aa5874

But, who worships Nostradamus, or Marshall Applewhite as God and asks them to forgive their sins and expects them to come back to earth a second time for dead people.

If Jesus was just a man, then it would be expected that he would have been regarded as just merely a prophet and not as a God who could forgive sin, abolish the Mosaic Laws and to come back for dead believers.

And in the NT, when Jesus asked his disciples who people thought he was, some said he was a prophet, but Peter immediately said Jesus was a son of a God, that is, those who knew Jesus, knew he was God and not man.

Matthew 16.13-16
It was likely that author himself of the Jesus story who thought he was an apocalyptic prophet and fabricated a story about a creature conceived by the Holy Ghost of God who would claim that the world would come to an end.

And in any event, you cannot show any historical evidence for Jesus, since Jesus was described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, and cannot say that anything about Jesus must be historical or likely to be historical. And, you cannot deny that everything found written about Jesus could have been said by the authors themselves and not any real creature name Jesus.

Your claim that there is historical evidence for Jesus is definitely a hoax. Your 2002 thread does not have one single piece of historical evidence about Jesus, but you have a lot for the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born without sexual union.

ApostateAbe

That is what I mean. We would be talking about a cult that follows a character who is supposed to have had immediate high-status disciples, who are supposed to be still alive and out and about, but they are actually nowhere to be found, and the cult is just supposed to be take one man's word for it.
It is unlikely because no other such characters have existed in myth, it is a prophecy that fails upon the telling of the myth or it constrains the beginning of Christianity to the same supposed generation (see above objection). What the Jesus-myth theory needs is evidence-- as in good comparisons to other mythical figures, identities and motivations of authors, passages that give away the mythical origin, and fitting explanations for the details given in the earliest texts.

Petergdi

There is no such implication in Peter's confession any more than there is in the High Priest's "Are you the Christ the son of the Blessed?" Son of God is in both cases serving as a messianic title and has nothing to do with any idea of the divinity of Christ.

Peter.

aa5874

But what you say makes very little sense since Jesus is referred as the son of the God of the Jews many many times in the NT with the ability to forgive sin.

And further, a Jewish Messiah is expected to kill or destroy the enemies of the Jews. Jesus was not referred to as a fighter who would die fighting for the Jews.

Simon bar Kokhba was an example of a real messiah, he probably killed many of his enemies and died fighting for the Jews.

Jesus called the Jews evil and talked to to them in parables so that they would die in their sins. Jesus of the NT was no Messiah for the Jews, he died to show that the Jews were evil.


Matthew 4.10-12

Transient

But then Jesus is the god who could not be bothered rehabilating thousands of kids in Canaan but just had them murdered on his orders because it was easier - even for a god with endless resources.
Why should he care about his "chosen" people when he gets bored with them?

aa5874

Now, you are getting it. Jesus of the NT came to destroy the Jews.

The Jewish messianic figures would die to deliver the Jews from their enemies.

But, Jesus died to show that the Jews were his enemies. And he Jesus would make the Romans destroy them and their Temple for the evils they did to him.

Mark 13:1-4 - Somebody had to pay for his death.

IamJoseph

Much has been said 'in the name of' one Jesus. This ignores the deeds of those who conducted the most evils deeds. Here, Jesus becomes the escapist placebo factor.

It is true and historical that Rome was a nazi-like brutal regime, one which not only slaughtered masses of innocent peoples, but also followed the doctrine it is fine to kill off a baby not considered pretty enough. It is telling that Europe glorifies this regime, citing her as an instigator for modern emancipation: but the tarred roads Rome invented were intended only to conquer and destroy more nations faster; the law allowing inter-marraige was ushered in to allow Romans to partake of the conqured booty.

It is also telling that the church took on the prefix of 'ROMAN' catholicism, as if this were a crown of glory: the catholic chrch went on to continue Rome's decree of Heresy, and became the biggest murderer of innocent humans in Geo-History: even when disregarding European Christianity's worst last two centuries. Not much mentioned is the horrific history of the medevial church, which antithises everything posted in the name of one Jesus. This is hardly ancient history - the church continues its deeds today via stealth and guile:

It remains silent when the Blood Libels and The Procols are pervasive in the Muslim world, presented as historical truth in islamic Madarassa, media, sermons and public teachings: these falsehoods, which took 100s of 1000s of innocent lives - came from the vatican's backyard. The vaitican has an onus not to be silent here - else the truth cannot set this office free.

The Vatican is an historical witness which is the jewish homeland, and how this was lost. Yet it makes Saints of those who proposed genocide, and all christians remain silent of it, disgracing their own belief:

'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* - BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - Pope not so Pious.

Does it mean that European christianity must also become Islamisized - because they did not accept Mohammed?

I dont mean to get political here, but nor should anyone select their own truths and omit what they don't like. The premise of serial 2-states in Palestine [still presented as 2-states till there is none]; and the invention of the Pretend Palestinians by a Pope shaking Arafat's hands in the 60's - cannot possibly save the vatican if and when Judgement times comes. These remain the world's most horrific falsehoods and deeds in the world today. Does the Vatican need a calculator or a history book:

'IT WILL BE AN HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS AND ONE FOR THE ARABS' - Churchill.

The Vatican, if it respected truth - should have accursed Briton for corrupting the Balfour Declaration before the world, perpertrated when the Jews were most helpless following W.W.11. Instead, the Vatican supports a deathly three state on what's left of the Balfour, and still calls it a 2-state. Truth - or a horrific falsehoods inclined with the demise of a 4000 year nation, robbed & tormented by Europe - all in the name of one JC?

What pray tell has one Jesus got to do with such crimes? Did Jesus write the Blood Libels and The Protocols? Did Jesus corrupt the Balfour after carving out 22 Arab states - for 30 barrels of oil? - did Jesus sanction Muslims as Palestinians - when Europe dumped this name on the Jews 2000 years ago? Did Jesus fail when the Gospels declared every brick in the temple shall fall - or are there 1000s of bricks still standing at the wall - and Israel returned?

First address crimes commited solely by those who speak in the name of a Jew. First acknowledge factual, historical crimes - then discuss passions of belief. The Gospels would like to render the 613 Laws of God as fullfilled away - understandably:

'ONLY THE SOLE THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER'

'A FALSEHOOD AND THE HOLY ONE CANNOT ABIDE TOGETHER'

It does appear like Jesus has turned face on Europe's deeds and harkened to the God of Israel. Israel has surely returned from the ashes of European Christianity exactly as prophesized: via a remnant, and when this was least possible - while Europe's chimneys still fumed. The truth will set christians free - only when they acknowledge it - even when it is a disdained truth.

The vatican should come clean and so should all christians:

Jews have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history. Jews did not murder anyone's revered figurehead. Face up to it and look elsewhere - at the false accusers? :constern02:

fatpie42

One man? You think myths begin with just one man?

Christianity takes on board ideas from all sorts of sources, so the idea that it was just a matter of one man 'making sh*t up' is extremely naive.

The disciples are most definitely mythical since the gospels are completely inconsistent as to who the 12 are meant to be, giving different names each time. We even see Paul referring to Jesus 'appearing to the 12' as if he had no idea about Judas' suicide. Besides iconic figures like Peter and Judas (with their own myths surrounding them) there seems to be very little in the way of consistency surrounding claims about the 12 disciples.

I'm not sure I understand what you think is missing. Why do you think there is a problem with providing what you have described above?

Requia

A Jesus as myth theory where Jesus was deified after he died (Which the romans were known to do, Ceaser got the same treatment), seems more plausible than one where no prophet at all existed.

aa5874

That theory won't work.

Jesus believers do not worship men or deified humans. That is why they refused to worship the Caesars, Paul or Peter.

Jews do not worship men as Gods, that is blasphemy and subject to death.

For Jesus to be worshipped by Jesus believers he must be a God first, he must resurrect after he is dead or else he cannot be a God, he cannot forgive sins.

1Co 15:17 - Jesus must be a God. Gods are myths.