answer depends on the historical scholar who writes the article and presents the evidence that they believe supports their thesis. In my opinion, everyone has an opinion on this subject based on what they believe is sufficient evidence to prove or disprove that Jesus actually existed and lived on this earth during biblical times. I have read quite a bit of information on both sides of this debate, and I lean towards the possibility that Jesus most likely existed, but he was just an ordinary man. I believe that he was just a popular but controversial religious teacher who inspired his devoted followers to the point where they fabricated elaborate stories about him being godlike or being God himself (miraculously healing the sick, performing supernatural miracles, resurrecting the dead, and rising from the dead).

Am I right? Maybe. I honestly don't know, but I do know that I've carefully considered and evaluated everything I've read in order to form my opinion on this subject. The articles I read by Christians and Christian scholars presented what they believed to be sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was who the Bible claims he was, and the articles I read written by non-Christians and non-Christian scholars presented what they believed to be sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was not who the Bible claims he was or that he never existed. To be honest, the evidence is compelling on both sides, but I have chosen the side that I believe to be the most accurate and convincing, which is what I mentioned in the opening paragraph of this response and what I've written in other posts. And it doesn't matter to me whether other people believe in Jesus, as long as they don't try to convert me by preaching and proselytizing.

If someone tells you something that you like, that's good, right? In a similar way, those running for election might say what the people want to hear, right?