IamJoseph

If anyone has any proof or evidence of Jesus [or by any other name of this Gospel figure] - or any of the Gospel apostles - please present this.

What is NOT acceptable as proof:

1. Usage of NT scripture as proof.

2. The passage in Flavius Josephus & Tacitus [because we do not have a contemporary document of these works, thus they are subject to manipulation; it is also disputed by most scholars]

3. Christian interpretation of Hebrew scriptures.

4. 'Belief' cannot apply: all religionists possess this faculty; however, the Hebrew bible, much more ancient and harder to prove - has been proven for over 70% of all its states via scientific and unbiased evidences, rendering this belief alligned with historicity.

What I have found is that no proof whatsoever exists of any figures of the Gospels, excepting that of Saul of Tarsus [St. Paul], and here, the writings attributed to him are not provable - thus his writings cannot be considered as proof of the Gospel fgures, and were most probably written later by the Gospel writers.

There has been a reference that there is a Hebrew passage in the Talmud, now erased due to Jewish sensitivities towards Christians. However, even this does not constitute proof: the reference is of a coded name which can apply to any period, even one 200 years earlier, and is heavily coded to resist Roman persecution to make it apply to any particular issue or person.

The alarming anomoly:

There are no writings by Jews; no Hebrew writings; not a single contemporary writings [in a time when writing was commonplace]; a contradiction of the Gospels by the Arabs.

The only writings available is a European work which must be seen as the least unbiased source of all. Europe has no clean hands - consider the Blood Libels & The Protocols.

There is also no proof of the stories in the Gospels, specially the trial of Jesus and the freeing of Barabus. This story makes no sense whatsoever: Barabus was like a Bin Laden figure for Rome and they would never set him free for a 1000 Jews; nor is there any Jewish writing attesting he was freed.

The reference to a sacrifice of and by Jesus makes no sense: there was a decree of Heresy hovering over Judea - here, there was no choice for a Jesus like figure to offer himself - he would have been crucified along with all the millions of other Jews unless he seccumbed to the Roman decree.

And if Jesus was a jew - he would know that human sacrifice and suicide are forbiden. One must wonder what magic words the Jews would said [as a conspiracy] to impress Rome to crucify a Jew claiming he was a messiah - if anything, Rome would have crucified Jesus precisely for such a claim, requiring no prodding by any Jews!?

Further, the Gospels is pervasive of lies-by-omission: such as the omission of the bravest defense of their faith by the Jews against Rome - this cannot be alligned with the Gospels reference of dis-believers, and it is thus shied away from.

If there is absolutely no historical evidence for Jesus - or the stories it contains - it must be deemed a work of fiction, as with the blood libels and the protocols, hijacking millions of genuine christian believers whose ancesters were violently and unrelentlessly enforced to convert.

The truth will set us free - but first the truth has to be acknowledged. The criteria for truth is not 'belief' - these are antithetical factors. Manifest Truth requires no belief. Belief and nothing else = no proof.

Any refutation or evidence is welcome - based on the above criteria.

Littlejohn

Those that you mentioned are not the only evidence on the historicity of personage Jesus of Nazareth. He is also mentioned by the rabbinic literature and the mandaean one: two worlds totally unrelated to that of the catholic interests. Why the rabbis of the first centuries and authors of literature mandaean, they should talk about Jesus, if such a person was the fruit of Catholic invention? Why they had to support the lies of the so-called fathers of the church, if they were really such? .. And because the Jews have never complained that they were persecuted by Catholics for centuries and centuries, due to an invented character? .. This has never happened and even today that the Jews, in their land, they can speak freely, without censorship and without the threat of Catholic retaliation (as in the past) they don't say that Jesus was a figure invented to "tavolino" (on table)? ... These elements, despite their simplicity, should carefully reflecting all those who still insist on nature "mythological" of the jesuan figure.

There are infinite points on which the cult Catholic-Christian can be attacked, in order to demonstrate the construction based on hallucinating historical falsifications and deceptions without limit in number and amplitude! Choose the mythological aspect of the construction of the character Jesus, and thus support his no-historicity, is the most wrong one can imagine, and, in the end, this turns in favor of the same ecclesiastical "congregation" as, data to hand, such an argument, ie not historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, come on rejected by the vast mass of the Catholic faithful, as well as much by the world of official erudition.

Much more productive, instead, is "digging" into clerical garden, in order to unearth the "skeletons" that have been buried long, too much time ago! The apologetic Catholic world does not fear statements relative to the non historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, but it fear well other, such as, for example, the fact that today it can be shown that this character, certainly historic, it was totally different from what has been "painted" by forger clergy through the centuries of his little edifying story!

Paradoxically, it is that of Paul of Tarsus the figure no-historic! (at least as it is presented in New Testament contest)

The character we know today with that name is, actually, the result of the syncretistic "merger" of two separate characters, ie Paul/Saul and "Paul of Tarsus." Yet, also, from the point of view of the personality, they were significantly different. Neither was called "Paul", as such a name derives from the latin attribute "paulus", whose meaning is "small", specifically referring to the stature: a particular, this, that links the two characters. Also none of them was of Tarsus. All that the New Testament reports about the true "Paul of Tarsus" (and therefore not Paul/Saul) is strongly reticent, as well as plenty "manipulated".

Why what is reported by the Talmud is not a proof? .. Perhaps because the Catholic apologists affirm it, since the quotations that the rabbis have registered in their "sacred" texts (such as the Talmud) are deeply embarrassing for the incredible pile of lies that is the current Christian worship? ..

The fact that the names, into various passages in which the figures of Jesus and his mother are involved, they appear distorted in part, it is due to the fact that, in past centuries, the rabbis have had the vital need to disguise their stories on Jesus and his environment, in order to escape the pressing inquisitor work of the Catholics. That the Catholic apologists know it very well, but they are not ashamed to say that the Talmudic literature is not reliable because the names of Jesus and of his mother Mary are not mentioned in the clear, as we are used to read or to listen about them!

Especially the text on "Toldoth Yeschu" (Stories of Jesus) is "fiercely" contested by Catholic apologists, which define it a totally unreliable text, as well as "blasphemous" also! In reality, as it might surprise you, beyond its apparent "parodistic" shape, the Toldoth Yeschu appear much more punctual than the same Talmud, about the issue Jesus of Nazareth.


Littlejohn

.

fatpie42

1) The Jesus story describes someone who was crucified. In the Talmud the Jesus figure is only stoned.
2) Jesus was a fairly common name. Just like Mary and Joseph, the name Jesus is found more than once within the NT account: "Jesus Barabbas".
3) Is there any reason to think that the Jesus figure in the Talmud has any relation to the Jesus figure in the NT?

Petergdi

Our oldest reference to these stories is in Origen against Celsus. It is clear that at the time of Celsus, (2nd Cent) the Panthera story was clearly understood as being about the same Jesus that the Christians regarded as the Christ.

Recasting the story as a stoning rather than a crucifixion is a way of avoiding the embarrassment of admitting that the Roman authorities were called upon for the execution.

Peter.

rhutchin

Death will prove everything through evidence acceptable to even the most hardened skeptic.

fatpie42

You're a creepy guy, y'know?

Toto

Maybe this is a good time to try out this new feature on the Boards:

[STAFFWARN]Please confine your comments to the OP. Avoid preaching and personal comments. [/STAFFWARN]

JEST2ASK

I am sorry but just what will be proven to the living. by your death, mine or that of any other currently living human.

Would you accept a similar statement by some one who does not share your belief system say someone who believes in reincarnation.

Sheshbazzar

Death will prove everything through punishment grievous to the most hardened Christian.
And what could be a more appropriate fate, than for "Christians" to actually "fall into the hands of The Living God"?
Really, they need not answer to us, but to HIM, Whom they have so long robbed, cheated, and blasphemed His Holy name.
Most "Christians" would be better off hoping and praying that The God of The Bible is only a myth, that will never come, to deal with them that say they are His.

JEST2ASK

:huh: could you please clarify # 4 over 70% of what (? ) does that include all of Genesis or exploits of figures like Samson