Yeshua Never Existed . . . Change my Mind

juantoo3 said:
Nice dodge regarding the subject of love.

Taker vs giver, selfish vs selfless.

Thank you for proving my point. You clearly are incapable of love, because the only person you love is yourself.

Well, bless your heart.

View attachment 3840
Click to expand...
Not that it surprises me but you are also clueless about LOVE
The first order of business for even the simplest micro-organism is to survive, the next order is to propagate. The simple neurochemical releases that govern emotions such as love, in this case, cannot be denied as a survival mechanism for the security of a Self-Conscious species like ourselves.
When we examine the progression of Love in mentally stable human beings we find there to be "falling in Love" which includes sexual attraction, possession, and domination. Once bearing a child this Love transforms into a loving and caring for, if not protective type of Love, again securing the propagation of species, after birth the Love again transforms into a rearing form of Love meant to keep the roaming male attached to the family unit.

LOVE & The LHP
Love is found and nurtured Within, not by attaching any significance to something external. We do not love objects, we love our Self and in turn love others for loving themselves. Agape . . . which is divine love, but to us, it is not towards anything other than one's Greater Self and to those who love their Greater Self. We find nature / objective universe to be at odds with our very existence and therefore adversarial to us, something to be separate from and/or manipulated beneficially.
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
And why would I have? Oh, that's right, because WE Evil Satanists are out to destroy everyone else . . . grow up.
I have news for you, WE are far more moral and ethical than the majority of every other faith.
Click to expand...
1695328464077.png


Well bless your heart, that may be true in some instances, but not all. There are sincere people in the world, and there are those that hide behind their faith.

The same kind of presumptive judgement that you accuse me of, you display.

Bless your heart.
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
Not that it surprises me but you are also clueless about LOVE
The first order of business for even the simplest micro-organism is to survive, the next order is to propagate. The simple neurochemical releases that govern emotions such as love, in this case, cannot be denied as a survival mechanism for the security of a Self-Conscious species like ourselves.
When we examine the progression of Love in mentally stable human beings we find there to be "falling in Love" which includes sexual attraction, possession, and domination. Once bearing a child this Love transforms into a loving and caring for, if not protective type of Love, again securing the propagation of species, after birth the Love again transforms into a rearing form of Love meant to keep the roaming male attached to the family unit.

LOVE & The LHP
Love is found and nurtured Within, not by attaching any significance to something external. We do not love objects, we love our Self and in turn love others for loving themselves. Agape . . . which is divine love, but to us, it is not towards anything other than one's Greater Self and to those who love their Greater Self. We find nature / objective universe to be at odds with our very existence and therefore adversarial to us, something to be separate from and/or manipulated beneficially.
Click to expand...
Bless your heart, this is nonsense.
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
In other words 'you got nuthin' . . . move along
Click to expand...
1. You already know that I'm not trying to convince you that Jesus existed. I don't care to and have never tried to do so.
2. I AM wondering why you keep beating this dead horse. We all know that you don't believe in Jesus. We do not care. Even the non-believers here are annoyed by your desire to keep bringing this subject up. I don't believe that the Loch Ness monster exists. I don't have to go on letting everyone know.

As a self-described intelligent moral and ethical person on here once told me... "you can't prove a negative... duh!"
 
moralorel said:
1. You already know that I'm not trying to convince you that Jesus existed. I don't care to and have never tried to do so.
2. I AM wondering why you keep beating this dead horse. We all know that you don't believe in Jesus. We do not care. Even the non-believers here are annoyed by your desire to keep bringing this subject up. I don't believe that the Loch Ness monster exists. I don't have to go on letting everyone know.

As a self-described intelligent moral and ethical person on here once told me... "you can't prove a negative... duh!"
Click to expand...
This is the first thread I've created on this topic, if you don't care for the topic . . . move along
 
Thomas said:
Much of the writings of antiquity have been lost. There is little that would meet your criteria to prove the existence of any Jew or Christian in this period – by your book, Pontius Pilate and even Emperor Tiberius – indeed, according to your thesis, most of the history of Rome is a mythical fiction.
Click to expand...
Philo, a Roman citizen, mentioned Pontius Pilate. Josephus did too. Also, he had an inscription comissioned.
 
Thomas said:
Bart Ehrman estimates around 25 authors who attest to Jesus, which is way more than many of the notable figures of antiquity
Click to expand...
Who? Jesus really didn't appear to be well-known at all.
 
Thomas said:
No need to change your mind, as the broad consensus of 'critical thinking' goes against you – your arguments to show we're wrong are non-arguments.

We have multiple attestations to the existence of Jesus, whereas many notable historical figures stand on very few. Indeed, Bart Ehrman estimates around 25 authors who attest to Jesus, which is way more than many of the notable figures of antiquity – Ehrman is a critic of Christian Christology, a non-believer, yet he acknowleges the clear implication of the weight of evidence – his is, at the very least, an informed opinion.

Much of the writings of antiquity have been lost. There is little that would meet your criteria to prove the existence of any Jew or Christian in this period – by your book, Pontius Pilate and even Emperor Tiberius – indeed, according to your thesis, most of the history of Rome is a mythical fiction.

The historian Josephus was said to be a personal favourite of Emperor Vespasian, yet is not mentioned in any contemporary Greek or Roman sources, so he too, must not have existed ... apply your criteria across the board, and those who can be said to have existed would be very thin on the ground ...

And, as for your 'well-kept Roman records' nonsense, perhaps you can point us to the records of Roman executions in the region, covering, say 20-40AD?
Click to expand...
Archaeological evidence for Pontius Pilate was discovered in 1961, when an inscribed stone was unearthed in excavations near the theater at Caesarea Maritima

Statues that can be dated survive to show Tiberius as a youth, as a young man assuming the toga, as Cæsar, etc. Engravings and gems show him with his entire family.

The history of Rome has been documented through the artifacts left behind, the Museum in Leeds, England holds most of these artifacts. In addition, DNA analysis has revealed much regarding ancient Rome.

Still not ONE artifact proving the existence of Yeshua the Nazarene has been discovered.
 
Thomas said:
OK, so we have one piece of evidence for Pilate – I'm corrected.
Click to expand...
Providing more evidence for the core value of the gospel stories that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate -- a Roman governor recorded in the gospels, and only in the gospels, and now verified 2000 years later in the 21st Century!
 
Last edited:
In your OP post you use Bart Ehrman to support of your view.
You said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read what he really said about Jesus:

"Jesus existed. In yesterday’s post, I began to show how Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence. Josephus is better attested because we have his own writings. I am also not including Paul because I’m talking only about Jews from Palestine; he was from the Diaspora.

We have four narrative accounts of Jesus’ life and death, written by different people at different times and in different places, based on numerous sources that no longer survive. Jesus was not invented by Mark. He was also known to Matthew, Luke, and John, and to the sources which they used (Q, M, L, and the various sources of John).

All of this was within the first century.

This is not to mention sources from outside the New Testament that know that Jesus was a historical figure – for example, 1Clement and the documents that make up the Didache. Or — need I say it? – every other author of the New Testament (there are sixteen NT authors altogether, so twelve who did not write Gospels), none of whom knew any of the Gospels (except for the author of 1, 2, and 3 John who may have known the fourth Gospel).

By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again).

If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.

But …

But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information.

That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death. Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John ... etc"

Read full article
Bart Ehrman: Jesus Existed
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
In your OP post you use Bart Ehrman to support of your view.

Perhaps you should read what he really said about Jesus:

"Jesus existed. In yesterday’s post, I began to show how Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence. Josephus is better attested because we have his own writings. I am also not including Paul because I’m talking only about Jews from Palestine; he was from the Diaspora.

We have four narrative accounts of Jesus’ life and death, written by different people at different times and in different places, based on numerous sources that no longer survive. Jesus was not invented by Mark. He was also known to Matthew, Luke, and John, and to the sources which they used (Q, M, L, and the various sources of John).

All of this was within the first century.

This is not to mention sources from outside the New Testament that know that Jesus was a historical figure – for example, 1Clement and the documents that make up the Didache. Or — need I say it? – every other author of the New Testament (there are sixteen NT authors altogether, so twelve who did not write Gospels), none of whom knew any of the Gospels (except for the author of 1, 2, and 3 John who may have known the fourth Gospel).

By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again).

If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.

But …

But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information.

That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death. Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John ... etc"

Read full article
Bart Ehrman: Jesus Existed
Click to expand...
Nothing . . . all Ehrman shows us is that Yeshua was one of two of the most popular Jews of the Palestinian time. That he was written about long after his alleged death, and that was by Christians with a religious-political agenda

Funny you should look to Erhman for your evidence, as Ehrman's career has been criticizing the Christian bible

"I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years" - B. Erhman

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering


Why I Am Not A Christian: Bart Ehrman​

 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
article
Nothing . . . all Ehrman shows us is that Yeshua was one of two of the most popular Jews of the Palestinian time. That he was written about long after his alleged death, and that was by Christians with a religious-political agenda
Click to expand...
Nonsense!
One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death.
Click to expand...
Why don't you read the article in his own words? Then perhaps check-out the rest of his blog?

'Amir Alzzalam said:
Funny you should look to Erhman for your evidence, as Ehrman's career has been criticizing the Christian bible

"I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years" - B. Erhman

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering

Why I Am Not A Christian: Bart Ehrman​

Click to expand...
What are you confused about?

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian. He does not believe "that the Bible is the inspired word of God with no mistakes". He is a secular historian. He is an agnostic atheist. Of course he does not believe everything the New Testament says about Jesus. It's never implied.

But as one of the most prominent historians when it comes to Jesus, he is quite adamant in asserting that Jesus indeed existed as a man -- was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate. He actually believes Jesus was a charismatic apocalyptic preacher who believed the end-times were imminent.

What's your exact argument here?
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Nonsense!

Why don't you read the article in his own words? Then perhaps check-out the rest of his blog?


What are you confused about?

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian. He does not believe "that the Bible is the inspired word of God with no mistakes". He is a secular historian. He is an agnostic atheist. Of course he does not believe everything the New Testament says about Jesus. It's never implied.

But as one of the most prominent historians when it comes to Jesus, he is quite adamant in asserting that Jesus indeed existed as a man -- was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate. He actually believes Jesus was a charismatic apocalyptic preacher who believed the end-times were imminent.

What's your exact argument here?
Click to expand...
He can be as adamant as he wants . . . he still hasn't provided one iota of actual/objective evidence, just theory.
I'm not confused . . . you are
I've been listening to Erhman on YouTube for years, I'm well aware of his claims
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
He can be as adamant as he wants . . . he still hasn't provided one iota of actual/objective evidence, just theory.
I'm not confused . . . you are
I've been listening to Erhman on YouTube for years, I'm well aware of his claims
Click to expand...
Then why are you misrepresenting his stance about the physical existence of Jesus or Yeshua?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top