Yeshua Never Existed . . . Change my Mind

'Amir Alzzalam

Šayṭānist
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
331
Points
83
There is no conclusive evidence much less objective proof that Yeshua (the son of god/or god himself) ever existed.
Change my mind . . .

By the first century A.D., the Jews were looking for strong, magnetic leaders who could deliver them from the wrath of the Roman Empire. The Essenes developed the idea of a messiah figure that would provide this. Several Jewish leaders were set to take over after the death of the Jewish King Herod, who primarily worked for the Romans. To qualify as a messiah, someone needed to be from the bloodline of King David. None of the descendants of King David and their misled disciples succeeded, and most were killed.

While these messiah figures drew support from the claim they descended from King David, wherein Judaic tradition did this claim that Davidic pedigree was necessary to become a Messiah come from? When King David ruled Israel (circa 10th century B.C.E.), the conviction arose that his progeny would “rule forever, not only over Israel but also over all the nations”.

One that stands out is a former slave of King Herod by the name of Simon of Perea. Simon was the first heretical Jew who managed to convince a large portion of the Jews that he was the King of Jews and Jehova's Messiah. When the Roman Empire caught wind of this they dispatched military units to put an end to this claim. They would eventually corner and behead Simon in 4 B.C.

Anthronges was another deified Messiah who waged a serious war against the Roman Empire and also lost. Next came Yeshua the Nazarene. Proclaiming himself king of the Jews, Yeshua was eventually hunted down and crucified. Oddly enough, Yeshua was far from a warrior, would never be able to lead men in battle or control the logistics of a military campaign. Had King David met Yeshua, he would have been greatly disappointed with the gentle ideas of this self-proclaimed messiah.

New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, eloquently stated:
"To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”

After Yeshua there came a dozen other Messianic campaigns, none of which are publicized by the Abrahamic faith, and all of which ultimately failed. Theudas in 58 C.E., Menachem ben Judah ben Hezekiah, Simon ben Kosevah, Moses of Crete, Abu Isa, Al-Ra'i" ("the shepherd of the flock of his people"), Saüra the Syrian, to name a few.

Yeshua (Jesus) failed as a messiah and stood in a long line of failed messiahs. This clearly postulates the early Christians designed (i.e. fabricated) a mythical being that would be the principal hero of their faith and philosophy.


John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived. According to Remsburg, “Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles – increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.
JosephusJuvenalLucanus
Philo-JudæusMartialEpictetus
SenecaPersiusHermogones Silius Italicus
Pliny ElderPlutarchStatius
ArrianPliny YoungerPtolemy
PetroniusTacitusAppian
Dion PruseusJustus of TiberiusPhlegon
PaterculusApolloniusPhædrus
SuetoniusQuintilianValerius Maximus
PausaniasDio ChrysostomLysias
Florus LuciusColumellaPomponius Mela
LucianValerius FlaccusAppion of Alexandria
Quintius CurtiusDamisTheon of Smyrna
Aulus GelliusFavorinus
 
Yeshua Never Existed . . . Change my Mind

You've already been shown, you don't wish to see it because it doesn't line up with your view of reality.

1695171385950.png
 
There is no conclusive evidence much less objective proof that Yeshua (the son of god/or god himself) ever existed.
Change my mind . . .
But here you acknowledge that the majority of 21st Century historians say Yeshua DID exist.
New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, eloquently stated:
"To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”

After Yeshua there came a dozen other Messianic campaigns, none of which are publicized by the Abrahamic faith, and all of which ultimately failed. Theudas in 58 C.E., Menachem ben Judah ben Hezekiah, Simon ben Kosevah, Moses of Crete, Abu Isa, Al-Ra'i" ("the shepherd of the flock of his people"), Saüra the Syrian, to name a few.

Yeshua (Jesus) failed as a messiah and stood in a long line of failed messiahs. This clearly postulates the early Christians designed (i.e. fabricated) a mythical being that would be the principal hero of their faith and philosophy.
Bart Ehrman absolutely does accept that Yesua or Jesus did exist -- was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

So are you asking anyone to prove to you the truth of the New Testament accounts beyond those two accepted events -- the baptism and crucifixion?

Jesus is definitely believed by the consensus of 21st Century historians to have existed, although beyond the baptism and crucifixion the full events of his life are uncertain.

Do you acknowledge that much?
 
Last edited:
He is seeking secular validation, completely ignoring Josephus and Pliny the younger, among others.

No sense wasting time.
He's saying the Josephus passages are forgeries because it is accepted that one passage does contain later interpolations, but the main drift is accepted by people like Bart Ehrman.

The other sources: Pliny the Younger, Tacitus etc, are widely accepted as generally reliable.
not worth the effort
Just to advise anyone unfamiliar with this stuff not to fall for the mythicist line without doing the research, imo -- because it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of historians as wrong
 
Last edited:
Just to advise anyone unfamiliar with this stuff not to fall for the mythicist line without doing the research, imo -- because it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of historians as wrong
Indeed .. but people will believe what they like.
..just like me. ;)

I quite agree with you that the majority of historians believe that the existence of Jesus and Muhammad are not based on forged records.
 
But here you acknowledge that the majority of 21st Century historians say Yeshua DID exist.
Bart Ehrman absolutely does accept that Yesua or Jesus did exist -- was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

So are you asking anyone to prove to you the truth of the New Testament accounts beyond those two accepted events -- the baptism and crucifixion?

Jesus is definitely believed by the consensus of 21st Century historians to have existed, although beyond the baptism and crucifixion the full events of his life are uncertain.

Do you acknowledge that much?
Absolutely not, none of them, to my knowledge, have given any real objective evidence that shows Yeshua's existence.
 
Absolutely not, none of them, to my knowledge, have given any real objective evidence that shows Yeshua's existence.
Ok. So you reject the majority consensus of secular historians on the subject, and that is your right, lol
 
Ok. So you reject the majority opinion of secular historians on the subject, and that is your right, lol
Well, where is their objective proof? All of them merely repeat what Josephus, a Pharisee, and Tacitus, a pagan wrote. Josephus was born in the year 37 CE, and Tacitus was born in 55, neither could have been an eye-witness of Jesus.
 
Well, where is their objective proof? All of them merely repeat what Josephus, a Pharisee, and Tacitus, a pagan wrote. Josephus was born in the year 37 CE, and Tacitus was born in 55, neither could have been an eye-witness of Jesus.
..so it's all some kind of conspiracy?
Nay .. I know who is responsible for conspiracy .. and it is not them.
 
It is true that it is more complex than just a simple statement. It is true that in a lot of things, they are not our choice. But in matters of Morals and Virtues they are our choice.

As to identifying the source of Morals and Virtues as God, that is a bit more complex, as the spark needed to change our mind about God, lays in our own actions. Our actions can be gifted by God with recognition.

So I offer you get to choose if the following has any merit, only you can choose to study if there is a greater wisdom behind what is offered.

"Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognising the truth of this Revelation..." Bahá’u’lláh, The Dawnbreakers, p. 586

So in researching all the above, from the time you posted the OP, that is entirely up to you. How you approach the answers given, may result in guidance. It is your mind asking to recognise the source of all Knowledge.

No one else can do that for you.

Regards Tony
 
It is true that it is more complex than just a simple statement. It is true that in a lot of things, they are not our choice. But in matters of Morals and Virtues they are our choice.

As to identifying the source of Morals and Virtues as God, that is a bit more complex, as the spark needed to change our mind about God, lays in our own actions. Our actions can be gifted by God with recognition.

So I offer you get to choose if the following has any merit, only you can choose to study if there is a greater wisdom behind what is offered.

"Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognising the truth of this Revelation..." Bahá’u’lláh, The Dawnbreakers, p. 586

So in researching all the above, from the time you posted the OP, that is entirely up to you. How you approach the answers given, may result in guidance. It is your mind asking to recognise the source of all Knowledge.

No one else can do that for you.

Regards Tony
What on earth are you babbling about? There is NO external god, it's make-believe, it's Myth, it's always been a politically charged agenda . . . it still is!
 
Elvis is alive and performing as Kylie Minogue
 
What on earth are you babbling about? There is NO external god, it's make-believe, it's Myth, it's always been a politically charged agenda . . . it still is!
You have made up your own mind, thus my original statement stands.

May your life be all you want it to be. (Interestingly God allows that to unfold, it is actually its own punishment, part of my own life experiences, have shown me that is so).

I now have nothing meaningful I can now share with you in a chat, so it will be a good bye. Regards Tony
 
Back
Top