Tablet XI tell the story about the epic gilgamesh is the real story about Noas ark. And noa was not on it.
Joseph in the first testemony is the beta version of Jesus.
Soo... Why belive in a book that took the rules from the book of death from egypt? Why not putt the best rule to the 10 of 15? "I shall not start a war"
So Cristianity is fail from the start, and atheism rules.
The Romans were quite an efficient lot. Nowhere in their census-taking history did they require families to go back to their hometowns to be counted. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a "current" census?
If you notice all the quotes say "apart from the gospels..." but why arent the gospels good enough. there are hard copies of the gospels dating back to 75 AD
Hmm, let's see...I know! Because they're riddled with fantastical claims of the supernatural and not written by any eyewitnesses nor written during the time of said events.
Hmm, let's see...I know! Because they're riddled with fantastical claims of the supernatural and not written by any eyewitnesses nor written during the time of said events."
Not to mention authored by those with a compelling vested interest...... It's not coincidence that they still say "send money" as much as "god bless".
Most historians without a doubt believe Jesus existed. It doesn't matter what evidence there is for Jesus, which is astronomical, some people will never believe because of the claims Jesus made. Christianity lies on the resurrection of Jesus. The earliest writings on this is only 20 years after the event. And before that It was preached up to the time of the event itself. The claim that its all made up doesn't fit the facts. Christianity survived because it's based on events that happened.
@hughesjd83 - So most historians believe without a doubt? I doubt it.
Christianity was INVENTED after 70 AD and after the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish zealots had been crushed. I take it you're referring to the writings of Paul when you say 20 years after the event? Paul is a literary construct. If Acts is fictional, which it is, then dating the Pauline epistles becomes a little more complicated. They certainly where not written before the gospels. That's what i believe anyway.
@Franknarfable ::: You might find the book "Antiquity Unveiled" of interest.
"Christianity is not from the Jews, but from the Greeks. It is a combination of the Platonic and Alexandrian doctrines, with the doctrines of Apollonius of Tyana..." (Cyrillus Luchar)
@k0smon - Thanks for the tip, I'll take a look though I'm pretty much convinced it was the Romans who are responsible for Christianity.
Read "Satirical Parallels between Josephus and the NT" - It's easily found and not too long.
This will lead you to Joseph Atwill and Caesar Messiah. This book should really be read in full to get the in depth view, but the above link is enough to read through.
Jesus and Paul shares many of the attributes of Apollonius.
There's a lack of evidence for any individual living in that time period. Even what we know about Caesar, we know mostly from his own personal 'biography.'
@Lotusjbx Right.. except for the accounts of his rule, laws, assassination, statues, palaces, artifacts, family history, and much much much more, we have absolutely nothing on the man.
You see, what we have for virtually ALL other historical figures is documents from the times in which they lived. Writings from people they knew, statues or portraits made of them while they were present for the likeness.
The only thing circumstantial about most other historical figures revolves around specifics, such as what date did they do something, or perhaps the exact words used.
Rarely do things completely conflict as with Jesus, either.
@looncraz Another example from history. All we know about Socrates we know because of Plato, his disciple, who wrote about him years later after he died and in the context of a larger book. Sounds a little familiar.
Nevertheless, for me it's fine to debate the 'real' aspects of Jesus, but I do believe the Man walked this earth. What happened afterwards?....... we leave to mystery and faith.
@Lotusjbx Yes, Socrates is a good example. We can only assume he existed as we can only assume Jesus existed.
Indeed, there is more evidence for Jesus's existence.
However, Jesus should have actual credible evidence to support his existence due to his place in time and alleged stature.
The lack of evidence during his life-time and from anyone who knew him (the gospels were NOT written by disciples, and they conflict each other rather severely in some key areas) suggests he was not well known.
@moopism Yes, indeed, I ran out of characters :-(
I prefer to bait people in arguments, slowly bashing their heads into their own misconceptions until they have no choice but to either realize the truth, or to merely file away the information for the day they realize the truth - should that day come.
Take a look at these links, paints an accurate picture of zeitgeist. Also there is a video of evidence for jesus' existence. Very good stuff. Shows that TZM and TVP are intimately linked to the UN!
prove it either way, get me a time machine (on the way i will say I dont care anyway)
cos i believe, that in the time machine I will bruce lee your ass and find out the euromillions lottery numbers for last big jackpot instead and then leave them somewhere for myself. If you prove he is or isnt real 99% of people will say "so" or "and"
I had a look at that too. There is nothing form roman historians about Julius Ceasar either. What is there is the coins, statues and letters. Very strange.
I had a look at one of the links in that page that describes the issue in more detail. Yes you are correct. Along with other sources too. So i accept that there is no historical jesus in these texts. I guess it really does take faith to read the bible.
@MrLacksoriginality Yep, that's another one I was aware of that is also discussed in that book WWJ. That Arabic version is from the 10th century. It says that in the 1st paragraph of the blog you mention too.
freethoughtnation. com /forums/viewtopic. php?f=17&t=2441&p=18579#p18579
"They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."
"It is a Fortuitous Situation indeed that God really does exist-lest the poor Atheist would not have a purpose in life at all" PPSimmons. The fool says in their heart there is no God. Psalm 14-1. The evidence is clear about Jesus, and who he was. Enough with the lies from the athesit, you really make yourself look like a fools. The Atheist can't find God for the same reason a Thief can't find a Policeman.
@MrPsalm53 Oh good, finally someone with evidence for Jesus. Would you share it please?
Lets try to leave out the discrimination against atheists though. Remember, god made them too. Psalm 14:1 & a few others like it are pure discrimination. If Jesus exists and Christianity is true then there is no need for any discrimination.
@Hercules2345 I dont knwo if you will take this seriously but there is the eastern texts of flavius josephus that is unedited.
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him."
@MrLacksoriginality Thanks for posting. No, I do have trouble with the credibility of those texts. Are you aware that the oldest extant copies are from the 9th -11th century? This entire passage you've is thoroughly addressed in the book 'Who Was Jesus?,' in the chapter "Jesus outside the bible."
@Hercules2345 Actaully that is not where it is from. It is from the "antiquities of the jews". It is the eastern version that professor shlomo translated into english. The western versions has clearly been edited by christian copywriters.
@MrPsalm53 the fool says in their heart,Im going to smash the heads of innocent babies against rocks because my god tells me to and genocide is righteous because the god of the bible commands it,but it's horrible if the muslim god Alla caommands it.Your circular logic is sad.
@TheDarvus, It's so well documented that he existed as evidenced by historical accounts from reputable sources and writings against Jesus. Why debate that he lived? For bitter atheists like yourself, you should try to argue that he isn't what he claimed to be: the Son of God. As many have put it, he was either crazy or truly God Himself. You make up your mind, but don't put out nonsense which is simply a desparate attempt to try anyway to criticize Christians. You're just desparate.
@Exciteme777 "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the 4 Gospels. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth"
I personally know brilliant scientists with PHDs from Ivy League universities who became Christians. Some went out of their way to prove he didn't exist, but in the process came to believe. That must be it. If you actually read about the historical evidence for Jesus, you'd be surprised how the historical facts truly add up, and you would eat your words.
There are many books written about the historical evidence for Jesus. In fact, there are historical accounts of him outside the Bible. Go to Barnes & Noble, and you'll see what I mean. This is a deceptive title for this video.
@elmucaro177 I left a comment out of shock> not to debate. None the less, I will however present two key points as to why this video is a complete joke.
- The MAJORITY of scholars affirmatively agree that Jesus' existence can be established using documentary and other evidence.
- Their are several people outside of the Bible that wrote about Jesus
1.Thallus (52AD) 2.Pliny the Younger 3.Suetonius 4.Tacitus 5.Josephus (37-101AD) 6.Mara Bar-Serapion 7.Phlegon' NOT EVEN ALL OF THEM
@AndrewStewart7 thanks for the info, at least you are but the few that , makes a statement based on something he has on hand i will check each and every name you gave me :P
@TheDarvus Actually there is a ton of evidence for Jesus. You just don't want to read about it because the truth may force you to alter your lifestyle, and you dont want to do that now... do you?
To prove that religion is not the cause of evil and stupidity , you just need to look at the zeitgeist worshipers who act in a way that any religious zealot would, basically believing what they want despite what reality shows.
Its not about religion, its about human stupidity present in all groups including the religious one.
@niinja2 "you just need to look at the zeitgeist worshipers who act in a way that any religious zealot would"
Good old "I'm water, you're glue?" I can't take this seriously, sorry. Haha.
"Its not about religion, its about human stupidity present in all groups including the religious one."
Well, we certainly have some common ground there. Indeed so does Zeitgeist, if you care to notice the rather blunt moral at the end of the religion-related segment.
What you end up is a small bunch of cursory mention and hearsay recorded long after the fact while otherwise no historians of the time even mention the fact during the supposed fame and adoration of Jesus by a massive following of people, or even long after the fact.
This isn't what you'd expect from a factual event or person. This is, however, exactly what you'd except if the myth was conceived around that time - as the gospels were - and produced some amount of followers who believed it.
...In fact this is generally the exact way urban myths spread despite rarely having basis in reality.
Historians know how to separate facts about a person from myths about a person, just as we know Alexander the Great was a real person, but that he was born of a virgin conception is a fabrication: one is documented by many contemporary sources and relics, the other is documented only as myths or hearsay would be.
@niinja2 That came from a Christian. If you disagree then simply provide CREDIBLE evidence for Jesus' existence. Just know that you would be the 1st ever to do so. I'm sure Jesus would be happy. You might even get a prize & be on the evening news.
@niinja2 "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the 4 Gospels. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth"
"Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value"
il come back to this, we know exactly what part of Josephus was interpolated and it was not the part about existence of jesus
"The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations"
tacitus is not a christian interpolation because tacitus writes in a derogatory way about Christianity, why would christians made up a story that described them in such a way. There is no evidence that tacitus writings are not genuine.
@niinja2 Nobody called Tacitus a Xian. There are many reasons not to accept Tacitus as proof for Jesus. One being the fact that he wasn't born until around 56. His evidence is heresay at best. Pliny was born around 62 Suetonius around 69 & Josephus 37. There goes your?very best evidence out the window.
we know exactly what parts of josephus is a christian interpolation and what part is genuine, the part that gives jesus divine atributes ( especially by a jew) are known to be false, while there is no evidence to believe that the rest of the writings that imply that jesus existed, is false.
"Some scholars have even gone so far"
read SOME and SO FAR. Even they recognize that its a stretched assumption.
@niinja2 Nobody called Tacitus a Xian. There are many reasons not to accept Tacitus as proof for Jesus. One being the fact that he wasn't born until around 56. His evidence is heresay at best. Pliny was born around 62 Suetonius around 69 & Josephus 37. There goes yourvery best evidence out the window.
@niinja2 Nobody called Tacitus a Xian. There are many reasons not to accept Tacitus as proof for Jesus. One being the fact that he wasn't born until around 56. His evidence is heresay at best. Pliny was born around 62 Suetonius around 69 & Josephus 37. There goes yourvery best evidence out the window.
@niinja2 Nobody called Tacitus a Xian. There are many reasons not to accept Tacitus as proof for Jesus. One being the fact that he wasn't born until around 56. His evidence is heresay at best. Pliny was born around 62 Suetonius around 69 & Josephus 37. There goes your?very best evidence out the window.
"One being the fact that he wasn't born until around 56. His evidence is heresay at best"
1 historian does not have to be contemporary to a person which we are investigating. Or show me a cite from a professional historian that claims otherwise.
2 Just because we dont know what are tacitus sources does not mean he is not reliable. Tacitus is known as a historian that was very critical and almost never relied solely on one source.
@niinja2 "Just because we dont know what are tacitus sources does not mean he is not reliable."
Tacitus is NOT reliable. He, and many other contemporary historians, documented a wide variety of nonsense, including prophesies, sightings of Zeus and centaurs, ghosts, spirits... We don't just take their word for it. This isn't how history works.
You need cross-reference. You need contemporary sources. You need physical data.
"You need cross-reference. You need contemporary sources. You need physical data."
to establish that a person existed, no i dont.
"Tacitus is NOT reliable. He, and many other contemporary historians, documented a wide variety of nonsense, including prophesies, sightings of Zeus and centaurs, "
Well then we can reject what he and any other historian ever wrote dont we...
Where did he exactly write about prophesies or zeus?
@niinja2 "to establish that a person existed, no i dont."
Haha. Apparently you don't need any sort of evidence to establish what is fact or not. Isn't it amazing?..
Are you even listening to yourself.
"Well then we can reject what he and any other historian ever wrote dont we..."
Or we could not be ignorant about how history as determined and look up the core principles of historical method, starting with the bits I provided earlier, such as cross-reference.
If you require a historian to live in the same time as the person he is writing about then you can throw half of historical figures out of the window. Hanibal from carthaga was not written about in his time but by later historians, we have no archeological evidence for him. Elephants over the alps can easily be interpreted as a myth that was all made up by romans. Are you saying hanibal never existed? yes or no.
@niinja2 LMAO! Did you not read those links either? They certainly did contain several sources including the originals all cited within the article itself so, either you didn't read it or you're lying.
@niinja2 "The links you provided are all from a single source made by acharia s who is not even a historian. I think its easy to google."
She IS a historian. Her book sites no less than 200 primary sources and historians.
"If you require a historian to live in the same time as the person he is writing about then you can throw half of historical figures out of the window"
On the contrary, you can't name one, because that IS how we determine myth from fact in history.
@niinja2 "she does not know what a primary source is, if she is a historian she is a very bad and biased one."
Insult does not an argument make.
Your rejection is that of clear bias. Attacking scholars just because you disagree with them is disgraceful. Lying is a breach of one of the commandments, by the way...
Acharya is a historian and has backed up every single fact she mentions in her book with references to primary sources and works or respected scholars. That's fact.
"Acharya is a historian and has backed up every single fact she mentions in her book with references to primary sources and works or respected scholars. That's fact."
i have believed into her lies untill i actually went and checked her "primary sources" taht said Jesus was a coppy
I suppose so. The solar messiah model was accepted as evident in the study of mythology for a very long while up until very recently - as I believe she mentions - so I knew about it long before I knew Acharaya was writing about it.
I'm sure if you could suppress your own biases and look at the big picture it'd be self-evident.
"The solar messiah model was accepted as evident in the study of mythology for a very long while up until very recently"
Jesus himself in the bible says that to worship the sun is a sin or something like that. Jesus is not the sun, people who connect this , stretch this idea to fit their own view.
"I'm sure if you could suppress your own biases and look at the big picture it'd be self-evident."
and if you could supres things that are not there you could see the big picture
@niinja2 "Jesus himself in the bible says that to worship the sun is a sin or something like that."
I vaguely remember hearing about something like that, but I've seen nothing like that. However that's not exactly refutation: a mythical story doesn't have to have internal consistency... And Bible is, indeed, not very good with internal consistency in general, not just in regards to astrological references.
@niinja2 "Jesus is not the sun, people who connect this , stretch this idea to fit their own view ... and if you could supres things that are not there you could see the big picture"
This says nothing of substance. Try some logic.
Try stepping back. You're only fooling yourself if you don't think you're here trying to prove to yourself he existed anyway. This isn't a debate you can win without evidence, neither with me, nor with yourself.
@niinja2 "You ahve a historian to support your claim?"
Yes. Namely every single academic and historian following the Historical Method as established sometime in the 90s.
Frankly it's just common sense, that's why we write history down to begin with: if you could document after it happened, the historical writings themselves become moot.
@niinja2 Yes, I'm aware of what Christian apologists claim.
"Tacitus: The reference to Jesus in "Annals XV.44" is describing what Christians believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. Tacitus goes on to call this belief about Christus a "pernicious superstition. Annals XV.44 was not written until 115 CE."
@niinja2 FYI, Tacitus was born 50 years after supposed birth of Jesus. There is nothing he could say about Jesus BUT hearsay or rumour. Or, in this case, he was simply writing down beliefs of early Christians.
@niinja2 "so its not possible that he got the in for from written data that was lost?"
It's possible Jesus himself returned and brought him the hundred or so documents absent from hundreds of historians of Mediterranean that would have no excuse not to know about him as well, but because there's no evidence of such a thing, it'd be silly to assume that.
why would any historian need to know about Jesus , he was a Jew that started a sec, one among many and was not famous until christians started to be known.
secondly many data was lost and burned in more then one occasion.
"Is it true though? What do you disagree with exactly?"
that its a coppy from horus taht he was baptited by "anup" the baptizer, the guy does not even exist as a legend. Its all made up and it can all be traced to some book " 16 crucified saviors" that has NO PRIMARY SOURCES and all of the zeitgeist fans are just citing this crap as a source.
I don't know much about Hannibal, so I can't comment, but I find this hard to believe considering this would violate historical method. In absence of stronger form of evidence anyway, such as relics, which I'm pretty sure do exist.
@niinja2 "that its a coppy from horus taht he was baptited by "anup" the baptizer, the guy does not even exist as a legend"
Then you didn't check the sources.
Mythology of ancient Egypt is not singular, nor has it ever been public, so if you're going to check against a common encyclopedia entry, you will find nothing. You need to dig deeper, and that's why Acharaya cites work of numerous esteemed scholars who explain the ins and outs of mysteries and original mythos and gravings.
Mythology of ancient Egypt is not singular, nor has it ever been public, so if you're going to check against a common encyclopedia entry, you will find nothing."
THE GUY DOES NOT EXIST ON GOOGLE!!!!!
IF YOU FIND HIM I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE WHERE DID YOU GOT THIS???
Well, shit. There goes the ultimate test of whether something is ever mentioned in scholarly literature.
Look, I don't know much about the specifics, and I'm not going to argue about them. If that's your point, I'm utterly defeated and you can have your victory. Good job.
My point is only that one-two sources recording hearsay are not good workings for a historical fact, never have been. If they were, ALL prophets would be "historical".
There were hundreds of known historians in the region where Jesus supposedly existed, and of all of them there are two-three that drop a cursory mention of a person that may somewhat resemble him BUT only after we know there existed a following of people worshiping him in the first place.
I believe you said something along the lines we could have lost all that data... But that's really rather specific historical erasure, isn't it? We wouldn't give anything else credibility from that.
"There were hundreds of known historians in the ..."
Nobody is claiming here that Jesus did miracles, only that he existed, why would some historian make not of a guy who is a carpenter and who forms his own sect among dozens of other sects?
@niinja2 "Nobody is claiming here that Jesus did miracles"
Well, that's cherry-picking, isn't it? How can you separate this from the rest of the claims in the gospel accounts? Isn't that a bit like if Hercules was just a very strong blacksmith or something?
I grant you if Jesus wasn't particularly known to anyone and just hung around with twelve disciples somewhere with his own religion he would have no reason to make it into historical record, which renders the discussion moot. So then?..
ERM WHAT? We do not need the bible to establish the historicity of Jesus, i do not know how much are the gospell acounts historical, nor do i care at this moment nor it is important.
"My point is only that one-two sources recording hearsay are not good workings for a historical fact, never have been. If they were, ALL prophets would be "historical"."
but there are more then one biblical and extra biblical sources, but people somehow doubt them because they think its all a great conspiracy where they can make a religion for which they will die the next 300 years.
"You said you checked her sources and found out its bullshit. What source does she cite towards this Anup fella, and why do you think it's bullshit?"
because whenever someone makes stuff up about the church, jesus or religion its all over the net, at least in a few places. The data about anup is found only in zeitgeist websites. If there is any evidence for that guy zeitgeist fanboys would have presented it.
@niinja2 "because whenever someone makes stuff up about the church, jesus or religion its all over the net, at least in a few places"
That's awful.
I know it seems at times Google is GOD - check out Church of Google, by the way - but that's not really the case. Google doesn't have to know everything about everything. Especially about obscure topics exclusive to deepest study of ancient history.
I take it you lied a bit and didn't actually check her sources at all.
@niinja2 "OBSCURE TOPPICS??? its JESUS FUKING CHRIST"
You mean Anup the Baptist.
"gimme a brake you say anup does exist?"
He's a mythical figure, lol.
You didn't actually check the sources Acharaya gave, is that right? You didn't actually look up the references given in the book? Well... I think that's about all you need to realize about how well you studied it, right?..
Well, this has been a fun discussion. See you later maybe.
Didn't read it. Like I said, Acharay is far from the first person to pose the sun-god hypothesis. Then again, I'm not the one who claimed to look up the references given in her book and finding out they're bullshit while having done no such thing.
"You didn't actually look up the references given in the book? Well... I think that's about all you need to realize about how well you studied it, right?.."
And saying that anup is a mythical figure is all i need to show that YOU are the one who did not check any of her sources but just BELIEVED her because you WANTED to.
Do you know what is the main evidence for me that zeitgeist is full of crap, is because people like you who believe things because they want to and accuse other people of being biased, you know people say the things you hate about yourself you project onto others
"He's a mythical figure, lol."
"You didn't actually check the sources Acharaya gave, is that right"
You accuse me that i dont check sources, but you say anup is a mythical figure... anup was made up in 18 century
@niinja2 "is because people like you who believe things because they want to and accuse other people of being biased"
Don't project, and stop insulting me. You're the one who's never done their research here. You claimed you've looked up the references, and you never did, instead trying to find this Anup guy just by typing his name into Google, rather than referencing works of scholars presented.
You're the one believing things because they want to and accuse others of being biased...
@niinja2 "You accuse me that i dont check sources, but you say anup is a mythical figure..."
Are you crazy?
Well, no, you didn't check the sources. What's the "but" doing there I don't know, how is it meant to justify your lies and lack of research? Of course he's a mythical figure. It's called "mythology". The whole book is about myths.
Myths and mythologies. Specifically Christian mythology.
@niinja2 Haha! Resorting to classical Christian fallacies so soon? Does that mean I've been right after all? ;)
Well, no, buddy: you brought up Anup as an example of something you supposedly "checked" from Acharaya's book and found to be "bullshit". Well, that didn't happen: you lied, you didn't check, you didn't look it up, and you don't even appear to be aware of the fact that the book has hundreds of in-text references to these things.
Does it surprise me that this rejection of uncomfortable truths is based on personal ignorance rather than falsely claimed research? No...
Acharaya herself said that's all she's ever heard on the subject, because people don't check, instead scurrying to websites that support their view, conveniently forgetting to be skeptical of them likewise.
You're not doing much good to your case by outright lying. You didn't research anything if that's your best example. The guise is paper-thin.
look dude, i did look it up, egyptian texts are easily available online, i have checked horus and found very little evidence to support her claim, i have seen the testimonies of experts who claim she is wrong.
But lets say i am wrong in my conclusion , i am still not going to waste my time on top of the one i just did just because some guy says "you did not look hard enough"
if you want to convince me show me that anup is a guy from egyptian mythology.
Because i think your just assuming he is. And i doubt that you did any of the reasearch on the toppic, but hey prove me wrong. The ball is in your court.
@niinja2 "if you want to convince me show me that anup is a guy from egyptian mythology."
Don't shift burden of proof.
What we have here is: you claimed you looked up Acharaya's sources and quoted Anup as an example, yet when pressed for actual source you said "Google it". Conclusion is: you didn't check anything, you didn't read her book, you're not aware of the reference she gives to support it, and you don't have a source that refutes it.
@niinja2 "you can have historical jesus without god"
Okay... But also completely missing the point.
You go prove it, why don't you.
"why do you think i did not look it up?"
You asked me to "Google" him instead of presenting the source given in Acharaya's book and a refutation to it. Do you even know Acharaya cited sources for her claims in the book?
Either way, you lied. That's all you need to know about quality of your research.
This has been flagged as spam show
lol.. first of..
Adam and Eve is stolen from Ask and Embla
Tablet XI tell the story about the epic gilgamesh is the real story about Noas ark. And noa was not on it.
Joseph in the first testemony is the beta version of Jesus.
Soo... Why belive in a book that took the rules from the book of death from egypt? Why not putt the best rule to the 10 of 15? "I shall not start a war"
So Cristianity is fail from the start, and atheism rules.
frodo9 3 months ago
The Romans were quite an efficient lot. Nowhere in their census-taking history did they require families to go back to their hometowns to be counted. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a "current" census?
fdasherv 4 months ago
If you notice all the quotes say "apart from the gospels..." but why arent the gospels good enough. there are hard copies of the gospels dating back to 75 AD
SuperJamesbondjr 4 months ago
@SuperJamesbondjr "why arent the gospels good enough"
Hmm, let's see...I know! Because they're riddled with fantastical claims of the supernatural and not written by any eyewitnesses nor written during the time of said events.
fdasherv 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fdasherv ""why arent the gospels good enough"
Hmm, let's see...I know! Because they're riddled with fantastical claims of the supernatural and not written by any eyewitnesses nor written during the time of said events."
Not to mention authored by those with a compelling vested interest...... It's not coincidence that they still say "send money" as much as "god bless".
moopism 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperJamesbondjr "but why arent the gospels good enough. there are hard copies of the gospels dating back to 75 AD"
Well, I'm guessing that, unlike your namesake, getting to the bottom of things isn't your strong suit.
moopism 4 months ago
@hughesjd83 "Evidence for Jesus"
Like what?
ZukutoBTD 6 months ago
Most historians without a doubt believe Jesus existed. It doesn't matter what evidence there is for Jesus, which is astronomical, some people will never believe because of the claims Jesus made. Christianity lies on the resurrection of Jesus. The earliest writings on this is only 20 years after the event. And before that It was preached up to the time of the event itself. The claim that its all made up doesn't fit the facts. Christianity survived because it's based on events that happened.
hughesjd83 6 months ago
@hughesjd83 - So most historians believe without a doubt? I doubt it.
Christianity was INVENTED after 70 AD and after the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish zealots had been crushed. I take it you're referring to the writings of Paul when you say 20 years after the event? Paul is a literary construct. If Acts is fictional, which it is, then dating the Pauline epistles becomes a little more complicated. They certainly where not written before the gospels. That's what i believe anyway.
Franknarfable 5 months ago
@Franknarfable ::: You might find the book "Antiquity Unveiled" of interest.
"Christianity is not from the Jews, but from the Greeks. It is a combination of the Platonic and Alexandrian doctrines, with the doctrines of Apollonius of Tyana..." (Cyrillus Luchar)
k0smon 4 months ago
@k0smon - Thanks for the tip, I'll take a look though I'm pretty much convinced it was the Romans who are responsible for Christianity.
Read "Satirical Parallels between Josephus and the NT" - It's easily found and not too long.
This will lead you to Joseph Atwill and Caesar Messiah. This book should really be read in full to get the in depth view, but the above link is enough to read through.
Jesus and Paul shares many of the attributes of Apollonius.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@hughesjd83 "The earliest writings on this is only 20 years after the event. "
And what manuscript would that be, EXACTLY? Even the P52 papyrus fragment could only at its earliest estimate be 60 years after the fact.
Please don't start making bullshit up. It's far too easy to do some research. But I guess when you're defending fairytales, all's fair,eh?
moopism 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hughesjd83 "Christianity survived because it's based on events that happened. "
Oh, and promulgation by the sword had nothing to do with it? Get real.
moopism 4 months ago
Why is it that Jesus never made it to our history books?
PrettyBoyFalco 7 months ago
@PrettyBoyFalco Same reason Hercules hasn't, they're both just stories.
MugiwaraJr 7 months ago
@MugiwaraJr No it's because the school system is ran by atheistic morons who only want to preach there evolution B.S.
hughesjd83 6 months ago
Comment removed
MugiwaraJr 6 months ago
@hughesjd83 "atheistic morons"? Bold words. So please show what should be taught in the schools instead?
MugiwaraJr 6 months ago
Comment removed
prisonernumber24601 5 months ago
99 RED BALLONS TO DATE. THUMBED UP.
kram83au 7 months ago
There's a lack of evidence for any individual living in that time period. Even what we know about Caesar, we know mostly from his own personal 'biography.'
Lotusjbx 8 months ago
@Lotusjbx Right.. except for the accounts of his rule, laws, assassination, statues, palaces, artifacts, family history, and much much much more, we have absolutely nothing on the man.
looncraz 7 months ago
@looncraz and can we not say the same for Jesus?
The larger point is this, and as you study history more, what we know about a lot of people in history is circumstantial.
Lotusjbx 7 months ago
@Lotusjbx No, we cannot say the same for Jesus.
You see, what we have for virtually ALL other historical figures is documents from the times in which they lived. Writings from people they knew, statues or portraits made of them while they were present for the likeness.
The only thing circumstantial about most other historical figures revolves around specifics, such as what date did they do something, or perhaps the exact words used.
Rarely do things completely conflict as with Jesus, either.
looncraz 7 months ago
@looncraz Another example from history. All we know about Socrates we know because of Plato, his disciple, who wrote about him years later after he died and in the context of a larger book. Sounds a little familiar.
Nevertheless, for me it's fine to debate the 'real' aspects of Jesus, but I do believe the Man walked this earth. What happened afterwards?....... we leave to mystery and faith.
Lotusjbx 7 months ago
@Lotusjbx Yes, Socrates is a good example. We can only assume he existed as we can only assume Jesus existed.
Indeed, there is more evidence for Jesus's existence.
However, Jesus should have actual credible evidence to support his existence due to his place in time and alleged stature.
The lack of evidence during his life-time and from anyone who knew him (the gospels were NOT written by disciples, and they conflict each other rather severely in some key areas) suggests he was not well known.
looncraz 7 months ago
@looncraz "Yes, Socrates is a good example. We can only assume he existed as we can only assume Jesus existed."
Last I heard no one said Socrates walked on water or raised the dead, so in terms of it mattering, well, I guess there is a huge difference.
moopism 4 months ago
@moopism Yes, indeed, I ran out of characters :-(
I prefer to bait people in arguments, slowly bashing their heads into their own misconceptions until they have no choice but to either realize the truth, or to merely file away the information for the day they realize the truth - should that day come.
Peace!
looncraz 4 months ago
@looncraz Yeah I hate running out of room just when you're on a roll.
I like your style, but I have to admit that when it comes to fecal flinging,I'm not counting on converting the other side.
I'd prefer to think that those who read find something of value or the courage to stand up and demand a rational society.
On the other hand, it could just be my rampant ego talking...
moopism 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=1hgX6w4U-2o
watch?v=CycbvARsxWU
youtube com/knowwheretorun1984
watch?v=RohTNQljPFQ
watch?v=cjQtNuky36Q
watch?v=8CE79M3-Qs4
Take a look at these links, paints an accurate picture of zeitgeist. Also there is a video of evidence for jesus' existence. Very good stuff. Shows that TZM and TVP are intimately linked to the UN!
theemurf 8 months ago
jesus was just a man who obviously wasnt that important when he lived but later people turned him into a god
mcdinkity 9 months ago
prove it either way, get me a time machine (on the way i will say I dont care anyway)
cos i believe, that in the time machine I will bruce lee your ass and find out the euromillions lottery numbers for last big jackpot instead and then leave them somewhere for myself. If you prove he is or isnt real 99% of people will say "so" or "and"
Astarkat 9 months ago
I'm holding out for the long form birth certificate for Jesus. Only once I see that will I believe he is legally qualified to be the king of kings.
GawdOfThunder 9 months ago
@GawdOfThunder Given that they went to Bethlehem for the census - I'm surprised the birth wasn't recorded at the time :)
spaceagebachelor 9 months ago 3
@spaceagebachelor Ahhh, very good point. We should hire Trump to search that out for us.
GawdOfThunder 9 months ago
@spaceagebachelor ::: There is no secular record of any census having been taken.
k0smon 4 months ago
Actually there are roman historians writing about Julius Ceasar. A lot of them actually.
MrLacksoriginality 10 months ago 9
I had a look at that too. There is nothing form roman historians about Julius Ceasar either. What is there is the coins, statues and letters. Very strange.
MrLacksoriginality 10 months ago
Yep and there is less evidence that Julius Ceasar existed an Roman Emperor, how is that if the Romans rewrote history to their liking??
Mrpl778 10 months ago
I had a look at one of the links in that page that describes the issue in more detail. Yes you are correct. Along with other sources too. So i accept that there is no historical jesus in these texts. I guess it really does take faith to read the bible.
MrLacksoriginality 10 months ago
Its the arabic version. I made a mistake the book maybe called testimonium flavianum
I cant post links on you tube but i tell you how to find it. Google "shlomo jesus" and look at the 4th one down "jesus granskad"
MrLacksoriginality 10 months ago
@MrLacksoriginality Yep, that's another one I was aware of that is also discussed in that book WWJ. That Arabic version is from the 10th century. It says that in the 1st paragraph of the blog you mention too.
freethoughtnation. com /forums/viewtopic. php?f=17&t=2441&p=18579#p18579
Hercules2345 10 months ago
"They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."
Search googel for this
MrLacksoriginality 10 months ago
"It is a Fortuitous Situation indeed that God really does exist-lest the poor Atheist would not have a purpose in life at all" PPSimmons. The fool says in their heart there is no God. Psalm 14-1. The evidence is clear about Jesus, and who he was. Enough with the lies from the athesit, you really make yourself look like a fools. The Atheist can't find God for the same reason a Thief can't find a Policeman.
MrPsalm53 10 months ago
@MrPsalm53 Oh good, finally someone with evidence for Jesus. Would you share it please?
Lets try to leave out the discrimination against atheists though. Remember, god made them too. Psalm 14:1 & a few others like it are pure discrimination. If Jesus exists and Christianity is true then there is no need for any discrimination.
Hercules2345 10 months ago
@Hercules2345 I dont knwo if you will take this seriously but there is the eastern texts of flavius josephus that is unedited.
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him."
MrLacksoriginality 10 months ago
@MrLacksoriginality Thanks for posting. No, I do have trouble with the credibility of those texts. Are you aware that the oldest extant copies are from the 9th -11th century? This entire passage you've is thoroughly addressed in the book 'Who Was Jesus?,' in the chapter "Jesus outside the bible."
Hercules2345 10 months ago
@Hercules2345 Actaully that is not where it is from. It is from the "antiquities of the jews". It is the eastern version that professor shlomo translated into english. The western versions has clearly been edited by christian copywriters.
MrLacksoriginality 10 months ago
@MrLacksoriginality I think I'm aware of it. That's the Slavonic version, yes? Or share a link? It's still not older than the 9th century.
Hercules2345 10 months ago
@MrPsalm53 the fool says in their heart,Im going to smash the heads of innocent babies against rocks because my god tells me to and genocide is righteous because the god of the bible commands it,but it's horrible if the muslim god Alla caommands it.Your circular logic is sad.
ranchai100 10 months ago
@TheDarvus, It's so well documented that he existed as evidenced by historical accounts from reputable sources and writings against Jesus. Why debate that he lived? For bitter atheists like yourself, you should try to argue that he isn't what he claimed to be: the Son of God. As many have put it, he was either crazy or truly God Himself. You make up your mind, but don't put out nonsense which is simply a desparate attempt to try anyway to criticize Christians. You're just desparate.
Exciteme777 10 months ago
@Exciteme777 "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the 4 Gospels. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth"
Uni Jewish Enc.
Hercules2345 10 months ago
I personally know brilliant scientists with PHDs from Ivy League universities who became Christians. Some went out of their way to prove he didn't exist, but in the process came to believe. That must be it. If you actually read about the historical evidence for Jesus, you'd be surprised how the historical facts truly add up, and you would eat your words.
Exciteme777 10 months ago
There are many books written about the historical evidence for Jesus. In fact, there are historical accounts of him outside the Bible. Go to Barnes & Noble, and you'll see what I mean. This is a deceptive title for this video.
Exciteme777 10 months ago
Yea
The truth hurts.
Sorry Christians.
willdrake1 11 months ago
Comment removed
reuben 11 months ago
@TheDarvus try reading a book, it will do you some good.
Humbler25 11 months ago
This is the most ridiculous video I have ever scene..lol absolute non sense!
AndrewStewart7 11 months ago
@AndrewStewart7 why?
elmucaro177 11 months ago
@elmucaro177 I left a comment out of shock> not to debate. None the less, I will however present two key points as to why this video is a complete joke.
- The MAJORITY of scholars affirmatively agree that Jesus' existence can be established using documentary and other evidence.
- Their are several people outside of the Bible that wrote about Jesus
1.Thallus (52AD) 2.Pliny the Younger 3.Suetonius 4.Tacitus 5.Josephus (37-101AD) 6.Mara Bar-Serapion 7.Phlegon' NOT EVEN ALL OF THEM
AndrewStewart7 11 months ago
@AndrewStewart7 thanks for the info, at least you are but the few that , makes a statement based on something he has on hand i will check each and every name you gave me :P
elmucaro177 11 months ago
@TheDarvus Actually there is a ton of evidence for Jesus. You just don't want to read about it because the truth may force you to alter your lifestyle, and you dont want to do that now... do you?
Humbler25 11 months ago
@Humbler25 where?
elmucaro177 11 months ago
Bible Scholar 'Exposes' Christian Fraud
freethoughtnation. com /contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/504-bible-scholar-exposes-christian-fraud. html
Hercules2345 11 months ago
evidence your not a virgin??
MALES ONLY HERE
mindementia 1 year ago
To prove that religion is not the cause of evil and stupidity , you just need to look at the zeitgeist worshipers who act in a way that any religious zealot would, basically believing what they want despite what reality shows.
Its not about religion, its about human stupidity present in all groups including the religious one.
niinja2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 "you just need to look at the zeitgeist worshipers who act in a way that any religious zealot would"
Good old "I'm water, you're glue?" I can't take this seriously, sorry. Haha.
"Its not about religion, its about human stupidity present in all groups including the religious one."
Well, we certainly have some common ground there. Indeed so does Zeitgeist, if you care to notice the rather blunt moral at the end of the religion-related segment.
It's not about just Christianity.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
What you end up is a small bunch of cursory mention and hearsay recorded long after the fact while otherwise no historians of the time even mention the fact during the supposed fame and adoration of Jesus by a massive following of people, or even long after the fact.
This isn't what you'd expect from a factual event or person. This is, however, exactly what you'd except if the myth was conceived around that time - as the gospels were - and produced some amount of followers who believed it.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
...In fact this is generally the exact way urban myths spread despite rarely having basis in reality.
Historians know how to separate facts about a person from myths about a person, just as we know Alexander the Great was a real person, but that he was born of a virgin conception is a fabrication: one is documented by many contemporary sources and relics, the other is documented only as myths or hearsay would be.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon
"just as we know Alexander the Great was a real person, but that he was born of a virgin conception is a fabrication:"
we are not talking about Jesuses miracles, they can all be wrong and made up but he could have still existed.
niinja2 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"This isn't what you'd expect from a factual event or person. This is, however, exactly what you'd except if the myth was conceived around that time"
special pleading and making shit up, this is what you dont expect.
the most probable explanation of arise of christianty is that Jesus not only existed but that he did some weird shit.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "the most probable explanation of arise of christianty is that Jesus not only existed but that he did some weird shit."
Haha!
By that logic Muhammed, Buddha, Krishna, Zeus, and hundreds of other prophets are just as likely to exist... Or, rather, more so.
"why would any historian need to know about Jesus"
Well... Historians write history. Surprising, I know.
Bible says he was greeted by crowds of thousands, but I suppose Bible can be wrong. ;)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon
"By that logic Muhammed, Buddha, Krishna, Zeus, and hundreds of other prophets are just as likely to exist... Or, rather, more so."
so you are saying that muhhamad and buddha didnt exist?
"Bible says he was greeted by crowds of thousands, but I suppose Bible can be wrong. ;)"
MISSING THE POINT , this is stupid, we are not debating accuracy of the bible, we are not debating miracles from it.....
fail
niinja2 1 year ago
silly zeitgeist idiots!!! silly silly silly!
BeLogicalWillU 1 year ago
"our sources about the life and teaching of Jesus christ are scanty and problematic"
It is dishonest to imply that lack of evidence about his life is the same as the lack of evidence about his existence!!!
zeitgeist worshipers never fail to amaze me in its stupidity.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 That came from a Christian. If you disagree then simply provide CREDIBLE evidence for Jesus' existence. Just know that you would be the 1st ever to do so. I'm sure Jesus would be happy. You might even get a prize & be on the evening news.
Hercules2345 1 year ago
@Hercules2345
of the top of my head, tacitus, seutonius, jewish hostile writings, josephus ( we know what part is plagiarism and what is not)
"Just know that you would be the 1st ever to do so. I'm sure Jesus would be happy. You might even get a prize & be on the evening news. "
have you actually looked at the evidence ?
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the 4 Gospels. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth"
Uni Jewish Enc.
Hercules2345 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hercules2345
"Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value"
il come back to this, we know exactly what part of Josephus was interpolated and it was not the part about existence of jesus
celsus writes about jesus in a negative way.
niinja2 1 year ago
@Hercules2345
"The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations"
tacitus is not a christian interpolation because tacitus writes in a derogatory way about Christianity, why would christians made up a story that described them in such a way. There is no evidence that tacitus writings are not genuine.
niinja2 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hercules2345 1 year ago
@niinja2 Nobody called Tacitus a Xian. There are many reasons not to accept Tacitus as proof for Jesus. One being the fact that he wasn't born until around 56. His evidence is heresay at best. Pliny was born around 62 Suetonius around 69 & Josephus 37. There goes your?very best evidence out the window.
Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus
truthbeknown. com /pliny. htm
The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled
truthbeknown. com /josephus. htm
Hercules2345 1 year ago
@Hercules2345
we know exactly what parts of josephus is a christian interpolation and what part is genuine, the part that gives jesus divine atributes ( especially by a jew) are known to be false, while there is no evidence to believe that the rest of the writings that imply that jesus existed, is false.
"Some scholars have even gone so far"
read SOME and SO FAR. Even they recognize that its a stretched assumption.
niinja2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 Nobody called Tacitus a Xian. There are many reasons not to accept Tacitus as proof for Jesus. One being the fact that he wasn't born until around 56. His evidence is heresay at best. Pliny was born around 62 Suetonius around 69 & Josephus 37. There goes yourvery best evidence out the window.
Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus
truthbeknown. com /pliny. htm
The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled
truthbeknown. com /josephus. htm
Hercules2345 1 year ago
@Hercules2345
Majority of scholars do not hold to this opinion.
niinja2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 Nobody called Tacitus a Xian. There are many reasons not to accept Tacitus as proof for Jesus. One being the fact that he wasn't born until around 56. His evidence is heresay at best. Pliny was born around 62 Suetonius around 69 & Josephus 37. There goes yourvery best evidence out the window.
Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus
truthbeknown. com /pliny. htm
The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled
truthbeknown. com /josephus. htm
Hercules2345 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 Nobody called Tacitus a Xian. There are many reasons not to accept Tacitus as proof for Jesus. One being the fact that he wasn't born until around 56. His evidence is heresay at best. Pliny was born around 62 Suetonius around 69 & Josephus 37. There goes your?very best evidence out the window.
Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus
truthbeknown. com /pliny. htm
The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled
truthbeknown. com /josephus. htm
Hercules2345 1 year ago
@Hercules2345
"One being the fact that he wasn't born until around 56. His evidence is heresay at best"
1 historian does not have to be contemporary to a person which we are investigating. Or show me a cite from a professional historian that claims otherwise.
2 Just because we dont know what are tacitus sources does not mean he is not reliable. Tacitus is known as a historian that was very critical and almost never relied solely on one source.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "Just because we dont know what are tacitus sources does not mean he is not reliable."
Tacitus is NOT reliable. He, and many other contemporary historians, documented a wide variety of nonsense, including prophesies, sightings of Zeus and centaurs, ghosts, spirits... We don't just take their word for it. This isn't how history works.
You need cross-reference. You need contemporary sources. You need physical data.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"You need cross-reference. You need contemporary sources. You need physical data."
to establish that a person existed, no i dont.
"Tacitus is NOT reliable. He, and many other contemporary historians, documented a wide variety of nonsense, including prophesies, sightings of Zeus and centaurs, "
Well then we can reject what he and any other historian ever wrote dont we...
Where did he exactly write about prophesies or zeus?
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "to establish that a person existed, no i dont."
Haha. Apparently you don't need any sort of evidence to establish what is fact or not. Isn't it amazing?..
Are you even listening to yourself.
"Well then we can reject what he and any other historian ever wrote dont we..."
Or we could not be ignorant about how history as determined and look up the core principles of historical method, starting with the bits I provided earlier, such as cross-reference.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"Are you even listening to yourself."
are you reading what i wrote?
"Haha. Apparently you don't need any sort of evidence to establish what is fact or not. Isn't it amazing?.."
dont be an idiot, i didnt say this,there is more evidence then just contemporary evidence and archeology.
Hannibal does not have neither.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "are you reading what i wrote?"
Yes. You just dismissed almost every way one could verify a fact.
"there is more evidence then just contemporary evidence and archeology."
Amazing. Well, that's two important fields of science out of the window... So what's left?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@niinja2 "Where did he exactly write about prophesies or zeus?"
How do you think we know about these things in the first place?
Granted it's an easy mistake to make for someone who only studied history in high-school, but, well, use your head for this one.
"special pleading"
Explain.
I contend special pleading is giving character of Jesus liberties which would disqualify any other myth from being verified or factual.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Hercules2345
"heresay"
court of history is not the court of law.
If you require a historian to live in the same time as the person he is writing about then you can throw half of historical figures out of the window. Hanibal from carthaga was not written about in his time but by later historians, we have no archeological evidence for him. Elephants over the alps can easily be interpreted as a myth that was all made up by romans. Are you saying hanibal never existed? yes or no.
niinja2 1 year ago
@Hercules2345
The links you provided are all from a single source made by acharia s who is not even a historian. I think its easy to google.
"The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome,""
She tries to show that this is wrong because there were not vast multitude of christians living there in rome.
The passage says that" vast multitude of christians" were convicted , a 100 can be this vast multitude and this is still not many relative to rome.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 LMAO! Did you not read those links either? They certainly did contain several sources including the originals all cited within the article itself so, either you didn't read it or you're lying.
Hercules2345 1 year ago
@niinja2 "The links you provided are all from a single source made by acharia s who is not even a historian. I think its easy to google."
She IS a historian. Her book sites no less than 200 primary sources and historians.
"If you require a historian to live in the same time as the person he is writing about then you can throw half of historical figures out of the window"
On the contrary, you can't name one, because that IS how we determine myth from fact in history.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"She IS a historian. Her book sites no less than 200 primary sources and historians."
lol, acharia s and primary sources... she does not know what a primary source is, if she is a historian she is a very bad and biased one.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "she does not know what a primary source is, if she is a historian she is a very bad and biased one."
Insult does not an argument make.
Your rejection is that of clear bias. Attacking scholars just because you disagree with them is disgraceful. Lying is a breach of one of the commandments, by the way...
Acharya is a historian and has backed up every single fact she mentions in her book with references to primary sources and works or respected scholars. That's fact.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"Acharya is a historian and has backed up every single fact she mentions in her book with references to primary sources and works or respected scholars. That's fact."
i have believed into her lies untill i actually went and checked her "primary sources" taht said Jesus was a coppy
ITS UTTER BULLSHIT
your the one who is biased
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "your the one who is biased"
I suppose so. The solar messiah model was accepted as evident in the study of mythology for a very long while up until very recently - as I believe she mentions - so I knew about it long before I knew Acharaya was writing about it.
I'm sure if you could suppress your own biases and look at the big picture it'd be self-evident.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"The solar messiah model was accepted as evident in the study of mythology for a very long while up until very recently"
Jesus himself in the bible says that to worship the sun is a sin or something like that. Jesus is not the sun, people who connect this , stretch this idea to fit their own view.
"I'm sure if you could suppress your own biases and look at the big picture it'd be self-evident."
and if you could supres things that are not there you could see the big picture
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "Jesus himself in the bible says that to worship the sun is a sin or something like that."
I vaguely remember hearing about something like that, but I've seen nothing like that. However that's not exactly refutation: a mythical story doesn't have to have internal consistency... And Bible is, indeed, not very good with internal consistency in general, not just in regards to astrological references.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@niinja2 "Jesus is not the sun, people who connect this , stretch this idea to fit their own view ... and if you could supres things that are not there you could see the big picture"
This says nothing of substance. Try some logic.
Try stepping back. You're only fooling yourself if you don't think you're here trying to prove to yourself he existed anyway. This isn't a debate you can win without evidence, neither with me, nor with yourself.
The sky is your answer here.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"This says nothing of substance. Try some logic."
well what substance or evidence you present except excluded everything argued lol
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "well what substance or evidence you present except excluded everything argued"
Have you really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon
"Have you really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?"
why is outside colder then by night
who is faster or rabbit
niinja2 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"On the contrary, you can't name one, because that IS how we determine myth from fact in history."
Lol this is mega fail. You ahve a historian to support your claim?
You dont really know this because you didnt check, didnt you ?Why are you making stuff up?
Hannibal from carthaga, there are more historical figures that dont have contemporary scholarship about them.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "You ahve a historian to support your claim?"
Yes. Namely every single academic and historian following the Historical Method as established sometime in the 90s.
Frankly it's just common sense, that's why we write history down to begin with: if you could document after it happened, the historical writings themselves become moot.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon
"Yes. Namely every single academic and historian following the Historical Method as established sometime in the 90s."
arguing from authority
so you say Hannibal did not exist? Its common sense right?
niinja2 1 year ago
@Hercules2345
quote from
thedevineevidence. com/jesus_history. html
"Tacitus
distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of
Jesus was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified."
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 Yes, I'm aware of what Christian apologists claim.
"Tacitus: The reference to Jesus in "Annals XV.44" is describing what Christians believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. Tacitus goes on to call this belief about Christus a "pernicious superstition. Annals XV.44 was not written until 115 CE."
truth-saves. com /chapter4. php?section=3
Hercules2345 1 year ago
@niinja2 FYI, Tacitus was born 50 years after supposed birth of Jesus. There is nothing he could say about Jesus BUT hearsay or rumour. Or, in this case, he was simply writing down beliefs of early Christians.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"Or, in this case, he was simply writing down beliefs of early Christians."
so its not possible that he got the in for from written data that was lost?
the fact that he was not contemporary to Jesus does not mean anything, Hannibal did not have contemporary scholars writing about him either.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "so its not possible that he got the in for from written data that was lost?"
It's possible Jesus himself returned and brought him the hundred or so documents absent from hundreds of historians of Mediterranean that would have no excuse not to know about him as well, but because there's no evidence of such a thing, it'd be silly to assume that.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
why would any historian need to know about Jesus , he was a Jew that started a sec, one among many and was not famous until christians started to be known.
secondly many data was lost and burned in more then one occasion.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "secondly many data was lost and burned in more then one occasion."
I'm glad at least there's something we can agree on.
Of course this shouldn't be used as a ground to invent history out of thin air to fill the void of unknown.
"i have believed into her lies untill i actually went and checked her "primary sources" taht said Jesus was a coppy"
Doing your research is highly commendable, you have my respect for that.
Is it true though? What do you disagree with exactly?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"Is it true though? What do you disagree with exactly?"
that its a coppy from horus taht he was baptited by "anup" the baptizer, the guy does not even exist as a legend. Its all made up and it can all be traced to some book " 16 crucified saviors" that has NO PRIMARY SOURCES and all of the zeitgeist fans are just citing this crap as a source.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "Hannibal does not have neither."
I don't know much about Hannibal, so I can't comment, but I find this hard to believe considering this would violate historical method. In absence of stronger form of evidence anyway, such as relics, which I'm pretty sure do exist.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@niinja2 "that its a coppy from horus taht he was baptited by "anup" the baptizer, the guy does not even exist as a legend"
Then you didn't check the sources.
Mythology of ancient Egypt is not singular, nor has it ever been public, so if you're going to check against a common encyclopedia entry, you will find nothing. You need to dig deeper, and that's why Acharaya cites work of numerous esteemed scholars who explain the ins and outs of mysteries and original mythos and gravings.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"Then you didn't check the sources.
Mythology of ancient Egypt is not singular, nor has it ever been public, so if you're going to check against a common encyclopedia entry, you will find nothing."
THE GUY DOES NOT EXIST ON GOOGLE!!!!!
IF YOU FIND HIM I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE WHERE DID YOU GOT THIS???
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "THE GUY DOES NOT EXIST ON GOOGLE!"
Well, shit. There goes the ultimate test of whether something is ever mentioned in scholarly literature.
Look, I don't know much about the specifics, and I'm not going to argue about them. If that's your point, I'm utterly defeated and you can have your victory. Good job.
My point is only that one-two sources recording hearsay are not good workings for a historical fact, never have been. If they were, ALL prophets would be "historical".
SexyMelon 1 year ago
There were hundreds of known historians in the region where Jesus supposedly existed, and of all of them there are two-three that drop a cursory mention of a person that may somewhat resemble him BUT only after we know there existed a following of people worshiping him in the first place.
I believe you said something along the lines we could have lost all that data... But that's really rather specific historical erasure, isn't it? We wouldn't give anything else credibility from that.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"There were hundreds of known historians in the ..."
Nobody is claiming here that Jesus did miracles, only that he existed, why would some historian make not of a guy who is a carpenter and who forms his own sect among dozens of other sects?
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "Nobody is claiming here that Jesus did miracles"
Well, that's cherry-picking, isn't it? How can you separate this from the rest of the claims in the gospel accounts? Isn't that a bit like if Hercules was just a very strong blacksmith or something?
I grant you if Jesus wasn't particularly known to anyone and just hung around with twelve disciples somewhere with his own religion he would have no reason to make it into historical record, which renders the discussion moot. So then?..
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon
"Well, that's cherry-picking, isn't it?"
ERM WHAT? We do not need the bible to establish the historicity of Jesus, i do not know how much are the gospell acounts historical, nor do i care at this moment nor it is important.
"which renders the discussion moot. So then?.."
he became famous after his death...
niinja2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon
"My point is only that one-two sources recording hearsay are not good workings for a historical fact, never have been. If they were, ALL prophets would be "historical"."
but there are more then one biblical and extra biblical sources, but people somehow doubt them because they think its all a great conspiracy where they can make a religion for which they will die the next 300 years.
BULLCRAP
niinja2 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Every link i tried to see on anup starts something like this:
" well i have tried to find this guy in historical records but he seems to does not exist" or some variation of that.
But only acharia knows the exact location of a prime source where this guy is actually mentioned
YEAH RIGHT. If it were so zeitgeist worshipers would make 100000 web sites about him.
He does not even exist as a myth, unless you can prove it.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "Every link i tried to see on anup starts something like this:"
I guess I didn't make myself clear: typing things into Google isn't how you do research about obscure subjects of academic study of history.
"But only acharia knows the exact location of a prime source where this guy is actually mentioned"
You said you checked her sources and found out its bullshit. What source does she cite towards this Anup fella, and why do you think it's bullshit?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"You said you checked her sources and found out its bullshit. What source does she cite towards this Anup fella, and why do you think it's bullshit?"
because whenever someone makes stuff up about the church, jesus or religion its all over the net, at least in a few places. The data about anup is found only in zeitgeist websites. If there is any evidence for that guy zeitgeist fanboys would have presented it.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "because whenever someone makes stuff up about the church, jesus or religion its all over the net, at least in a few places"
That's awful.
I know it seems at times Google is GOD - check out Church of Google, by the way - but that's not really the case. Google doesn't have to know everything about everything. Especially about obscure topics exclusive to deepest study of ancient history.
I take it you lied a bit and didn't actually check her sources at all.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"Google doesn't have to know everything about everything. Especially about obscure topics exclusive to deepest study of ancient history."
OBSCURE TOPPICS???
its JESUS FUKING CHRIST , and there is 203827678125 web sites of "Jesus never existed" but when...
gimme a brake you say anup does exist???? but achary is the only one who kows about this?
GAIOSHDGABGDASGHSJSDKLFA
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "OBSCURE TOPPICS??? its JESUS FUKING CHRIST"
You mean Anup the Baptist.
"gimme a brake you say anup does exist?"
He's a mythical figure, lol.
You didn't actually check the sources Acharaya gave, is that right? You didn't actually look up the references given in the book? Well... I think that's about all you need to realize about how well you studied it, right?..
Well, this has been a fun discussion. See you later maybe.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon
"You didn't actually check the sources Acharaya gave, is that right? You didn't actually look up the references given in the book"
I WENT TO SEE ON WIKIPEDIA WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT HORUS
AND IT LOOKED LIKE NOTHING WHAT SHE SAID
I WILL NEVER TALK TO A FUKING ZEITGEST IDIOT TROL AGAIN
FUCKING WORSHIPERS
niinja2 1 year ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"You didn't actually look up the references given in the book?"
DID YOU???
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "DID YOU?"
Didn't read it. Like I said, Acharay is far from the first person to pose the sun-god hypothesis. Then again, I'm not the one who claimed to look up the references given in her book and finding out they're bullshit while having done no such thing.
So... You lied, didn't you.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon
"You didn't actually look up the references given in the book? Well... I think that's about all you need to realize about how well you studied it, right?.."
And saying that anup is a mythical figure is all i need to show that YOU are the one who did not check any of her sources but just BELIEVED her because you WANTED to.
Why am i not suprised, typical zeitgeist fanboy
niinja2 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Do you know what is the main evidence for me that zeitgeist is full of crap, is because people like you who believe things because they want to and accuse other people of being biased, you know people say the things you hate about yourself you project onto others
"He's a mythical figure, lol."
"You didn't actually check the sources Acharaya gave, is that right"
You accuse me that i dont check sources, but you say anup is a mythical figure... anup was made up in 18 century
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "is because people like you who believe things because they want to and accuse other people of being biased"
Don't project, and stop insulting me. You're the one who's never done their research here. You claimed you've looked up the references, and you never did, instead trying to find this Anup guy just by typing his name into Google, rather than referencing works of scholars presented.
You're the one believing things because they want to and accuse others of being biased...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@niinja2 "You accuse me that i dont check sources, but you say anup is a mythical figure..."
Are you crazy?
Well, no, you didn't check the sources. What's the "but" doing there I don't know, how is it meant to justify your lies and lack of research? Of course he's a mythical figure. It's called "mythology". The whole book is about myths.
Myths and mythologies. Specifically Christian mythology.
"anup was made up in 18 century"
Pics or it didn't happen.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon "Of course he's a mythical figure. It's called "mythology". The whole book is about myths."
THE GUY DOES NOT EXIST IN MYTHOLOGY , YOU ASSUME TAHT HE DOES , YOU DID NOT DO YOUR REASAERCH AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF NOT DOING THAT
PRESENT EVIDENCE OF ANUP OR SIMPLY STFU
niinja2 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
prove anup exists as a mythical figure, then we can talk.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 Haha! Resorting to classical Christian fallacies so soon? Does that mean I've been right after all? ;)
Well, no, buddy: you brought up Anup as an example of something you supposedly "checked" from Acharaya's book and found to be "bullshit". Well, that didn't happen: you lied, you didn't check, you didn't look it up, and you don't even appear to be aware of the fact that the book has hundreds of in-text references to these things.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Does it surprise me that this rejection of uncomfortable truths is based on personal ignorance rather than falsely claimed research? No...
Acharaya herself said that's all she's ever heard on the subject, because people don't check, instead scurrying to websites that support their view, conveniently forgetting to be skeptical of them likewise.
You're not doing much good to your case by outright lying. You didn't research anything if that's your best example. The guise is paper-thin.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
look dude, i did look it up, egyptian texts are easily available online, i have checked horus and found very little evidence to support her claim, i have seen the testimonies of experts who claim she is wrong.
But lets say i am wrong in my conclusion , i am still not going to waste my time on top of the one i just did just because some guy says "you did not look hard enough"
niinja2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 "look dude, i did look it up"
Please cite the original reference given and scholarly work that refutes it.
"egyptian texts are easily available online, i have checked horus and found very little evidence to support her claim"
Read: encyclopedia entries.
"i have seen the testimonies of experts who claim she is wrong."
If you'd actually read her book like you claim, you'd have seen testimonies of hundreds of ACTUAL scholars who support it.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
if you want to convince me show me that anup is a guy from egyptian mythology.
Because i think your just assuming he is. And i doubt that you did any of the reasearch on the toppic, but hey prove me wrong. The ball is in your court.
niinja2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 "if you want to convince me show me that anup is a guy from egyptian mythology."
Don't shift burden of proof.
What we have here is: you claimed you looked up Acharaya's sources and quoted Anup as an example, yet when pressed for actual source you said "Google it". Conclusion is: you didn't check anything, you didn't read her book, you're not aware of the reference she gives to support it, and you don't have a source that refutes it.
In short, you lied, and did not look it up.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 While we're at it, "Prove your God is real, then we can talk." ;)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 "you can have historical jesus without god"
Okay... But also completely missing the point.
You go prove it, why don't you.
"why do you think i did not look it up?"
You asked me to "Google" him instead of presenting the source given in Acharaya's book and a refutation to it. Do you even know Acharaya cited sources for her claims in the book?
Either way, you lied. That's all you need to know about quality of your research.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
i did look up her references , many of them are traced back to the book "16 crucified saviors" which has no original sources provided.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "i did look up her references"
Then cite the reference she gives for the Anup myth. Note that doing so will refute your claims about him being non-existent, however.
"many of them are traced back to the book "16 crucified saviors"
Please cite where she refers to it.
I will not accept a crummy website asserting she does so without any actual back-up of the fact. Maybe neither should you...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "I will not succumb to this kind of bullying"
Asking you to back up what you said is "bullying" now?
"you require from me that i cite things to you while you are not prepared to do the same in return"
I'm not the one making claims about Anup or whatever here. You are. You go back it up, and stop shifting burden of proof.
You call it, you go prove it.
"Either present evidence for this anup you claim to know exists"
Your claim, dear. Not mine.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"I&#