NO Evidence for Jesus Outside Bible

The Truth Is…

There Is No Evidence For Jesus Christ Outside the Bible

The recording of history was in full bloom in Jesus time. Presumably, many were aware of the wonders of Jesus “… the churches … throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria … were edified… and … were multiplied.” – Acts 9:31.  There were many well known Greek and Roman authors at the time Jesus did his miracles. Yet no where is there any reference to his divinity or these miracles in any writings of the era. One would think that if he really performed the miracles attributed to  him, there would be more than two eye-witnesses (Matthew and John) writing about it. If he was such a thorn in the side of the Romans, shouldn’t they have given him more press? They do write about their Gods a lot. Why didn’t they write about Jesus?

Well knowN Christian authors have set out to provide evidence for Jesus Christ outside the bible. They have failed. Robert E. Van Voorst has written “Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence”. His conclusion is that “… the New Testament is the best evidence after all.” Read about it HERE. The Historical Evidence for Jesus by George Albert Wells is another attempt to discover any evidence outside the New Testament. It too fails.  Read about his book HERE.

Another writer John E Remsberg, has written extensively on this lack of evidence for Jesus. His chapter “Silence of Contemporary Writers” is much better and more compelliing than what I have written. Mine is the short version, his is much more compelling and better documented.  Read it HERE

John  21:25 Proves The Point

Read John 21:25

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Think about how many miracles Jesus would have had to perform such that “even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written”. That sure would be a lot of books and a whole lot more miracles. That would have been a lot of miracles performed upon a whole lot of people. But no one, outside the Bible wrote about them. No more than four people ever even bothered to write about them. How is this possible? Maybe it’s possible because Jesus didn’t perform miracles!

Don’t you think that the Romans, hearing about someone who performed so many miracles that “even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” would have been interested in securing his services? Surely they would have heard. After all, there is no way he could have performed so many miracles such that “even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” and no  one except Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would chose to write about them.  Is there? Hmm, let me think. Nope – no way.

Who Wrote What About Jesus Outside the Bible?

Josephus

When challenged about the veracity of the Bible and the paucity of references to Jesus Christ anywhere other than the Bible, Christians are quick to mention Josephus, the author of a 21 volume tome “The History of the Jews” written around 90 CE.

The Truth Is…

Josephus, in 127 words, (now referred to as the “Testimonium Flavianum“) gives the entire story of a divine Jesus. However no biblical scholar today believes that Josephus actually wrote those 127 words. All references to the divinity of Jesus that appear in Josephus have been proven to have been added long after the Josephus wrote his manuscript. Josephus wrote in 90 CE; the references to Jesus dying and being resurrected did not appear in his “writings” until the third century. All scholars agree that the references to a divine Jesus were added to the manuscript by an over zealous copiest.

The third century Church ‘Father’ Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this ‘golden paragraph’ from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.”

Origen did not quote the ‘golden paragraph’ because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen’s third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.  In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

Consider, also, the anomalies:

1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been ‘the Christ’ surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else’s (Pilate’s) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed ‘Egyptian Jew‘ messiah.

It is striking that though Josephus “confirms” everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.


3. The question of context.

Antiquities 18 is primarily concerned with “all sorts of misfortunes” which befell the Jews during a period of thirty-two years (4-36 AD).

Josephus begins with the unpopular taxation introduced by the Roman Governor Cyrenius in 6 AD. He presents a synopsis of the three established Jewish parties (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), but his real quarry is the “fourth sect of philosophy … which laid the foundation of our future miseries.” That was the sect of Judas the Galilean, “which before we were unacquainted withal.

At the very point we might expect a mention of “Christians” (if any such sect existed) we have instead castigation of tax rebels!

It was in Gessius Florus’s time [64-66] that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and made them revolt from the Romans; and these are the sects of Jewish philosophy.

Nor can fear of death make them call any man Lord.” Sound a tad familiar?

Chapter 2 notes the cities built to honor the Romans; the frequent changes in high priest (up to Caiaphas) and Roman procurators (up to Pontius Pilate); and also the turmoil in Parthia.

Chapter 3, containing the Testimonium as paragraph three, is essentially about Pilate’s attempts to bring Jerusalem into the Roman system. With his first policy – placing Caesar’s ensigns in Jerusalem – Pilate was forced to back down by unexpected Jewish protests in Caesarea. With his second policy – providing Jerusalem with a new aqueduct built with funds sequestered from the Temple, Pilate made ready for Jewish protests. Concealed weapons on his soldiers caused much bloodshed.

At this point the paragraph about Jesus is introduced!

Immediately after, Josephus continues:

“And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews …”

There is no way that Josephus, who remained an orthodox Jew all his life and defended Judaism vociferously against Greek critics, would have thought that the execution of a messianic claimant was “another terrible misfortune” for the Jews. This is the hand of a Christian writer who himself considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy (fitting in with his own notions of a stiff-necked race, rejected by God because they themselves had rejected the Son of God).

With paragraph 3 removed from the text the chapter, in fact, reads better. The “aqueduct massacre” now justifies “another terrible misfortune.


4.
The final assertion, that the Christians were “not extinct at this day,” confirms that the so-called Testimonium is a later interpolation. How much later we cannot say but there was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus’ lifetime. Christianity under that moniker did not establish itself until the 2nd century. Outside of this single bogus paragraph, in all the extensive histories of Josephus there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.


5.
The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian:

… as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”

This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.

The original writings of Josephus do MENTION a man named Jesus, but there is nothing in the original writing to indicate that Josephus  thought of Jesus as Lord and Savior . In addition, there are 21 references to other men named “Jesus” in Josephus writings.

Conclusion: Josephus does acknowledge that there was a man named Jesus and he had a brother named John. That’s IT!

Pliny, the Younger

Pliny, the Younger is another writer that Christian quote as a contemporary writer who wrote about Jesus.
The Truth Is…Around 112 AD, in correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus/Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, reference is made to Christians for the first time. Pliny famously reports to his emperor:

“Christians … asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.” – Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96-97.

Note that Pliny is relaying what those arrested said they believed and there is no reference  to a ‘Jesus.’ Note also that this was written in 112 CE. It is based on hearsay, not any eye-witness account. In addition, the entire correspondence is believed by many biblical scholars to have been forged.

Caius Suetonius (69-140 CE)

Caius Suetonius is another author Christians point to as evidence that there are external references to Jesus (but not Jesus Christ).
The Truth Is… he did not make reference to Jesus or more importantly, Jesus Christ. Here’s what happened:

Suetonius did write a biography called Twelve Caesars around the year 112 AD and of Emperor Claudius he says:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”

Jesus in Rome in 54 AD? Of course not. But the unwary can be misled by this reference.

‘Chrestus’ does not equate to ‘Christ’ in English but to ‘The Good’ in Greek, It was a name used by both slaves and freemen and is attested more than eighty times in Latin inscriptions. Clearly, Suetonius was explaining why the Jews (not Christians) were expelled from Rome and is referring to a Jewish agitator in the 50s – not to a Galilean pacifist of the 30s. Yet even this report is questionable.

It is also said that Suetonius, in his Life of Nero, described Nero’s persecution of the Christians:

‘Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief …’ (16.2)

We have moved from ‘rebellious Jews’ to ‘mischievous Christians’.

BUT WAIT A MINUTE:

“Christians” in Rome during the reign of Nero (54-68 AD) ?

Would (could) Nero have made such a fine sectarian distinction – particularly since there was no identifying faith document (not a single gospel had been written) – so just what would ‘Christians’ have believed? Even St Paul himself makes not a single reference to ‘Christians’ in any of his writings.

Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117 CE)

Another “contemporary” writer (even though born after Jesus’ death) who, presumably, is proof of external evidence about Jesus.
The Truth Is…Christianity has no part in Tacitus’s history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the Annals he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day. Sometime before 117 AD, the Roman historian apparently wrote:

“Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race. – Tacitus (Book 15, chapter 44):

Well, it looks like we have something here.
BUT WAIT A MINUTE:

As indicated above, the term ‘Christian’ was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been ‘a great crowd’ unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians.  There may have been Jews who embraced Jesus as the Messaih, but they were not known as Christians at that time. Also note the time at which Tacitus wrote his history: 117 CE!. He wrote nearly 75 years after the event he was describing. What was his source? Hearsay provided by would-be Christians! Not a very reliable testimony.

There are Numerous Witnesses to Jesus Life – NOT

What happens when we take a closer look at these so-called “eyewitnesses”? For instance, what if we arrange them on a timeline with Jesus? Our first problem is where to put Jesus on that timeline. Since Matthew and Luke give conflicting details of his birth, most estimates assume Luke was wrong and go with Matthew, giving estimates a range from 8 B.C.E to 4 B.C.E. Equally problematic is the year Jesus died – it’s a guessing game based on clues from the Gospels. In a nutshell, it has to be when Pontius Pilate was Prefect of Judea (from 26 or 27 to around 36 or 37). If John is right (and all the other Gospels wrong), it also must be a year when Passover fell on a Saturday. But most scholars side with the Synoptic Gospels against him, and look for a year when Passover fell on a Friday – which leaves two possibilities, 30 or 33. That said, the early Church was no more certain than we are, and many had still other ideas. But just for argument’s sake, let’s place Jesus’ life roughly between 4 to 8 B.C.E. and the year 30 or 33 C.E. Here’s how close the written accounts of Jesus come to him:

Name: Year Born – Year Published

Flavius Josephus: 37 – c. 100

Clement of Rome: born ? – c. 98 – 102

Ignatius: c. 35 – 107

Pliny the Younger: c. 62 – 113

Suetonius: c. 75 – 160?

Tacitus: c. 55 – after 117

Polycarp: c. 69 – 155

Justin Martyr: c.114 -167

Lucian: c. 125 – 180

Clement of Alexandria: c. 150 – 211/216

Tertullian: c. 155 – 230

Origen: c.185 – c. 254

Cyprian of Carthage: c. 208 – 258

Eusebius: c. 235 – 339

As you can see, none of these supposed witnesses were in any position to give a contemporary eyewitness account of the time in which Jesus supposedly lived, because none of them were even born yet during the period in question. And even the very earliest of these writings are nearly one hundred years after Jesus’ alleged birth. If that weren’t enough already, the fact is none of the so-called “testimonies” are very impressive. Few are even talking about Christ in any context. For the most part, they are discussing Christians, not Christ at all. The two that do (or just appear to) even mention Christ, namely those of Tacitus and Suetonius, are just snippets that happen to mention common Christian beliefs of their day in passing while actually discussing some other subject altogether, not making any grand pronouncements on Jesus’ historicity.

They Should Have Noticed

But there were many first century writers, philosophers, historians, and other commentators who had good reason to notice Jesus, and despite apologists’ fervent denials, a wealth of their writings still exists today. But these perfectly respectable sources are never on Christian lists of historical witnesses. They include important figures like Epictetus, Pomponius Mela, Martial, Juvenal, Seneca the Younger, Gallio, Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexandria, Nicolaus of Damascus and more. And these are just the contemporaries; there are still later commentators who we would expect to have mentioned Christ, but did not. For now let’s briefly touch on a few of the more significant ones.

Seneca the Younger (c. 3 B.C.E. – 65)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Stoic philosopher, writer, statesman, and de facto ruler of the Empire for many years, had three compelling reasons to mention Jesus at least at some point in his many writings. First, though regarded as the greatest Roman writer on ethics, he has nothing to say about arguably the biggest ethical shakeup of his time.

Second, in his book on nature Quaestiones Naturales, he records eclipses and other unusual natural phenomena, but makes no mention of the miraculous Star of Bethlehem, the multiple earthquakes in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death, or the worldwide (or at the very least region-wide) darkness at Christ’s crucifixion that he himself should have witnessed.

Third, in another book On Superstition, Seneca lambasts every known religion, including Judaism. But strangely, he makes no mention whatsoever of Christianity, which was supposedly spreading like wildfire across the empire. This uncomfortable fact later made Augustine squirm in his theological treatise City of God (book 6, chapter 11) as he tried mightily to explain away Seneca’s glaring omission. In the 4th century, Christian scribes were so desperate to co-opt Seneca they even forged a series of correspondence between Seneca and his “dearest” friend, the Apostle Paul!

Gallio (died 65 C.E.)
Seneca’s silence is compounded by the fact that his older brother was Junius Annaeus Gallio, who actually appears in the Bible. According to the author of the book of Acts (18:12-17), Gallio was the magistrate who heard Paul’s case and threw it out of court. If this is true, it’s curious that Gallio never seems to have told his brother about this amazing Jesus character that everyone was so excited about, since Seneca was very interested in just this sort of thing. But Seneca shows no sign of ever having heard of Christians or Jesus at all. It’s also strange that even in Acts, Gallio has never heard of Jesus. This makes no sense at all if Jesus was a famous miracle worker recently executed who had returned from the dead and remained in Jerusalem for forty days, as Acts also says.

Authors alive during Jesus times

Summary

A few mere mentions of Jesus is not EVIDENCE that he was God’s Son or God himself. It is certainly safe to say there is no evidence of his miracles and god-like attributes anywhere. Not even in the Bible. What the Bible says is not “evidence”; it is, in all cases, hearsay.

When we take the trouble to look for confirmation of the Bible from contemporary (or even near-contemporary) historical eyewitnesses for Jesus, amazingly, the first thing we discover is: there are none. This fact alone is astounding. Looking at the supposed period of Jesus’ ministry, we find there were numerous commentators who both had opportunity and could be reasonably expected to make mention of his exploits – yet none of them show any awareness of Jesus whatsoever.

Incredibly, this silence continues throughout the entire first century. The figures that are touted as witnesses don’t come until decades, even centuries, after Christ’s time; more significantly, none of them even provide the evidence they are supposed to (see the appendix for details). It is sobering to realize that in all of recorded history, for the first century the closest we have to historical support for the Gospels’ picture of Christ are an outright forgery, and a single disputed line that in all likelihood refers to someone else entirely. This is why these two problematic bits of text in Josephus are fought over so fiercely. As brief, questionable and disputed as these two small scraps are, they are quite literally all there is to historically support the Bible’s account of Jesus in the first century.

Yet how can this be? Jesus was supposed to have single-handedly captured the attention of all Judea and Galilee, and as far afield as Syria and the Decapolis. The Gospels claim his teachings enraptured multitudes and outraged the establishment. Even if one discounted all the miraculous events surrounding his birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension merely as later legends, if nothing else his (allegedly) controversial, (allegedly) new teachings alone should have left an impact in the historical record.

After all, unlike the myriad well-documented phony healers, sham miracle-workers and failed messiahs from this time, he was supposed to be the real thing, the one who genuinely could do what the others could not: feed thousands, heal the sick, even raise the dead, not just once, but numerous times.

Among his thousands of supporters were said to be the highest members of society: a royal official, a centurion, a temple leader and members of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin. He single-handedly drove out the moneychangers from the Temple.

The entire city of Jerusalem wildly acclaimed him as he entered triumphantly. He was dramatically arrested and endured a wildly illegal tribunal of the Jewish leaders before being brought before not only Pilate, but also King Herod, in a spectacular show trial that played out before the entire city of Jerusalem.

His death – and resurrection – were marked by spectacular supernatural events: angelic appearances, earthquakes, legions of beloved Jewish saints coming back from the dead and publicly appearing in Jerusalem, supernatural darkness that covered the entire world, or at the very least the entire region, for hours, and much more.  And yet, there is no mention of these supernatural events anywhere other than the bible!

And he appeared again to many of his followers afterwards, some say for as long as forty days, before ascending bodily into Heaven before a crowd of his followers.None of them or any of the 500 to whom he “appeared” after his death felt disposed to write about it. There is no mention of it anywhere other than the bible!

Despite all this, perhaps it’s conceivable that the Romans and Greeks missed all the fuss – but how could anyone in Judea? Without being able to read Justus of Tiberias ourselves, we might be willing to discount his omission of anything about Jesus. But the silence of figures like Philo of Alexandria or Nicolaus of Damascus on any deed or word of Jesus is deafening. And the silence of everyone at the time completely goes against the image of Jesus presented to us in the Gospels.

Given the zeal of the early church to latch on to any ancient writing that even seemed to offer documentation of Jesus, can we really believe they missed or failed to preserve every single reference to him for the first hundred-plus years? If even just one of the supernatural stories told about Jesus were true, no one would even bother with a pair of doctored lines in Josephus – we would have dozens of contemporary references to Jesus, even if only to be found in quotations from later Christian authors.

If true, the events of Jesus’ life really should have been what Christians have always exaggeratedly claimed they were: the best-attested events in human history. Instead, they are forced to fight tooth and nail to defend the veracity of two highly suspicious disputed passages. We might even expect to have physical evidence for him. Instead all we have is a two thousand year history of forged relics. It doesn’t seem too much to hope that Jesus might have left writings himself. But we have nothing but ridiculous forgeries centuries after the fact, like the correspondence between Jesus and King Abgarus, or Seneca and Paul, and

We have shown that every “external” reference that Christians use as evidence fails to produce any evidence of an extraordinary man who WAS the Messiah. Only one of the writers actually mentions Jesus of Nazareth. But so what if they all mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. That would not prove that he was the son of God, the Messiah, crucified and resurrected. One questionable reference to a man named Jesus or a sect called “Christian” proves nothing. None of the writings were contemporary with Jesus. They were all written after his death and make no claim to be eye-witness accounts. In each case, they are merely repeating what was told to them; we call that “hearsay” and it is not evidence.

Attribution:
Much of the above is taken from …

Fitzgerald, David (2010-09-30). Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All (Kindle Locations 416-432). Lulu. Kindle Edition.

400 comments on “NO Evidence for Jesus Outside Bible

  1. Bill says:

    What about “Benny Hinn Miracles” Type it in Google negative morons and see for yourself

  2. Bill says:

    Have you ever typed in Google “Benny Hinn Miracles” Im guessing no the way you talk

    • Doc says:

      It is actually questionable since no one is alive today that witnessed it. Mankind, had there not been a God, would have created one. It is called faith. That is what mankind is all about. Man worshiped the sun, stars, moon, planets, weather, earth and hundreds of gods long before they worshiped a single creator. Almost everything that is said, including my statements, are from opinions only and from mankind of an age and time that cannon verify anything other than there must be a creator somewhere. It would be in my opinion impossible for us to have developed so quickly into what we are, and at times we are not very good stewards of what we have, without a creators involvement.
      Did he make a good product, we humans? Nope. We are basically a failure if our overall actions are honestly taken into consideration.
      So I would not be surprised if we are destroyed as in the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah a few times more. He’s gotta be fed up with us by now.

      • charles coryn says:

        Men create gods…… gods don’t create men. Men have created thousands of gods and goddesses over thousands of years, so why would I want to believe in the latest version of these made-up gods? ‘Holy’ books are so obviously written by humans, and the gods themselves just can’t show up. Isn’t it time to use your reasoning, that has taken so many thousands of years to reach the state of science today. It’s time to think, not to believe. Carl Sagan said it too, “I don’t want to believe, I want to know.”

      • Doc says:

        I am glad you agree. If more people could understand the God issue is simply a man made then we’d have fewer wars over religion.
        There is a creator, don’t know who he is, don’t know his name, don’t know if he is an extraterrestrial or an entity we have yet to understand or both, but there is someone or something that created all of this. We are not here by chance.

      • charles coryn says:

        Doc, It’s hard for me to believe there is a creator, so I’ll have to stick with ‘I don’t know’. We can witness evolution and see what has happened over the millennia, starting from single cell, and even before that. Maybe a creator god provided the spark that started a single cell evolving, and then what? He waited for billions of years for humans to evolve to write a ‘holy’ book detailing a genocide? I just can’t make any sense out of any scenario I’ve seen regarding a ‘god’. And then follows ‘Where did God come from?’ and nothing is answered. But then I’m not a bad person so I never worry about anything anyway……..

      • Doc says:

        It is a difficult topic. I just look around and cannot see any other living thing that has developed to within .1% of humans. Not that they are good or useful for anything other than war, hatred, meanness, and so on. There are a lot of good ones too, I don’t discount that. But for me to believe that everything we now see came from the same single cell amoeba’s is a reach. I just believe there must be something greater than myself. If I were just an accident or an ‘oops’ of nature then I don’t think I’d have any real gumption to be someone that achieved anything. I’d expect most people would just be worse than they are. So if there is not a creator then at least the idea of one made some/many people behave better than those than I wish were not here taking up space, breathing oxygen others could use, and destroying everything around them. May be selfish but there is no reason (God or no God) for people to be mean/evil to others. Enjoyed your post.

      • charles coryn says:

        Doc….. Thanks for the laugh this morning…….. “Not that they are good or useful for anything other than war, hatred, meanness, and so on. There are a lot of good ones too, I don’t discount that.”

        I’d guess you’re like me, spending a tremendous amount of time trying to understand all this madness around us. I even made it to 80 years old and still can’t sort it all out. I remember back in school how we talked about ‘reflective consciousness’ as the evolutionary development that set humans apart from everything else. We were the only animal who could bring up his experiences into consciousness and review them. And how slowly that must have developed, as I just heard mention that for thousands of years our ancestors used just a couple of simply designed flint knives. I can’t imagine why or how things changed so slowly. And where were the gods during that long, long evolutionary development that changed so slowly?

        I do believe we humans have created all of our own gods, for reasons both good and doubtful, but I just don’t see any evidence for any ‘real’ gods or goddesses. The gods of the holy books are just too ‘human’ it seems…….. How a ‘perfect’ god can create anything less than perfection constantly stops me dead in mid-speak.

        Thanks, enjoyed your post……

  3. Jake says:

    Nothing here necessarily disproves Jesus, it only furthers your faith that he is insignificant. In actuality there are two non Christian historians I can come up with off the top of my head that credited the existence of Jesus, although they did not believe he was the savior. The Jewish Talmud writes around 43 AD that Jesus was someone who “had to be dealt with” as he credited the miracles he performed as sorcery. So the witnesses of the time were either believers or non believers. The only difference was that believers credited his miracles to God while non believers credited his work to Satan as “sorcery and magic”. A second non Christian historian named Thallus did not believe Jesus to be a savior but still acknowledges that on the day this Jesus was crucified there was darkness throughout the land. Historians around the world receive the Gospels as historically accurate as more documentation has been provided for Jesus than other historical figures we all consider as fact. Without religion, I would be extremely interested to know your stance on morals? In the perspective of notable atheists, the products our brain creates are a matter of chemicals and hormones. While I agree that those things are not to be disregarded, I would just like to ask where our innate sense of right and wrong come from. No matter what side you take you need an incredible amount of faith. If religion is “mythology” as I read below we are some extremely lucky people. The scientific community, including myself, is becoming more and more aware that there must be a creator. The universe we live in is incredibly fine tuned perfectly for life. If the gravitational pull of electrons was changed just a little bit there would be no way for life to exist anywhere. If the universe had expanded any slower or any faster during its creation the universe would not be able to sustain life. Credible physicists including Steven Hawkins have talked about how the universe seems to have been finely tuned by some sort of higher intellect. NASA has seen through WMAP that the universe indeed had a beginning and they have charts of it on their website. Without a superior intellect explain to me then how you can take( or even think) about absolute nothingness and then matter time and space just pop into existence. From a logical and rational perspective it seems to me you would need an awful lot of faith to believe that from absolute nothing came everything that we perceive in the universe. It now seems to be the case that not believing in God points towards the irrational and illogical conclusion.

  4. Jim says:

    There is so much false information listed on this site that it is difficult to know where to start. Maybe that is by design. I would strongly suggest that the reader find another more credible source of information and not spend a lot of time reading this garbage.

  5. majikimaje says:

    If Jesus didn’t exist then His Promises could not possibly be true.So.. who keeps answering my prayersfor the last 70 years.
    If the Apostle Paul was not even true than what is his name being written inside the Scottish constitution ?
    Jesus Christ said if you abide in Me & My Words abide in you – You may ask me anything and I will do it.
    Any time I ask Jesus for anything – I always get exactly what I asked for; Even when I was totally blind.

  6. W says:

    Are you serious you must be kidding

  7. rayjwarren says:

    An ossuary is a stone depository for storing bones of the dead.[11] The dead would lie in a cave for a year, then would be collected and placed in an ossuary. It was a common practice to write the name of the deceased on the exterior of the ossuary. If the inscription on the James ossuary is genuine, the inscription may indicate that the ossuary was that of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, the founder of Christianity.[10]

    Professor Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University stated that, of the thousands of ossuaries found, only one has been found with a reference to a brother, concluding that “there is little doubt that this [naming a brother or son] was done only when there was a very meaningful reason to refer to a family member of the deceased, usually due to his importance and fame.” He produced a statistical analysis of the occurrence of these three names in ancient Jerusalem and projected that there were 1.71 people named James, with a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus, living in Jerusalem around the time at which the ossuary was produced.[12]
    Scholarly analysis

    The James ossuary came from the Silwan area in the Kidron Valley, southeast of the Temple Mount. The bones originally inside the ossuary had been discarded, which is the case in nearly all ossuaries not discovered by archaeologists. The first-century origin of the ossuary is not in question, since the only time Jews buried in that fashion was from approximately 20 BC to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The dispute centres on the date of origin of the inscription.

    According to André Lemaire, the Parisian epigrapher initially invited by antiquities dealer Oded Golan to view the ossuary in Golan’s apartment, the cursive Aramaic script is consistent with first-century lettering. He determined that the inscription was not incised with modern tools, as it contains no elements not available in the ancient world.[6][13] The first part of the inscription, “James son of Joseph,” seems more deeply incised than the latter “brother of Jesus.” This may be due to the inscription being made at a different time, or due to differences in the hardness of the limestone.[citation needed]

    The fragile condition of the ossuary attests to its antiquity. The Israel Geological Survey submitted the ossuary to a variety of scientific tests, which determined that the limestone of the ossuary had a patina or sheen consistent with being in a cave for many centuries. The same type of patina covers the incised lettering of the inscription as the rest of the surface. It is claimed that if the inscription were recent, this would not be the case.[14]

    On June 18, 2003 the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) published a report concluding that the inscription is a modern forgery based on their analysis of the patina. Specifically, it claimed that the inscription was added in modern times and made to look old by addition of a chalk solution. In 2006, Wolfgang Elisabeth Krumbein, a world’s renowned expert in stone patinas called by the defense counsel, analyzed the ossuary, and concluded that “the inscription is ancient and most of the original patina has been removed (by cleaning or use of sharp implement)”.[15] He further noted in his report, “any forgery of three very distinct types of patina, if ever possible, requires the development of ultra-advanced techniques, in-depth knowledge and extensive collaboration of a large number of experts from various fields”.[15] According to his analysis, the patina inside the inscription took at least 50 years to form; thus, if it is a forgery, then it was forged more than 50 years ago.[16]

    In 2004, an analysis of the ossuary’s Petrography and oxygen isotopic composition was conducted by Avner Ayalon, Miryam Bar-Matthews and Yuval Goren. They compared the δ18O values of the letters patina from the James Ossuary, with the patina sampled from the uninscribed surfaces of the same item (‘‘surface patina’’), and with surface and letters patinas from legally excavated ossuaries from Jerusalem. Their study undermined the authenticity contention of the ossuary.[17] However, Dr James Harrell, professor of Archaeological Geology at the University of Toledo, provided an explanation for this δ18O discrepancy. He suggested that a cleanser may have been the source of the low δ18O readings, which antiquities dealers and collectors often use to clean the artifacts to increase value. He tested the most popular cleanser sold in Israel and confirmed that the δ18O value of the cleanser was consistent with the δ18O value of the patina in the inscription, thus strengthening the authenticity contention by casting doubt on the Ayalon’s study.[18]

    Furthermore, a later study done with a different isotope found that the δ13C values of the surface patina and the inscription patina were almost identical, thus strengthening the authenticity contention.[19]

    In 2007 Finnish theologian Matti Myllykoski (Arto Matti Tuomas Myllykoski) summarised the current position thus: “The authenticity and significance of the ossuary has been defended by Shanks (2003), while some scholars—relying on convincing evidence, to say the least—strongly suspect that it is a modern forgery.”[20][21]

    In 2014, an archaeometric analysis conducted by Amnon Rosenfeld, Howard Randall Feldman, and Wolfgang Elisabeth Krumbein strengthened the authenticity contention of the ossuary. It found that patina on the ossuary surface matched that in the engravings, and that microfossils in the inscription seemed naturally deposited.[22]

  8. Doc says:

    as i said, so much anger for what is supposed to be a christian site?

  9. Doc says:

    A christian supposed cite with so much anger. How wonderful.

  10. nowayjose says:

    The troll who pretends she can’t use the English language very well on this website is the same jerk who trolls other websites using the same tactics. She pretends she doesn’t know how to speak English in the exact same pathetic fashion hoping to fool fools. She’s fooling herself. I wouldn’t try to trick genuine believers. God will hold your fanny accountable for attempting to deceive His own. Best not to mess with the ONE who knows your thoughts and motives before you have them. You can’t win, bucko.

    • Robin graffam says:

      There is no god and your threats are useless. If there were a god, vengeance is his to ascribe, not yours. Your vile comments prove the inauthenticity of a so called benevolent god/religion.

  11. […] NO Evidence for Jesus Outside Bible « The Church Of Truth™ – The Truth Is… There Is No Evidence For Jesus Christ Outside the Bible. The recording of history was in full bloom in Jesus time. Presumably, many were aware of the … […]

    • nowayjose says:

      Nice try. There is no evidence for Jesus inside the Bible, either. The Bible was written as a hip fiction, a Best Selling Make Alot of Money Story for Dumasses. Its authors were only fooling around. Then, a bunch of morons started to believe its nonsense! So they got together and added all kinds of junk to it to make it look supercool and guess what? You got it. More morons started believing it so they embellished it, too. And even more boneheads took it seriously and they threw in even more ridiculous garbage and lo and behold we got this crazy book about some dude walking on water. It is all pathetic. That’s why they died when they were told to knock off believing that crazy crap or else. So, all these complete idiots decided to get tortured and killed for this stupid junk they wrote. Stay away from that book and them crazy nuts who wrote it and actually believe it. They are pure loony tunes. The End.

  12. nowayjose says:

    It is painful to kick against the pricks. Yet, PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION, HE doesn’t continue to hound everyone who resists him, forever.

    and you shall seek me and find me when you shall search for me with all your heart.

    Indeed, he inhabits the praise of those who love him. Wondering where he is, where He can be found? Right where you are right now. He holds us in the palm of his hand while we seek his face; all the while He is as far away as our next heartbeat, the next breath we take, the deepest most desperate cry to Him for His help, even when words fail us. That is Him.

    He is more than the high and lofty one who dwells in eternity. He’s like the greatest mother, the sweetest loving mom, only far better. Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!

    He is palpable. His manifest presence surpasses all things on heaven and on earth and he travels the earth looking for those who will worship him in spirit and in truth. He Himself cannot be imitated or reproduced in any satisfying fashion. I AM

  13. Doc says:

    Well you are not correct in actuality. Crucifixion was more an impaling in Roman times than a ‘T’ shaped cross as we are told.

    Try this.
    The Roman civilization through the end of their reign/era were the most detailed civilization known to the world at that time. They created more documents than any other civilization through their existence.
    Now saying this and having it backed up by historians all over the world explain this simple question.
    If someone came into a city owned/operated by the most powerful country on the planet. The country with the most documents ‘ever’ written; don’t you think there would be some documents in their archives speaking about this person that healed people, brought people back to life, was murdered and then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven? Really don’t you believe that there would be volumes of writing from all walks of life somewhere in the Roman libraries? There isn’t a single one. Three years of wonderful acts of kindness and a wisdom claimed to be equal to none and not a single writing about him exists.
    Now I’m certain someone is going to say ‘yes yes yes there is!’ But there is not.
    Read up on the very first council of Nicaea (the first Ecumenical Council) and if you really read the documents from the source that held this council which is the Roman Catholic Church and then the Church of England you’ll read how even they admit the current writings are not from antiquity but written by priests under the authority of the Pope and ruling class of England to create the first ‘what we call bible’ in the year 325/328 AD. 50 copies were noted to exist after this council.
    It does not hurt to believe anything you want. I applaud anyone that has something to believe in. However christians are a lot like islam at times.
    The current islamic state cries out ‘convert or die’!!!!!
    The Roman Catholic Crusades cried out ‘convert or die’!!!!
    Both claim that unless you are a member of their belief systems you cannot be saved. God never said this. A man said this to control people.

    If you want to know who your savior is then go to the book of Hosea. You can simply google Book of Hosea ‘besides me there is no other savior’. And you’ll see where God himself says he is the only savior, no other savior exists.

    So as I have said many times here and every time I do it ticks off someone that is not a believer in Gods words, either believe in God (which there is only one of) or believe in someone else. It’s your choice so make it wisely.

    CYa

    • ray warren says:

      Hi Doctor Steevie Weevie [must be Stephan because he speak with fork tongue. You know that what you are quoting is crap but still you try to push it. The Jews do not like it that Christians now hold sway worldwide in faith and you are either a Jew or are an assistant. The crap you quote is stupid because you give no thought to the problems that existed at the time. Would you go round sprouting off about a miracle worker Just after they has belted the Christ out of him and then crucified him with a prickly helmet? What kind of leather bound masterpiece would you have produced? Idiot, there are writings from antiquity about this person Jesus you banana brained lymph node. The disciples carried his word around the then known world and even brought Rome to it’s knees. Where are your brains, do you keep them within your rectal tissue? History is history and you should leave well enough alone, concentrate on the fact that the Jewish religion came out of Armana in Egypt, that the psalms are basically copies of the Aten religion psalms, that everything that the Torah covers was long before written by Hammurabi of Mesopotamia and Akhenaten of Egypt. The Christians have exceeded the Jews and are a much more peaceful religion that the Jews or their brother Muslims. For your dumb information, Jesus entered Jerusalem and was charged and arrested, he was crucifie4d according to the Roman way after Jewish calls for his execution. That is so recorded, It is even written of by Tacitus about 60 years after the event and Pontius Pilate is so named by him. Anyone with a shred of commonsense would understand that once the Crucifixion was performed, too many people would have been afraid to mention it whereas Rome could not care less about a small time preacher.
      Grow up you banana brain and leave the Christians to their faith while you return to your multi faith religious beliefs.

    • rayjwarren says:

      well now, we have a smarty pants, one who understands only his own stupid mind let me say this stupid, would you, oh one of less brain, have walked into Nazi Germany, walked up to Hitler and read him the torah?
      You idiot of all idiots, the bible was never available to the general public except through preachers. Of course somebody had to write down from clay tablets once the public could read. what a stupid fool [juvenile fool] you truly are. The wise choice is never listen to anyone who is studied through social media

      • charles coryn says:

        Men create gods…… gods do not create men! That should be obvious to anyone not brainwashed from birth by parents, teachers and preachers, that is, to anyone who can think for themselves. How many times did Jesus supposedly say he was coming back? And he never made it. In other words, you are as delusional as Jesus was. Maybe there was a person such as Jesus, well then, why did no other contemporary writer spread the news? You know very well if someone such as Jesus were to appear, the word would spread very quickly, but all we get are contradictory stories in an old book, a book not acknowledged or confirmed by anyone. Why don’t you just get a copy of Michael Jordan’s book “Encyclopedia of Gods”, ‘over 2,500 Deities of the World’, or Marjorie Leach’s book, “Guide to the Gods”, over 800 pages of gods created by men. I wouldn’t waste my time writing this if religions didn’t make such a mess of the world……… Yes, a religion is a valid means of developing and maintaining group integrity, as seen over the past thousands of years of our evolution as small hunting and gathering groups……but that doesn’t mean it is a valid reference to reality.

      • Doc says:

        Charles,
        You are correct. Other than mankind’s stupidity, man made religions have caused more hate, anger, wars, deaths and destruction than any other thing one could think of.
        I’m not saying that someone cannot or should not believe the way they desire to believe. That is their free will.
        I am just saying that there is in my mind something greater than we humans.
        We for some reason chose to call it God. So I’ll just end by saying I’m a God guy and nothing else.
        If he exists as I hope he does then all I have done and all that I might do that is good should get me in his good graces and I’ll be okay when I pass on to whatever it is that we pass on to.
        This too is unknown, where we pass on to, and will never be known by any of us until we each pass on.
        All the stories about it are just that, stories, and nothing else.

        It’s really too bad that all these man made religions that profess to be based on peace and kindness and such don’t actually practice what they preach.

        Just saying.
        Cya
        Doc

  14. nowayjose says:

    The truth is, most of what others have said here, is absolute nonsense. I don’t debate with them. They are so far afield from recognizing and understanding the truth about Him, it makes no sense to acknowledge them. Most of them are looking for reactions; they are merely trolls seeking to ruffle the feathers of others who adore and worship God Almighty. I mean, just look at some of the nonsense they offer as sound reasons to refute Christ. If and when a sincere seeker of the truth arrives, I would be happy to engage her in conversation. (a number of these trolls are one trouble maker.)

    God gifts his children with various means to spot those who are not genuine. The ability to discern fools from those whose hearts ache for Him is something promised long ago and still made available today. Don’t ever think you can fool the Holy Spirit.

    • charles coryn says:

      So, these others are wrong but you have found a ‘real’ god? And why is your god any different from any of the other supposed deities?

    • Doc says:

      nowayjose,
      Since you have put yourself on a level of being equal with God. You claim to know what he means in every word. All I can say is there is proof positive for God. We are here is the proof. What God is is unknown to any human being, unfortunately even to you jose, though you don’t believe it.
      For any man made religion to claim God as theirs and no one else’s is really foolish.
      God is not a christian.
      Jesus was a jew.
      There is no possible way you or any person can connect God to any religion. It’s not possible because religion was made up by man, not God.

      So now that we have proven that there is no religion God is attached to nor that he worships at/in, we realize that religion is not something God is interested in. He clearly notes the un-importance of man made religion in the Book of Amos. But you didn’t read that did you?

      You should take the time to read it. It may make you think out side your box.

      Cya

  15. nowayjose says:

    funny. even if there were no references to Christ “outside” the bible, what would that mean? the writings that became part of the new testament canon are descriptions of god’s son. they were not originally part of anything, except the exhaustive work of several p[people who recorded everything they wanted to inform others about Jesus Christ. it is rather cute when i think about the lengths some go to try to discredit Him and the data left to us from others. just look what others have had to say about Him, right here.

    In reality, He is exactly who he said he was; He came to redeem us. He is and was fully God.

  16. […] NO Evidence for Jesus Outside Bible « The … – The Truth Is… There Is No Evidence For Jesus Christ Outside the Bible. The recording of history was in full bloom in Jesus time. Presumably, many were aware of the … […]

  17. Leigh says:

    I don’t believe in God however I am extremely
    Interested in research into ancient culture, religious texts and cultural texts of the time. Thank you for this and it is something that I will look more into.

    I looked through a lot of comments below before commenting and i have to say I have never seen so much vile name calling and anti Jewish rhetoric from some “Christians”. A little respect goes a long way no matter what disagreements people have. And I am very surprised no one even commented on it which was interesting in itself.

  18. Firefly says:

    I’m not an atheist. I believe that freedom of religion or no religion n th ability to explore n th pursuit of truth, regardless where it may lead, so long as no one is being hurt, is th greatest treasure. This was well written n worth reading. Thank U v. much.

  19. Doc says:

    In reality there were no vowels as we know them. Yet the reader or speaker did make sounds that you or I or someone could say were vowel sounds. Never the less as with most arguments it can’t be won be cause some people won’t take fact as simply a fact. I hear all the time about Jesus (pronounced with a J J J sound. no I’m not stuttering) yet the actual J sound as we know it did not even exist until 1500 AD. Sure lots of people will tell you different but if one simply looks into the tons of info on literature they’d find there was no JJJ Jesus. It was more of a y sound I am told like Juan. But no JJJ Jesus during the time when Jesus was supposed to have existed. Seems a useless discussion though, who cares?

    • rayjwarren says:

      well i care, the J sound did exist long before 1500ad, some peoples wrote it as Haysus greeks I believe wrote it as Iousis or such like, the ancient Egyptians wrote their J as in Djoser[Pharaoh] using the cobra [sound dtch] jews [hebrews] would have brought their sound out of Egypt but there were many lands that had that J sound but did not write the letter J till 1500. The Hebrews of old perhaps used the h sound as do the Spanish today, The name Horus [falcon god of Egypt and beyond is seen in the name Jerusalem today and was probably pronounced of old as Hru [Horus]salem or Welcome Horus.Seeing as this was an ancient Egyptian town in Canaaan, I do believe that this is the correct translation

  20. Doc says:

    I believe you may be incorrect although I am not arguing with you. I respect your statement. The Hebrew/Jews writings/scriptures have for thousands of years been held close and studied. They have generation after generation after generation of sons of sons of sons that have studied nothing but the Hebrew language and have kept it a pure as it can be. The current day Jews have more knowledge in the language of the past than any other religious group or race. I believe if one were to choose the most accurate translations it would be the Hebrews/Jews.
    Have you ever seen a literal translation verbatim of an ancient text that they have deciphered? It looks nothing like what we have seen or read that others provide. And I do not believe any textual criticism is used since once you see a translation you recognize there are several paths to take reading it. This is where the thousands of years of it being their language comes into play for making sense of it.
    My respect to your opinion.

    • ray warren says:

      doc, you stated that no j sound existed before 1500 ad, that is so stupid as to not merit an answer. J existed all over the speaking world where it was needed. they just did not weite it the way we do now

  21. Stash says:

    Then be prepared to deny the existence of any figure in ancient history, because all are examined according to the same rules of textual criticism.

  22. Doc says:

    I was not there. I never said he did not exist. I simply rely on the oldest texts such as the Hebrew/Jewish texts which have been verified as being much much older than the 4th century writing of the christian belief system which i was raised under. There could have been a thousand people named Jesus, who knows. He just is not the likely savior as the christians believe simply because in the book of Hosea God says different.
    I believe in something. A creator. A greater than I being or entity. And that’s about it. All these man made religious belief systems are at times humorous to me. People can argue as to what they believe in or not but for me the older the possibly more reliable it might be simply because as man developed on this rock he became greedy, jealous, envious, wanting of more, wanting of others property so there is in my opinion a very good reason to suspect later day religions made up by mankind to be self serving. Not so much as with those beliefs 8 to 10 thousand years old or older.
    Again IMHO only.
    No criticism meant to you or anyone in any specific manner.
    It just gets old listening to the same old ‘our bible tells us so, so it must be so’. I just wish they could find a real ancient text, something from the 0 AD to 50 AD that actually was complete, translatable verbatim and proved their story. There just is nothing because all documents regarding christianity are re-writes of the greek scribes for the most part.

    • Stanley says:

      4th century writings, huh? Explain this: Why is the destruction of the 2nd Jewish Temple in AD 70 not recorded anywhere in the NT?

      Is it more reasonable to believe in a mass conspiracy in the 4th century to scrub any reference to the Temple destruction in order to make multiple ancient manuscripts seem even older than they actually were, as you and many of the hyper-critics contend?

      Or, is it maybe more reasonable to come to the common sense conclusion that the event is not recorded because it had not yet occurred.

      Please don’t consult any of the eminent Dan Brown’s scholarly works for an answer.

    • Robin graffam says:

      Thank you, brilliant points!

  23. Doc says:

    Thanks for the supporting posts Ray. You’ve been reading I see.

    • ray warren says:

      Doc, u ment me? Well I am an Historian with no axe to grind until they start saying that people written about do not exist. I do not know what you refer to when you say that I have been reading but if it is my book Wildflower then I would have been writing but I need you to tell me what you mean. As I have said, I do not have problems with religious folk of Atheists, just with those who are angry at supernatural events but blame the fellow concerned. Benny Hinn professes to do miracles on camera, what next for him, going into a tomb and then raising himself up again? Jesus may have been that sort of person and the events surrounding him may have been contrived but that does not say he did not exist.

  24. Doc says:

    nowayjose
    I would love to see your source for your documents. Are they the original ones from 64-115 AD or are they more likely re-writes through translations by greeks or others? Really interested in your source. I’d take the time to actually look them up and read up about their actual date of writing.

  25. nowayjose says:

    Not one example of forgery or error in the New Testament has been proffered on this forum. Lots of words and lots of theories, though, which, when added together, do not change one iota His gospel or the impact He made when He walked this earth.

    • Doc says:

      Read the RCC encyclopedia and you’ll understand how much of Christianity is simply man-made. Just go try and find an ancient ‘bible’ as we call it. Earliest bibles for christians is 325 328 AD, Constantine, the pagan ruler, a sun god worshiper bringing together all the many christian belief systems in the known world under the auspices of the rulers of england and the vatican. Lots of info out there if you are not against just reading the truth.
      One has to remember: If the only supporting information that one can use in support of his or her argument is information that is only found within their argument then there is no support for the argument.
      Example. I believe the air we breath is blue. I say so, so it is true. All believers of blue air agree with me.
      This is not true of course, the air is not blue. However this is how christianity and islam both support their beliefs.
      christianity in reality only able to go back as far as constantine which is @ 325 AD and Islam only back as far as @ 670 (i think this is correct).

      Hebrews now Jews go back thousands upon thousands of years back before the time of Jesus. I’m not a Jew so I have no dog in this hunt.

      It is really silly how puffed up and irritated christians and muslims get when someone does not believe in their man made belief systems.
      Really silly.

      • ray warren says:

        That has just about got to be the worst post I have ever read on anything historic. First you quote the Roman Catholic Bible which is something not every Christian reads or will ever read because it is catholic. Next you quote Constantine putting together the first Bibles, well when do you think they brought out the printing presses idiot? Finding any type bible back then only came on clay tablets or Papyrus paper or cattle hide. What do you think all religions worship, some kind of person type god? Every religion on Earth points to sun god worship and anyone with half a brain knows that. Next is your rant on arguing within an argument, I take it that you mean that the Bible as an history Encyclopedia is not good enough for you? I also think that your argument for blue air is a good one because you make everyone go blue in the face with your stupid remarks. Fancy stating that Christianity is only able to go back to 325ad and Islam to 670? Both religions are break-offs from Jewish religion and therefore date back to the beginning of the Hebrews sun-god worship carried over from the Atonist religion of Egypt. The only thing you did right in your post was to not deny that any of the personages existed.

  26. nowayjose says:

    “A film documenting the Apollo moon project using rare footage from NASA contains numerous spiritual references pointing to the existence of God.”

    Charlie Duke, the 10th man to walk on the moon, makes an explicit declaration of his faith in Jesus Christ on camera. Duke realized Jesus “really is the Son of God.” “Astronauts Edgar Mitchell and Gene Cernan described profound spiritual experiences….Cernan discovered the universe seemed to have purpose behind it, that there must be a Creator who stands above the religions of mankind.”
    “Edgar Mitchell’s experience profoundly changed and shaped his whole life,” notes director Sington. “He had a moment of epiphany – suddenly grasping who he is in relation to the universe.” Jim Irwin “had a ‘road to Damascus’ experience on the moon.” Irwin died in 1991 from a heart attack.
    In Irwin’s book, “To Rule the Night,” he described his view of Earth from the moon, which looked like “a beautiful, fragile Christmas tree ornament hanging against the blackness of space.” The beauty of the mountains of the moon moved Irwin, and he said he felt the presence of God during his moonwalk. “The moon has a powerful force; it seems to affect the feelings and the behavior of everybody. I cannot imagine a holier place,” he wrote. “Afterward, he frequently said, “’I believe Jesus Christ walking on the earth is more important than man walking on the moon.’”
    “Religion and Christianity says we’re missing what’s really important,” he says. “When you see things as they really are you get a more profound spiritual sense.”

    Mark Ellis

    Carrier is at odds with himself. If his arguments were sound, intelligent thinking sane people could not believe in God.

    • nowayjose says:

      “… nor all the modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, 27 whom the crowd styled Christians. 28 Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, * 29 and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast p 285 numbers 30 were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race.31 And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man.”

      *The New Testament, he notes, very accurately refrains from calling Pilate procurator but instead terms him governor (…[Greek word]),

      The Annals
      of
      Tacitus
      published in Vol. V
      of the Loeb Classical Library edition of Tacitus, 1937

      The text is in the public domain

      Again we find that Ehrman has made another serious error and thus calls into question his lofty status as the current scholar of the day refuting the claims made in the New Testament. No, Bart, Tacitus refers to the state persecution of Christians early in the second century when Nero blamed them for the Roman Fire of 64 AD.

      • ray warren says:

        When quoting that Tacitus wrote early in the second century, make sure that you give the year, many will think it is the year 221ad or such not 120 ad. Tacitus wrote his material when Christianity had already gained a foothold and when it was safe to write on the subject. It would be somewhat like you writing a history of the 1st World War. Jesus was not off the scene until about the year 40 and this means that there was only some 80 years between him and Tacitus.

      • nowayjose says:

        “It is true that Christians were sometimes opposed by pagans for being suspicious and possibly scurrilous, just as most ‘new’ religions found opponents in the empire. But there were no imperial decrees leveled against Christianity in its first two hundred years, no declarations that it was illegal, no attempt throughout the empire to stamp it out. It was not until the year 249 CE that any Roman emperor—in this case it was the emperor Decius—instituted an empire-wide persecution of Christians. (164)

        That is incorrect. About 115 AD Tacitus writes that Nero incited Romans to torture and murder Christians for the great fire of 64 AD. (Annals 15.44). Apparently, they were inclined to blame him so he shifted their focus to the much hated Christians.

        “Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus” Tacitus

        Interesting how much was known by so many so soon after Jesus arrived in a manger. In fact, by 64 AD “vast numbers” were convicted merely by confessing they believed in His name. They could have denied him and been spared horrific acts of brutality.

  27. Shan Hemachandra says:

    Dearest author,

    It is a pitty to come across such a document which attempts to prove that the son of God “Jesus” never lived. It is the your personal view, and your documenting this based on poor logic. It is not only in the Christianity, or the bible, which speaks of Jesus, my personal savior. It is also satated in the holy Quran of the Islam religion.The lords name is stated as “Isa Albin”.

    My dear friend, also remember that the powerful, but already defeated devil, will cerantly not tempt the hearts of the fallen raise to document the mercies of the son of God, Jesus, knowing we sinful men will comprehend his mercies. The bibile was writen with the inspiration of the God our creator.

    We do not comprehend the value of the atonement! If we did, we would talk more about it. The gift of God in His beloved Son was the expression of an incomprehensible love. It is the greatest subject that can engage the human mind.

    Please pray to your creator, because knowledge is with in you but wisdom comes from the lords

    You and the team will be in my prayers for cretantly.

    May the good lord bless you and the team to see the truth through dicrenment.

    • charles coryn says:

      One has only to read the OT to understand that it is a description of a genocide, committed by a people under the auspices of their imaginary deity. Read about the ‘ban’, and how there are no limits to the evil ‘Christians’ or ‘God Believers’ can do to non-believers. Read it in the Bible…. the killing of children and seniors and the confiscation of all their property. Except, that is, the virgin daughters who could be possessed by the soldiers of ‘God’. Read about how God throws down hailstones to kill the enemy soldiers. Fiction….. it’s all fiction unless you believe people could be so stupid. Notice that slaves are OK, God has no qualm with slavery apparently, and go ahead and kill anyone you find worshipping the moon. Come on….. use your heads, you were brainwashed by your parents and teachers and preachers, it’s all fiction. Men have created thousands of gods and goddesses over the centuries and it’s all documented…. it’s called mythology.

  28. nowayjose says:

    “That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”

    {People what have you done:
    locked Him in His golden cage,
    golden cage.
    Made Him bend to your religion
    Him resurrected from the grave,
    from the grave.
    He is the god of nothing
    if that’s all that you can see.
    You are the god of everything
    He’s inside you and me.

    So lean upon Him gently
    and don’t call on Him to save
    you from your social graces
    and the sins you used to waive,
    used to waive.
    The bloody Church of England
    in chains of history
    requests your earthly presence at
    the vicarage for tea.

    And the graven image you-know-who
    with His plastic crucifix
    he’s got him fixed
    confuses me as to who and where and why
    as to how he gets his kicks,
    he gets his kicks.
    Confessing to the endless sin
    the endless whining sounds.
    You’ll be praying till next Thursday to
    all the gods that you can count.} AQUALUNG “MY GOD” JETHRO TULL

    • nowayjose says:

      SO I ASKED THIS GOD A QUESTION
      AND BY WAY OF FIRM REPLY
      HE SAID, “I’M NOT THE KIND YOU HAVE TO WIND UP ON SUNDAYS”

      {When I was young and they packed me off to school
      and taught me how not to play the game,
      I didn’t mind if they groomed me for success,
      or if they said that I was just a fool
      So I left there in the morning
      with their God tucked underneath my arm
      their half-assed smiles and the book of rules
      So I asked this God a question
      and by way of firm reply,
      He said I’m not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays
      So to my old headmaster (and to anyone who cares):
      before I’m through I’d like to say my prayers
      I don’t believe you:
      you had the whole damn thing all wrong
      He’s not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays
      Well you can excommunicate me on my way to Sunday school
      and have all the bishops harmonize these lines
      how do you dare tell me that I’m my Father’s son
      when that was just an accident of Birth
      I’d rather look around me compose a better song
      `cos that’s the honest measure of my worth
      In your pomp and all your glory you’re a poorer man than me,
      as you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
      When I was young and they packed me off to school
      and taught me how not to play the game,
      I didn’t mind if they groomed me for success,
      or if they said that I was just a fool
      So I left there in the morning
      with their God tucked underneath my arm
      their half-assed smiles and the book of rules
      Well you can excommunicate me on my way to Sunday school
      and have all the bishops harmonize these lines
      When I was young and they packed me off to school
      and taught me how not to play the game,
      I didn’t mind if they groomed me for success,
      or if they said that I was just a fool
      So to my old headmaster (and to anyone who cares):
      before I’m through I’d like to say my prayers
      Well you can excommunicate me on my way to Sunday school
      and have all the bishops harmonize these lines
      I don’t believe you:
      you had the whole damn thing all wrong
      He’s not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays}

      He’s not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays

      So I asked this God a question
      and by way of firm reply,
      He said I’m not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays

      AQUALUNG ” WIND UP” JETHRO TULL

      go ahead. ask Him

      • ray warren says:

        Oh yes he is, all Gods must be wound up on Sundays or even Saturdays as the rest of the week is for sinning and fornicating and killing and stealing. Wake up to yourself man, everyone licks the boots of death sooner or later and sooner or later, you will meet your maker [if their is one].

  29. Ray Warren says:

    Now why would anyone beg for someone to believe in something that millions of others do not, why would anyone wish to convert someone to their way of thinking? What is in it for them, they believe so what is it that makes Christians and Muslims want that everyone should believe [I do not quote the Jews because they figure three is too many] in a God? Those of us that need no God or son of a God to follow are at peace with ourselves so why try to convert those who cannot or do not want to be converted? We now know that all animals have a degree of intelligence [some much more than others] so why do they not go to church, pray for salvation or spend their productive years trying to convert others to a way of life that is mentally demanding? Man has invented God for his own purposes and has used that God to control those of the human race that are weak and unable to fend for themselves. That though, does not answer the question as to why religious nutters cannot keep their beliefs to themselves, after all, they would surely receive the lions share of heaven if it were not too crowded.

  30. nowayjose says:

    FIND OUT!!!

    ASK HIM IN!

    ASK HIM TO REVEAL HIMSELF TO YOU

    He will. He promises

    What is so fascinating about presenting this challenging invitation to atheists is this: it strips them of their facade.”Proof” and “evidence” of His existence are not important to them. They refuse to acknowledge Him for other reasons, not because they don’t believe he was who he said. If, if, they really wanted to discover who and what He was, they would. But, they already know. It has more to do with hatred for the divine.

    • nowayjose says:

      To be convincing in an argument with atheists is not cause to celebrate. Their souls will live forever in bliss that cannot be expressed in human terms, or will perish eternally in agony that is unimaginable. The question is, “What will you do with this Man/God?” If you do nothing, your fate is beyond terrifying. If you receive Him into your life, you will find yourself living eternally.

      Let’s say that you buy 50 percent of the message about Christ. The other 50 percent of you just can’t be certain. That’s a perfect place to be for Him to prove to you just exactly Who He is. Based on what you find believable, frame your prayers to Him within that context. You could say to Him in all legitimacy, “I’m not sure. If You are real, if You really are the Son of God, please show me. Please reveal Yourself to me in a way that I will know it is You.”

      I promise you, if you sincerely ask Him to manifest Himself to you, along those lines, you are in for the most breathtaking experience of your life. Nothing else compares. I get nothing if you believe in Him. I don’t want anything and will likely never know. So, it is not for selfish motives I share with you. I was told the same things and one night while walking my sister’s dog out in the desert, I suddenly lifted my hand and pointed to the sky and said, “Okay, If you’re there, come on in.” Not for a split second did I believe I was heard or that some god out there was going to enter my life. But, I was totally sincere, even though I knew nothing would happen. That was decades ago and He did hear me and He did enter my life and changed me from being an out of control, vicious, hateful, revengeful, monster in to someone who loved others unconditionally, who could forgive others and myself. I could not make that kind change within my heart. No matter what, I was incapable of doing that. Absolutely.

      He did it and if you are broken, hurting, if you are vindictive and depressed and take out your hatred on others and yourself, He can and will give you a new heart, a new sense of what life can be, a new appreciation for you and the people you’ve hated. If begging you would tip the scales of your heart and mind to seek Him, then, I’m begging you.

  31. Scottie P says:

    First, we need to agree that ignortancy can be fixed.. But Stupidity can’t, so if your stupid..stop here.
    Ok! No stupid, if you are still reading.
    Sir, my question is:
    Why have you put so much time into destroying the credibility of some “man”, that you don’t even believe in?? That sounds to me like the real reason is one of two true reasons, and maybe even both.
    A. You want to believe, but you are a solid facts type of guy, that needs solid proof.. (I understand the mentality)
    B. You either do, somewhat, or at one time believed in this “man”. But he let you down you feel. Or you are angry at him for one reason or another. (I have felt that)
    C. Both.
    I would bet just about anything that says I’m close if not pinpoint. And I’m not hating, not gonna try and baptize you. Don’t get your undies bunched. I just want to clear a couple questions up you had. And I’m not a bible scholar or a preacher. But I have read the Holy Bible, and the verses you quote are modern translations which no matter how many scholars jump on board are not like an old day AUTHORIZED KJV or Geneva etc. 90 percent pervert the word of God. So for starters grab a HOLY Bible. ✔.
    Now we need to clear up another thing… If you don’t believe in this “man” Jesus. Than what do you believe? Because if you are going to tell me you believe that garbage about how everything on the universe started spinning faster and faster and getting smaller and smaller until it was smaller than a period . on this page then BANG! it blew up into everything you see here today. Well of course can’t forget the whole monkeys turning into humans, that’s where the atheists came from! Nobody has ever recorded any first hand witness of any of that trash. And even if you are correct which you’re not in saying there are no witnesses for Jesus, then FINE were on even playing ground. Believing without seeing is called faith. And sir, you must have faith to believe either concept. But here’s the kicker! Are you a gambling man? I know I shouldn’t be but I tend to be. And as a gambling man I started looking at it like this once somebody put that faith thing into perspective. If I die and I am Wrong I still walk away with the Athiests Best case scenario but if the Athiest is wrong.. Well…I’ll pray for you brother. I wouldn’t wish that on anybody. Ok now another thing if you have a Holy Bible you still cannot even begin to understand it unless you have a sincere mind and open heart. So pointless.
    LASTLY, I wanna leave you with just a couple Bible facts. One I discovered today but myself actually. In Deuteronomy 32:13 end of verse it says God will make(teach) man to suck oil from the FLINTY rock. what’s amazing is that was written 1800 years before man ever recorded using oil in any sense. There’s another verse that states the world was round years and years before anyone on this planet even thought about it. And last bible fact when Jesus was crucified, that verse about how every rock on earth was rent. That means cracked. And I challenge you to pick up any rock you find. Any rock, it was a crack, somewhere tiny small big it gas a crack, unless tumbled or likewise. BET! So that takes care of Choice A.
    Choice B is simple, if you are mad at God for Something bad that has happened in your life Or whatever it May be, first you need to realize GOD IS NOT JUST A … “MAN”. GOD IS GOD and why would he help someone who Doesn’t believe in Him, shows how just he really is could take your oxygen away And your next realization could be weaping and gnashing of teeth, but I pray not. The Bible does say tho in the last says there Will be mockers, and scoffers. And men will be lovers of themselves. Along with the wars And rumors of wars, And dramatic increase in natural disasters. I could go on. for days but if you aren’t having a serious change of heart yet then you should have stopped at the second sentence. God Bless your soul, I will pray for you.

  32. Ray Warren says:

    Now really fellahs pulease, ask him in, what in the devil are you talking about, yes he existed just as Billy Graham and Hitler existed and yes he sold many people on his new religion because a bunch of Jewish b—s were stuffing people around.but he was not a miracle worker nor were the raining from the dead and other stupid supernats real. You are fools to thing that Atheists deny him existence, we just know what he was and that is not a son of God or a God himself.It puzzles me how anybody can believe in Gods when we know that man invented him in thousands of forms over thousands of years and millions have died to show that each and every one of these Gods and Goddesses were the true Gods of man. Stupid is it not?

  33. nowayjose says:

    Dave Fitzgerald, if you are interested, I’d be happy to debate you. As you can see, the positions you assume are easily defeated. Perhaps you’ve arrived at some new theories since 2010. Atheists seem to follow whoever is their most charismatic and best sounding geru of the month. Suddenly, everybody uses his arguments until they are proved inadequate, so they run to the next promising candidate to come along.

    Some go to great lengths of self-promotion primarily through manipulation to improve their visibility and their viability as genuine “scholars” of religion and atheism in particular when they are nothing of the kind. Some just hope to get their jabs in bashing Christianity, which drive atheists wild with delight, even though they believe in all kinds of divine manifestations. A recently deceased, very confused and nasty pantheist, Murdock, probably spent more time refuting all the criticism leveled at her than she spent writing the books no one would publish, except her. Her thrust? Hate Christians and Bible-God, say whatever you wish that is contrary to anything resembling evangelicalism, and hope to generate enough controversy to sell books. And I think she sold about 4 books.

    • rayjwarren says:

      Dear Nowayjose, I think that Murdock was very stupid in her attempts because she left herself vulnerable to that which she had not been well schooled in. But she did publish her own books and did put her words out there whether we liked them or not so it is not fitting to rubbish her attempt to show what she believed. It is however quite right to pursue her about her efforts to destroy belief in the previous existence of Jesus as an historic figure or for that matter, any historic figures that came within her arc of study. Jesus was probably the product of previous attempts [see Gebeliesis] to create divine figures in history and his story does follow the Isis, Horus, Osiris tale from ancient Egypt. But that is no reason to deny his existence, he is well recorded and people from that era sent his story down to us in writings and via word of mouth. The effect that this man created, shows that he has charisma and the ability to sell people his ideas. Fraud yes but is fraud not committed by people all over this world in their effort for fame and wealth?

  34. Stephen says:

    You are correct for certain. It remains a true unknown.

  35. nowayjose says:

    I have refuted statements presented as facts by the person(s) who wrote this position paper. I have provided facts which prove a substantial portion of their belief system has no merit. When encouraged to try to justify their creed in light of their errors, not one responded. All have remained silent. I encourage atheists to pursue greater intellectual rigor before making brazen pronouncements denying non-Biblical evidence for Christ’s existence. If atheists hope to find a place at the table reserved for scholarly literature, they would do well to expand their knowledge base beyond that which purports the same repeated inaccuracies and culling support beyond the narrowly focused writers who are like-minded.

  36. rayjwarren says:

    Yes something did get the ball rolling alright but not the thousands of Gods worshiped by the thousands of sun and idol worshipers on this planet. Man invented Gods because he had no other explanation for all the things around him and so the supernatural became the only answer. One day all will become clear and man will eventually find the answer to life and his own reason for being and then all will become clear. Until then we must abide by the laws we have created and defeat those who would exploit. There is no reason for conflict over who is right or who is wrong, man did invent the Gods for without men there would be no God at all. It is a simple case of wait and see for all will be answered one day.

  37. nowayjose says:

    What I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the housetops. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.…

    But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

    His mercies are everlasting. He buries our sins never to be remembered. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He is infinite in every respect. And yet, I believe one statement found in the New Testament informs us about of His most prominent attribute. “God is love.” In essence, He is Love.

    And He has warned us out of love to avoid hell.

    • nowayjose says:

      An open question to any/all interested. Who was Jesus Christ and upon what do you base your opinion?

      Anyone? If you think he was a real person, but not God, explain why you support that position. If you aren’t sure, what confuses you? If you believe He was Who He claimed to be as recorded in the N.T., what guides your thought process? Just curious. It is fascinating to learn what folks believe and why.

      Last time.

    • rayjwarren says:

      And if man was not in existence, there would be no heaven or hell and inasmuch as man invented God as surely as he invented the wheel, then it is in man’s own destiny to shape the world as he sees it with whatever God and at whatever time he might worship that God. For man has, down through the ages, worshiped the Gods of his choice and every few Millennia, he replaces his God with one that is more worthy and whom suits his needs.

  38. Stephen says:

    Still christian church source documents. Nothing ancient or from the 0-50 AD time frame.

  39. nowayjose says:

    After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

    Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”

    Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

    “‘He will command his angels concerning you,
    and they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”

    Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”

    Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world (not just the kingdoms in existence at that point in time, but New York City, L.A. Tokyo, Paris, London, Istanbul–IMO) and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

    Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”

    Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

    Christians can be confident it is part of their spiritual journey when they are sorely tempted after receiving special renewal from the divine. For just prior to these trials, Jesus had been baptized and recognized and approved by God openly and dramatically, “As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!” Then, he’s led into 40 days of fasting and Satan’s most powerful assaults. (I can barely fast for one meal. He fasted for over a month and in this terribly weakened state physically, Satan attacked Him with reckless abandon.)

    After I was baptized and emerged from the river, which was far from civilization, I and those with me, watched in eerie silence as the clouds curled around the sunlight and created soft subtle shades of deep gorgeous colors mixed with shooting beams of golden sunlight, bursting through the sky in total, hushed stillness, perfectly choreographed, in a truly spectacular array of the most hauntingly beautiful patterns of orange, gold and red, and deep dark crimson, purple, yellow, violet and pink mountains of colors, pausing for 30 seconds, as we looked at each other astounded at what was happening. And disappeared.

    Soon after, long stretches of spiritual dryness and temptations galore followed, almost destroying the gift He had just lavished on me and my new friends.

  40. The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork

    • When Jesus crossed over he found a man possessed by a legion of demons. He was incredibly strong. No chains could bind him. He exorcised them and the man glorified Christ, seeking his permission to travel with Him. Go home and show what great things God has done for you, Christ said.

      • And the violent appetite and the urge to destroy everything that is good and kind and pure drive this monster day and night, seeking those he can tear apart, rip limb frm, to tease and scratch his prey for the fun of watching the pain and suffering. Like a roaring lion, prowling, hunting, stalking the unsuspecting.

        Or he’ll lull you to sleep, dazed and unaware of the impending, never ending nightmare you are going to be.

    • The universe itself witnesses to the reality of God. It is unmistakable. With Hubbles discovery of variable stars and the true size of the universe, and that it is expanding at ever increasing speeds, the evidence that there must be something out there that got the ball rolling is hard to deny.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Except tat the bible states that 6000 years ago it was all created, not the 13 billion years we are from the true birth of the universe

  41. Stephen says:

    Sorry, but I explained to you before I cannot discuss anything with someone that is so angry at ‘everything’ in life.
    So go ahead and rant. I’m only interested in qualified reasonable intelligent discussions.
    I’ve already beaten you to a pulp in terms of statements and supporting sources.
    Maybe someone else is interested in what you have to say?
    Cya

  42. Stephen says:

    Anytime one has to go to such extremes to explain something that the RCC has already made a definitive statement about regarding the gospels by MMLJ is a sign that there is no real supporting evidence for the statements.

    The RCC encyclopedia clearly states that the Vatican acknowledges that the gospels were not written by the supposed apostles but by priests under the authority of Constantine and the then reigning Pope. They still claim these documents are god inspired, yet we have no reason to believe that a group of priests in the 325/328 AD range of time had any knowledge of Jesus or the apostles other than what they might have been told by others at that time.

    I am sorry but Jews do not worship Jesus. He is at best for them a prophet and nothing else.

    How can you stand there and just tell non-truths?
    You say;
    Word-for-word trans: Now Jesus born in Bethlehem Judaea in days Herod king
    This is not a verbatim translation of any ancient text. Who told you this non-truth? You need to ask them to support it with ancient texts!

    The word Jesus is not found in any ancient text. Only in christianity’s literature. And again, here we go, the letter J with the J sound we use did not even exist until 1500, so how are you able to say someone said Jesus when the J did not exist? Really?

    Greek translations have already been proven to have been modified by the ruling theocracy and have in no way any relationship to any actual historical texts. They wrote these from scratch, they did not copy these from other documents, or the original docs would have been preserved.

    One can claim it but this actually disproves its self 100% an conclusively. I am sorry.

    Just as christians claim the word Virgin is in the ancient texts, it is not. The actual word is “young girl” but the Greeks changed it to Virgin to support their position. So Mary was not a Virgin, she was a Young Girl according to the oldest text and the actual words used translated ‘exactly as they were written’. Look it up you’ll see you have been not told the truth.

    Pretty simple stuff in reality if you would get out of the christian doctrine and look into worldwide known and substantiated documents based on ancient texts.

    Again the only supporting doc’s are from within the church and mean nothing to historically being factual in this search.
    It’s just a man made religion as all of them are.

    Be good live good, enjoy.
    Cya

    • Ray Warren says:

      Oh Steevie Weevie you little uneducated troll, how you empty head must feel without a brain. Now you attack women and attempt to force your Jewishness on them. Leave Christians alone you murderer of Jesus allow the Christians the right to their beliefs, beliefs that tried to make better the way of the Jew some 2000 years ago. Stop quoting things that you have no real knowledge of and go back to quoting the crap that the Torah has shoved into your orifices. You are one brainless idiot troll. Do not give out fake apologies to those who ar much more creditable than you and start putting out material that proves Jesus did not exist back then. It is your duty to show that he was not an entity to those who know he was. Get your side locks cut a little shorted, they are blinding you to the truth you sapsucker..That bit on Mary is also incorrect, The Latin “Pucelle meaning Pure was the first adaption and here you are quoting Greek when the Romans virtually took over Christianity before all others. You are one stupid moron believing that people will believe that crap about the letter J ?? You have been told before that there may have been no representation except for the letter Y in Hebrew but peoples all over the world had their own letters J. You moronic idiot. the Egyptians and others made the sound from letters they fused together like Ie, Ysoos, Heysus and ect throughout the Mediterranean. His name has come down from documents written at the time he lived via his followers and disciples anything coming from Constantine are copies of the Gospels as taught by said disciples who traveled about preaching his church. Now we have you stating that you know that Jesus [Iesus] did not call himself a Christian, maybe so, maybe not, but who, you lowly pork eating dog, are you to speak about him when you know only how to defraud and cheat, Your stupid statement;

      “The RCC encyclopedia clearly states that the Vatican acknowledges that the gospels were not written by the supposed apostles but by priests under the authority of Constantine and the then reigning Pope. They still claim these documents are god inspired, yet we have no reason to believe that a group of priests in the 325/328 AD range of time had any knowledge of Jesus or the apostles other than what they might have been told by others at that time”.

      Shows us that your brain is entirely Jewish and derogatory of the Christian beliefs.What do you say about the Jewish faith, a faith derived from the worst child sacrificial religions in Mesopotamia and from the Bovine religions of Egypt. The Jews were Gold thieves and bandits to the Egyptians, they sold their services and then robbed the Egyptians on their way out of the country. That is the only reason why the Egyptians would have chased them. You also know that the gospels were copied from previously written materials and that they were too well written and 90% in agreement with the Gospels to have been written by priests as new documents. You know all of this except you choose to contradict and change words to your own definition when you , as a brainless toad, have nothing to work with. I am surprised that you are part of the human race as your statements are all coming out of a stye, a place where you should feel greatly at home for the Hebrews were pig breeders of old and were sent to the Quarri3es as lepers for the building stone for Armana.

  43. nowayjose says:

    “Matthew and Luke give conflicting details of his birth”

    The following is a partial explanation that although there are differences in the details, the accounts are not contradictory. I’ll happily provide the complete explanation if requested. You will find this information helpful and satisfying.

    The simple answer is, of course they are different, they are describing actions that happened on two separate occasions. One narrates from His birth until 40 days later; while the other tells of events that happened around the age of two. First you have to remember that there were no chapter and verse markers in the original Greek; you can’t always assume the books were divided at the correct places. Look at one of the most well-known passages in the Bible: Isaiah 53, almost every Bible teacher starts his study by saying, “Open your Bibles to Isaiah 52 verse 13,” because that is where the train-of-thought starts and continues on until the end of chapter 53. If you just start at the beginning of chapter 53, you will miss some very important prophecy and wisdom. One of the main things that throws people’s timing off in Jesus’ birth and early years is that in Matthew chapter 2 where the translators have rendered verse 1 as “Now when Jesus was born … etc.” it makes it sound like that which is stated next is happening at the same time. But when you look the verse up in the Greek, the word, “when” is not there.

    Gr. transliteration: de Iēsous gennaō en Bēthleem Ioudaia en hēmera Hērōdēs basileus

    Word-for-word trans: Now Jesus born in Bethlehem Judaea in days Herod king

    Translators inserted two words, where there is only one in the Greek. If Matthew had intended to say “when,” he would have used the Greek – epan, such as where he uses it a few verses later:

    And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when++ ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. [Matthew 2:8 KJV] ++(Greek – epan)

    Verse one should be the statement:

    Now Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king. (period)

    Actually this should be the last verse of chapter one! The Greek – de translated as “now” is a conjunction (connecting word) that is elsewhere translated as “and”, “then”, “moreover”, etc. which ties it to the previous verse, Matthew 1:25:

    Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Now, Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king. [Matthew 1:24-25 & 2:1a]

    The Greek – de is used almost 3000 times in the New Testament, translated as over a dozen different words: but (1,237x), and (934x), now (166x), then (132x), also (18x), yet (16x), yea (13x), so (13x), moreover (13x), nevertheless (11x), for (4x), even (3x), misc (10x), not trans. (300x). The meaning selected seems rather arbitrary; just to connect two thoughts together. The emphasis is on the thoughts, not on the conjunction. Not the kind of word you want to base your whole belief system on. Context is extremely important; when a word has more than one meaning, a translator must make sure that the word he picks does not conflict with the rest of the passage. The New King James version, and several others, read: “Now after Jesus was born…etc.,” apparently trying to fix the previous mistranslation, but they are still adding an extra word where there is not one in the original. Chapter two should begin the narrative of the wise men’s visit, which occurred two years later:

    Behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. [Matthew 2:1b, 2]

    How do we know that this was two years later? One big hint is that in his gospel, Luke uses the Greek – brephos which means, “babe” or “infant”:

    And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe (Greek – brephos) wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. [Luke 2:12 KJV]

    …while Matthew uses the Greek – paidion which means, “young child,” in his narrative,

    And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; (Greek – paidion) and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. [Matthew 2:8 KJV]

    And, as we will see, Herod came right out and asked the wise men, “How long ago did the star appear?” The answer to this question would establish the age of the new king:

    Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. [Matthew 2:7 KJV]

    So you can see from the verse below that Herod knew that he was to looking for a two year-old in Bethlehem. But, then Herod used that knowledge to determine that if he wanted to get rid of the new king, he would have to kill all the children, that were two years old in Bethlehem, and just to make sure, he killed all of those that were younger also:

    Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. [Matthew 2:16 KJV]

    Once you understand the fact that the wise men visited Jesus two years after His birth, and not in the manger, all the alleged “irreconcilable contradictions” disappear.

    Here is a more complete timeline, some of this is from a Messianic-Jewish perspective, and includes a few Jewish celebrations and memorials, that in no way detract from the Christian message; we both use the same bible, and worship the same Messiah Jesus. The dates listed are from the Biblical-Hebrew calendar. The calendar year starts on the Passover month. Tishri is the seventh month. That coincides with our common September-October time of year.

    Day 1 – Tishri 14 Daytime Mary and Joseph arrive in Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth to register.

    All went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, called Bethlehem; (as he was of the house and lineage of David:) [Luke 2:3,4]

    Day 1 – Tishri 15 Evening (a new day starts at 6:00 in the evening for the Jews) Jesus is born in the manger in a booth (tabernacle) that Joseph has built, fulfilling the Feast of Tabernacles.

    And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. [Luke 2:6,7]

    Now, ++ Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king. [Matthew 2:1a] (++ The word “when” is not in the Greek)

    Day 2 – Tishri 15 Night to Early morn. Shepherds see angels and come and find Jesus.

    And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night . . . And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. [Luke 2:13, 15]

    Day 8 – Tishri 22 Jewish celebration of Simchath Torah – Rejoicing over the Law – Family goes to a local Bethlehem Rabbi for Jesus’ circumcision (A symbol of obedience to the Law).

    And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Yehu’shua (Jesus), which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. [Luke 2:21]

    Day 40 – Heshvan 25

    On the 40th day (7 days plus 33 days = 40 days) they are in Jerusalem for Jesus’ presentation in the temple:

    Daniel Giron

  44. Stephen says:

    Yes, Not only were most early followers of Jesus, Jews, (i say Jews because the term christian as a faith based system did not exist); but Jesus himself is a Jew. Where ever he is now, if he was whom we are taught he was, a Nazarene, he is still a Jew. It was a birthright.
    He was never a christian nor did he ever promote or support any church, christian or otherwise other than the Jewish faith.
    In fact I believe the term Christian was never uttered by him if he indeed is who we are told he may have been, a Nazarene.

    And Clara, there are no Roman records of the crucifixion of Jesus. I’m sorry if that was your premise then please show me a link I can go to and read these words. The Romans as I said were the most document heavy civilization in all of history through their existence and yet nothing about Jesus.

    As for the Arch of Titus and any crucifixion please note: “It was constructed in 82 A.D., by the Emperor Domitian”.
    So you are using a 82 AD structure to prove up Jesus whom was crucified as we are told at age 33, in the year 33 AD? Really?
    A structure that was built 49 years after his death is your supporting fact? Really? 49 years after his death? Well okay, if you insist.

    This is not really a fair discussion.
    If there cannot be any ancient texts or documents from 0 Ad through 50 AD (I’m giving you and the others some room to play here) that specifically use the name Jesus then there needs to be a time out on the discussion. If it can’t be proven via text then lets just say you believe in Jesus, even though there are no supporting documents for that belief outside the christian church documents which the RCC is holder of the lions share of them, and, I believe in my creator, mine and your God as my savior because He says so in the Book of Hosea.

    There I have given you a document to research and see supportive proof of what God has said and it supports my position that God is my savior, because He Said So.

    Be good, be safe.
    Cya

  45. nowayjose says:

    Thanks to Pliny, “we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny’s statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, “unlike other gods who were worshiped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth.”{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshiping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

    Not only does Pliny’s letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus’ person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny’s reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the “love feast.”{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing “ritual cannibalism.”{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus’ teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.”

    Michael Gleghorn examines evidence from ancient non-Christian sources for the life of Jesus, demonstrating that such sources help confirm the historical reliability of the Gospels.

  46. nowayjose says:

    “As indicated above, the term ‘Christian’ was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been ‘a great crowd’ unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians. There may have been Jews who embraced Jesus as the Messiah, but they were not known as Christians at that time.Nero fastened the guilt . . .”

    Most “Christians” in the early days of the explosion of Christianity were Jews and as previously stated, the term Christian was in use from about AD 43-44.

  47. nowayjose says:

    “As indicated above, the term ‘Christian’ was not in use during the reign of Nero”

    The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: “[…] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

    Herod II was still alive at this point. Herod died in 44 AD, so in accordance with the chronology of the book of Acts, the term “Christian” must have originated before Herod II died, which places Saul in Antioch, when the term “Christian” was first used, from about 43-44 AD.

  48. Stephen says:

    I understand. But still just a lot of opinions and rhetoric but no supporting documents other than internal to the christian religion. Acts is a NT work.
    I don’t criticize your need/want to believe in the christian faith but my previous email posted many things you have never responded to which makes me believe you actually understand the weakness of the foundation of all man made religions.
    Be good, live good, it’ll all turn out good. But don’t lie or tell false tales to people about any religion.
    If there are no ancient doc’s and only internal works (325/328 Ad) to reference you have to just understand it’s no different than Islam which was founded @ 650/670 AD. Another man made religion.
    Cya

  49. nowayjose says:

    The recording of history was in full bloom in Jesus time. (They didn’t have daily newspapers with reporters dispersed throughout the known world, though, did they?) Presumably, many were aware of the wonders of Jesus “… the churches … throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria … were edified… and … were multiplied.” – Acts 9:31. (Many may have been aware of a distant rumor of some nut running around pretending to be God’s representative, but he got his, and that is all she wrote.) There were many well known Greek and Roman authors at the time Jesus did his miracles. (Would you name them, when you get a chance? Greek and Roman authors normally collected information about Jewish rebels making wild claims about the Hebrew God?) Yet no where is there any reference to his divinity or these miracles in any writings of the era. (Not true.) One would think that if he really performed the miracles attributed to him, there would be more than two eye-witnesses (Matthew and John) writing about it. (He performed miracles of healing and some He healed didn’t even thank Him. Others reacted violently when they saw with their own two eyes His miracles. They plotted to kill Him. Others were amazed and are never heard of again.) If he was such a thorn in the side of the Romans, shouldn’t they have given him more press? (When did Christ become “such a thorn” to the Romans? The Jews demanding His death were a thorn in their side for a few days, which they they promptly removed from their side. Didn’t they attempt to let Him go?) They do write about their Gods a lot. Why didn’t they write about Jesus? (Jesus was one of their gods? Jesus first “became God” to a small group of disorganized, mostly illiterate, common folk. If Jesus got whacked along with His disciples, perhaps some hesitated to publicize anything about Him fearing for their own safety?.)

    • Ray Warren says:

      Jose, you must take up a learning position on the statements you are making. To begin with Jesus, he was apparently killed for espousing the new religion and it would have been exceptionally dangerous to run around in Israel talking about it. The Romans could not give two hoots about him as he did not have any effect on Rome until several years later. Although Jesus may have been a Jew, his first and real name was Emmanuel and his disciples were most [if not all] Greek. They all had their names changed when they joined his ministry. Pilate Judged Jesus and did not want to punish him but the Jews wanted him dead and requested that he be crucified [see Tacitus]. Miracles or tricks carried out by Jesus have been imitated down through the ages. As for Greek and Rpman Authors writing about Jesus and his followers, the early years were too dangerous for any Author and although a little was written in Rome, you will find that nobody wanted to be nailed up until the new religion took off. I suggest that you read Herodotus on the Getae peoples and their Gods, it is all online. Their God was Zalmoxis and their King was Gebeleisis who lived about 600 bce. I believe the Getae were the forerunners of the Gypsies and their land lay in Rumania on the Danube.

  50. Stephen says:

    Look, the worst witness is an eye witness. A fact of being a human. We see what we think we see in accidents and crimes. This is why the police don’t take eye witness reports as written in stone. They soon find out that the truth is something different, at times way different.
    The reason why we cannot take internal church/belief system documents as being 100% correct is simple.
    If we could use only internal documents to prove up christianity; Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Krisha, Sikh and on and on and on would and by your recipe claim the same thing as you are. Your religion and only your religion is the one and only and all of the others are wrong.

    You can’t do this nor is this allowed in a modern world where facts and figures are easily available for anyone to review. You can say it but in your heart you know this is not right. Everyone cannot be right and wrong at the same time. Just common sense.

    One can adhere to any religion they want.
    They just have to understand, all religions are man made.
    No religion is the religion of God.
    God doesn’t need a religion and he say so in the book of Amos, but no one ever cares about the ancient texts because they argue against the modern text, the NT.
    Common simple human frailty causes these disputes. ‘I better than you.’ syndrome.

    Believe what you want but just live a good life and you’ll be a-okay if you are a believer.
    If you are not a believer in anything after death then still be a good person, live a good life and I’m suspecting you will be surprised and rewarded.
    Cya

  51. nowayjose says:

    “We have shown that every “external” reference that Christians use as evidence fails to produce any evidence of an extraordinary man who WAS the Messiah”

    You are implying that “internal” references are less legitimate, which is a false premise. Again, your arguments stem from a perspective that automatically dismisses the sources we do have as untrustworthy. Your foundation is sand. Many of those early believers were martyred.

  52. nowayjose says:

    “And the silence of everyone at the time completely goes against the image of Jesus presented to us in the Gospels.”

    Not everyone was silent. That is an inaccurate and very misleading statement. A number of people wrote about Him and others who followed Him were anything but quiet. You couldn’t get them to shut up! By word of mouth and their irrepressible enthusiasm, his disciples lit fires that burn all over the world to this day.

    But, say it was a hoax. Who directed it? What did he get out of it? How did he do it?

  53. nowayjose says:

    So, what evidence is there, if any? Why do we even know the name of this person who lived 20 centuries ago? Well, we have a lot of written material about Him, most of it written shortly after His death and by a number of people. “Luke” dedicated a great deal of his time and energy into writing a detailed account of His life and a history of the young church of believers in two books, Luke and Acts. “With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,” just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.…”
    And this guy is sharp and he can write. Why would this guy bother to research and then write the results down? Who was he? He wasn’t a part of an established religious enterprise at the time.

  54. Stephen says:

    Well it’s good for a theory but again there are no documents. But if you have some or know of where to find the actual ancient documents that support this then please send them my way. And I don’t mean documents from 300 years after his death. These would no doubt from the First Ecumenical Council.
    But no matter who what when where; I wish you well, happiness, love and compassion in all your steps through life.
    The only way we will ever know is to go to God when we pass on and then there will be no if and or but.
    CYa

  55. nowayjose says:

    “His death – and resurrection – were marked by spectacular supernatural events: angelic appearances, earthquakes, legions of beloved Jewish saints coming back from the dead and publicly appearing in Jerusalem, supernatural darkness that covered the entire world, or at the very least the entire region, for hours, and much more. And yet, there is no mention of these supernatural events anywhere other than the bible!

    And he appeared again to many of his followers afterwards, some say for as long as forty days, before ascending bodily into Heaven before a crowd of his followers.None of them or any of the 500 to whom he “appeared” after his death felt disposed to write about it. There is no mention of it anywhere other than the bible!”

    Indeed. People actually made the effort to record what He did, where He went, what He said. The books and letters they wrote are masterpieces. We don’t know everything that was written down about him. The Jews certainly responded powerfully to the uneducated, poor, single, non-political leader, so much so that they made sure He got whacked before He took over the the entire region.

    Call the Bible part of a religious system. Claim no contemporaries referred to Him outside of that system. He’s more than just mentioned in passing by those who saw and heard and handled Him. Illiteracy was widespread in His local hangouts. The fact that some unknown, unremarkable, physically unimpressive, lone man with zero money and no training and no political or military connections, emerged from antiquity, from a tiny little impoverished village with nothing, no skills, no schooling, no where to lay His head, to become the most loved, worshiped, honored, famous, influential, charismatic, powerful, controversial, the most quoted, with more music written about and for Him, and more books written about Him, more hospitals and charities and schools established in His honor, than any other human being, by far, is significant. That He accomplished more than anyone else, and did so during an abbreviated life, cut short by murderous thugs who nailed Him to several wooden timbers, naked, suspended off the ground to die a criminal’s death, because they were terrified of His personal integrity and public appeal and the piercing words He spoke, make for an interesting read. Those who hung with Him the closest and longest while He made His brief appearance on this blue orb, recorded and passed along a great deal about Him which was also recorded and shared igniting a wildfire of devoted followers who without a military or political might turned the world right side up. The broken people He called to Himself found in Him something so precious, they gladly gave up all to spread His loving presence throughout the world, and still do. . Copies of those recordings give us an incredibly accurate and detailed account of what He was all about, who He claimed to be, what He hoped we would do in His absence and how one child is of more value to Him than all the kingdoms and power and luxury this world can supply. His life and the birth of His spiritual revolution would soon become the driving force in the establishment of what has become Western Civilization.

    So, He was pretty special. If you don’t care, who cares? Each to his own way, I don’t mind. Except, He put His love in my heart, in our hearts, and hopefully some will allow Him to fill their cups with His love, too. It’s a trip.

  56. Stephen says:

    Lots of angry people not wanting to make comments without over emotional flairs.
    Just make your point.
    If it’s factual and supported by facts then so be it.
    If it’s just an opinion, state that it is just an opinion and leave it at that.
    But angry sounding words is not a discussion and that is what this should be.

    Make a statement.
    Support it if you can.
    If you can’t say it’s an opinion.
    Leave it at that.
    Let someone else reply.
    Pretty simple basic debate parameters.

  57. nowayjose says:

    An open question to any/all interested. Who was Jesus Christ and upon what do you base your opinion?

    Anyone? If you think he was a real person, but not God, explain why you support that position. If you aren’t sure, what confuses you? If you believe He was Who He claimed to be as recorded in the N.T., what guides your thought process? Just curious. It is fascinating to learn what folks believe and why.

    • rayjwarren says:

      To begin with Hose, nobody should answer your question because you make rather idiotic remarks and are somewhat similar to that idiot Steevie Weevie. I will attempt to make your brain un-shrivel for a moment by stating this. Jesus the Christ was a human being just like you and all those banana brains denying him on this Blog. My opinion is based on the several accounts written about him and the fact that all persons opposed to him are true characters in history. Also, you keep trying to say that the new testament is not a worthy document and the only reason you state this is because it pertains to him yet every other character of importance mentioned in the NT has been proven. Get a brain my friend, he existed even if he was somewhat like the Benny Hinn’s of today’s world. I do not think that Jesus claimed to be anything special, Pilate did not wanted to try him, only the Jews had it in mind to destroy him, that is why the Christians despise Jews and have done so ever since these events took place. What guides my thought processes is the enjoyment I get out of making idiots out of radical that wish to destroy the faith of others. Yes it is fascinating to learn what the monkey side of the human family believe and you have certainly shown that part of your knowledge. I am an Atheist, that is why I do not believe he was a God, the same as I do not believe Edgar Cayce was a God or Adolf Hitler or Billy Graham. They all had the power within them to convert people to their beliefs. I think that you should stop trying to be a smart arse and start liking your fellow humans as long as they are peaceful to you.

  58. Stephen says:

    For me since there are no ‘ancient texts’ other than documents found only in the NT which was created as we know by historical evidence @ 325/328 AD, and because I was raised a catholic since birth to age 42 and had only heard information as the RCC wanted me to hear until I for some reason started wondering and studying for a 15 years; I fear it to be all made up. Now I’m not saying the personage is not base on some good person that may have lost his life for belief reasons, it happens year after year and has for thousands of years if people were no better than they are now.
    The second most important reason why it is doubtful is the Roman Empire through the day it was no more, was the most documented civilization in history. The number of documents it created is astonishing for such an old civilization. There are still bills of laden that were written during their reign. Purchases, laws, judgements, court cases. It’s amazing they felt the need to be so document heavy.
    Yet when this young Jew came across their paths and healed the sick, raised the dead, made the blind see and the cripple walk and even though they could find no crime against him, they put him to death to keep a city quiet that they ruled over with an iron fist if need be does not make sense.
    Third and ever as much important is a civilization of Jews and gentiles that worshiped this person Jesus, that laid palm leaves on his path as he rode a donkey into town and was begged to get close enough to just touch his clothing; in three days turns against him and violently demands him to be killed.
    Far too many absolutely ridiculous things to happen without any documents at all.

    Now I know some christian is going to start telling me that there are tons of documents, literally thousands of pages of documents; yet they cannot produce a single original text, from that time. IT is also very suspicious that all of this belief, as islam has in mohamed, is not backed up with any ancient documents other than those within the belief system.
    Islam only has ‘mohamad’s words’ as were supposed to be written down by his wife. So they rely on this solely. Really? Does this sound like the reason or foundation for so many people to kill so many other people in the name of God? Where did God say to do this? Not Mohamad or his wife but where did God say to do this? It doesn’t exist except within the religion and the keepers of the religion who are just as horrible of a bunch of people as the murderers are. Sorry for any muslims that don’t like but please then explain it to me based ‘ONLY ON FACTS’.

    Christianity has the very same situation with documents created from stories, the need to control, power, etc. In fact most christians don’t even know that during the crusades the soldiers for the RCC went out just like the Islamics do now and told people ‘convert or die’. Now WTF is the RCC or any christian entity doing following people that have behaved like this in the centuries past? We condemn muslims for doing it why not condemn christians for having done it?

    I hate stupid. I should not. It should be a chance to teach. But religion is so inbred into people that it’s second only to politics. If you are a dem, you are a dem and you hate republicans. If you are republican you hate dems. It’s inbred into their thinking.

    There is only one God. For those of you that do not believe in any entity greater than we then we have only 1 issue between us, God. Now go and enjoy your life not believing because I’m not going to bother you and you should not bother me.

    He’s my God, he’s my savior and I have the Hebrew nation the subsequent Jewish people and all of their documents over thousands of years interacting with God and his messengers and writing down Gods words. Hence they have referred to their Torah and Tanakh as ‘The Word’, not their bible as christians do. In fact christians hijacked the Hebrew Word and put it in the christian bible as the OT. Because even they know it is truly Gods words if anything is. Even muslims have much of the OT in the Koran, because they too know it’s Gods words.

    I could be wrong. Maybe one day I’ll die and nothing will be there but I’m counting on God to come through for me when that time comes.

    I won’t turn my back on God and believe that if one lives a truly good life they will be as christians call it, saved no matter what man made religion you happen to believe in. Just quit being so Fkn angry when discussing things. If someone disagrees with you let them. Stop all the anger in the posts. I’m probably guilty of it too but I only fire back. I don’t start the pissy faced statements. I do apologize for that though.

    This is my opinion, it means not to hurt anyone’s feelings or make light of anyone’s beliefs. It’s just based on facts.

  59. nowayjose says:

    An open question to any/all interested. Who was Jesus Christ and upon what do you base your opinion?

  60. Stephen says:

    The only thing you can quote is NT documents which as I have stated did not exist until @ 325/328 AD when the First Ecumenical Counsel was held at Nicaea. Unless you can prove up with ancient texts, then anyone can claim he or she is this or that and no one can argue they are not.
    It’s simple. There is but one God, one Savior, one in the same. Ancient texts tell us this, not man created NT texts that even the RCC notes were written by priests.

  61. nowayjose says:

    I think the debate over Christ’s true identity has run its course, you know? What do you say we move on?

    Come to think of it, I heard about this nutty dude down on 42nd and Lexington in NYC who has announced that he in fact is god. I suggest we head over there to try to find out if he’s telling the truth. He’s a short bald guy with thick glasses and a Cocker Spaniel he calls, “Larry”. His nose is enormous, he has a beer belly, likes cigars and speaks with a heavy Brooklyn accent. Let’s check him out. Maybe he is the one we’ve been waiting for all these millennia?

  62. nowayjose says:

    If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer.
    But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.” Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

    Believe it or not, today not a single person asked me if I was the Messiah. I mean, most days I am literally swamped by crowds of folks who demand an answer from me. What I can’t understand is just this, haven’t I done enough that by now they should know! Right? I mean come on.

    The point is simple. Why anyone would think to ask that question– for even a split second, demonstrates how frail human beings really are.

    This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.” Those knuckleheads, back in the day, were such blithering idiots that they couldn’t see what was directly in front of them. The mere fact that they would ask Him if He was divine is its own answer.

    How many people approached you today demanding an answer about your status? Are you human or divine? Which is it? Gee, I’m not sure how to answer that.

    “Evidence” proving Jesus was/is the son of God is beyond overwhelming. People are just the same today as 2,000 years ago. Unable to recognize what practically knocks us down it is so obvious, nevertheless, we is blind.

  63. Stephen says:

    This is all so simple. If actual ancient texts do exist, where are they? They don’t is why. The only text that exist are those written by the church from stories told 300 years earlier by, who know who? The catholic church admits the gospels were not written by MMLJ. They were written by priests using stories from the past and building upon them. Yet they still say in the same article that they are inspired by God. WTF? How do they figure that?
    Go look up the oldest know found bible and see it’s dating. You’ll be shocked! Claims that documents existed 2000 years ago about Jesus and yet hundreds upon hundreds of years pass before there ever was a bible written? My memory says the 1st council of Nicaea in 325/328 was when it was created under the rule of Constantine the Emperor and the Codex S, the oldest know surviving bible dates back to the early 400-450 AD.
    There are no documents from 2000 years ago speaking of Jesus, I’m really sorry but it’s not true.
    It’s okay to believe in anything one wants but to criticize others for not believing what you believe is a real mystery.
    Islam, a religion that started @ 650/670(?) is also just a man made religion. Made out of nothing by a person, not by God.
    Is it really that hard for people to just understand that there is only one entity to be concerned about for your salvation, if you believe in a hereinafter in the first place. It’s our creator/God/Bob/ whatever his real name is. Why do religions become so aggressive? Is this what they believe God wants from them? Aggressive angry man made religions? I think not.
    And if you just don’t believe anything, then that’s okay too. Just don’t criticize those that do believe in something. You don’t have the right to.

  64. nowayjose says:

    We are the envy of the world, despite our blatant errors, our selfishness, our crime and greed and various forms of discrimination. We still do one thing better than anyone else, I believe. We tell on ourselves. Not without a struggle many times and not to everyone’s liking, nevertheless, our screw-ups inform the world that we are unafraid, ultimately, to be an open and free country. For that, many appreciate and respect America. Truly, we are by far the greatest nation on earth, the greatest nation of all time.

    If the Bible was full of bologna, as my friend Jim used to say, wouldn’t it hide or at least attempt to cover up the multitude of failings/sins which fill its pages? Would it really reveal Peter as the pitiful coward he proved to be? Would it have exposed the hideous betrayal by David when he had another man’s wife and sent him to the front to be killed? Would it include Christ’s mysterious cry to His Father, “Why have you forsaken me?” Would it present the following? Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”). Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'” Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

    Can no one else hear the ring of truth or sense the genuine heartfelt human interaction found here?

  65. nowayjose says:

    As far as i know, no one has ever spoken like this guy. Not even close. He exists on a whole other level. Everything about Him is unique and profoundly different than any human being with whom I’m familiar or I’ve ever known. It is as if His words emerge from a language exclusive to a far away land. As if He’s from another planet or dimension, he often says things that are at once terribly confusing and deeply comforting. No other “religious” person or spiritual leader is like the Lord, at all.They reek of humanity, of being from and about this world and the human race. He is entirely different, but still a flesh and blood human being.

    No one comes close to behaving and speaking as He did. His words are piercing like razor sharp swords and as soothing as a dear mother’s whispers of loving sympathy to a frightened child. He spared nothing, uncompromising in his beliefs, caring and tender, and consistently nothing like two-faced, hypocritical, money hungry charlatans and pseudo-gospel entertainers playing at religion. He was exactly as He portrayed himself, without guile, completely innocent and wiser than any serpent. He was tough as nails and as gentle as a lamb. He endured agony beyond anything known to us, and forgiveness gushed from His wounds. He bore our sins within His perfect body, endured rejection by the One He adored above all others, and returned to Mary just as He said.

  66. Stephen says:

    Can’t reply to a wanker or a bent banana kind of a person. You’ve got too much trouble in the mind for me to deal with you. Too much anger.
    Go in peace. We cannot have a serious conversation as I have noted in the past so you go your way, I’m going to my creator one day.

  67. rayjwarren says:

    steevie weevie please, you know you are a halfwit and spend most of your time running through Wiki or anything else online to assist your meagre attempt of a brain. Please go away, you have no credibility here at all.

  68. nowayjose says:

    That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

    Present tense recording by someone who was right there, up close and in broad daylight, at dusk and when night time fell bringing cool breezes with stars twinkling over head, his figure softly silhouetted on the warm desert sand.

    Yet, there was nothing particularly appealing about his physical stature, the way he looked. In fact, most people with whom He interacted, had no idea He was special, let alone God Almighty!

    However, glory! a few recognized Him instantly. Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:

    “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
    you now dismiss your servant in peace.
    For my eyes have seen your salvation,
    which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
    a light for revelation to the Gentiles
    and for glory to your people Israel.”

    • nowayjose says:

      “None of the writings were contemporary with Jesus. They were all written after his death and make no claim to be eye-witness accounts. In each case, they are merely repeating what was told to them; we call that “hearsay” and it is not evidence.”

      That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

  69. nowayjose says:

    The LORD says to my LORD: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” I and the Father are one. Imagine! Try to imagine that you are looking at this guy as part of a small crowd, 2,000 years ago, and hearing Him say those words; that He could be seen and heard and handled at all is mind-boggling. He who has seen me has seen the Father.

    So, if I had been alive then and lived in that immediate region, I too, could have observed Him and followed Him and asked Him questions. I could have watched Him crouch down and wash his face in a cool pool of water or pick up stones and skip them. I could have watched Him cry and hug children and sit on a mountain in silence gazing upon all He had made. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

    If I could turn back time. Yet, He is just as alive and real and human/divine as He was when He rebuked His followers for their continual lack of faith.

  70. Stephen says:

    Acts is of the New Testament, written/authored/whatever at the 1st council of Nicaea under the ruler Constantine in the years 325-328 AD.
    Do you really want to base your beliefs on written works that date to 300 years after the death of Jesus? Do you really believe there were any texts that survived a 300 year period where there was no records keeping by the general public?
    I prefer the OT, written thousands of years earlier by the Hebrews/Jews. I am neither, was raised a catholic, am not just a true believer in God.
    CYa

    • Deacon Mark Baker says:

      Unfotunately the statement that the N.T. was written around the time of niece is false. We have manuscripts going back to the early 100’s 125 to be exact as well as thousands of quotations from early Christian writers before Nicea that quote the N.T. We also have mention of a fourfold Gospel in the 2nd century. Just because you quote a RCC encyclopedia that has a liberal bent in claiming the Gospel writers were not MMLJ does not mean that is the Church’s position Try looking at the Catholic Encyclopedia by Stienmueller and Vatican II says the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. So that encyclopedia you quote is not a Church statement but some scholars opinion. We can proof text anything.

      • majikimaje says:

        Then who keeps answering all my prayers for 70 years ??
        God made simple PROMISES – He keeps His promises !!

      • Doc says:

        Well it’s perfectly fine to hold your own personal beliefs. However, if you were to ask a learned theological historian they would tell you exactly what I have stated. If anyone tells you differently, please give me the credentials of that person and their name and I’ll look them up to see if in fact they have credentials to dispute historical facts and then I’ll give them a shout out. But it really was written at Nicaea and is where the decisions by ‘men not God’ to include or not include this text or that text or this book or that book.
        You have to remember the catholic branch of christianity is indeed the largest in the world and has more ‘documents’ than any other entity regarding christianity. They really are the benchmark for info. May not be info I adhere to but nonetheless they have the most documents.
        You are relying on a manuscript, the NT, that was solely assembled based on ‘human beings-men’ persons, not God. Go figure.
        He took the time to give us the 10 commandments because that’s all we need to be good people, yet he forgot to give us a many hundred page manuscript that we are supposed to believe is more important than the commandments?
        Not possible.
        Mankind has screwed up what they call religion ever since the first one was created.
        But it is your choice since you have a free will.
        Me, I’m just a God guy.
        Cya

  71. nowayjose says:

    And He always has been God. “Before Abraham was, I AM”, he said, and he has always been, He has always existed for all eternity for the purpose of redeeming mankind. He didn’t become God at some point after he had put on flesh and blood. Upon conception, He was just as much God as He was before and afterwards. He came from the Father and returned to Him, although, He did not consider being equal to God as justification to escape the status as a lowly man. I would have paraded and trumpeted the glory of my divinity.

  72. Stephen says:

    I do not understand why Christians call Jesus, Christ. Christ is an adjective. To use it properly, without giving insult, one has to say Jesus The Christ.
    Never fails to see a so called Christian not know their saviors real name?

    Jesus of Nazareth of the House of David is believed to be his real name/association even though this too is under question since the letter J with what we call the ‘J’ sound did not even exist until 1500 AD.

    Look up the book of Hosea and simply read where our god, yes we only have one god no matter how many disagreements we may have over other things in life. He clearly states (I will paraphrase but you will be able to understand when you read it)
    Beside me, there is no other savior.

    Now I keep saying it but people keep dodging the statement I make. Because they either have to accept Gods words or turn their backs on him so they prefer to ignore the situation as if it did not exist.

    You can believe what God says or turn your back on him. He, God, is the only one that ever said he was our savior.

    Christians, not Jesus, say Jesus is our savior. Remember what I said. Jesus did not say ‘I am your savior’. Through Textual Criticism, interpretation and all the other ways man creates in his own mind what he wants to hear, the christian church/the catholic church has created this.

    Simply look at the RCC Encyclopedia. You’ll be shocked at what the RCC admits, literally shocked.
    CYa

  73. nowayjose says:

    Evidence for Christ’s physical appearance on earth is abundant. Most people who reject him don’t do so because they are not convinced He was real. People accept as factual all kinds of things with substantially less evidence. That’s not the issue. Willingness to submit oneself to His authority is the challenge. That is what really turns people away from “believing” in Him.

    And, for anyone who is truly desirous to know whether or not He really was the Son of God and if He really did rise from the dead, there is a sure fire way to find out, right now. And it is so simple. Ask Him, sincerely. If you are not serious, forget it. But, if you really want to know, you will find the truth. Because, If He isn’t real, if He didn’t rise from the dead, you will get silence. On the other hand, I guarantee you and so will my born again brothers and sisters, if you pursue Him personally, individually, by asking Him directly, and seeking Him with all your heart and soul and mind and strength, He will reveal Himself to you. He’ll make it abundantly clear that He is God, that He is alive today and in love with you, more than you could ever imagine.

  74. Stephen says:

    It just shows how ignorant you are regarding christianity. The center pole of their belief tent is that Jesus is the son of God and their savior.
    Maybe now I understand why you have been so ‘out there’, you don’t even understand christianity.
    Christianity teaches that unless you believe that Jesus is the son of God and accept him as your savior you will not be saved and suffer for eternity.
    But telling someone like you, who is very angry, very aggressive, very wrong to say the least, nets nothing.
    I won’t respond to you any longer. Maybe someone else in this group can provide you with the pillars of christianity, maybe not.
    But for now, you are just someone taking up space, breathing air someone else could benefit from, and ranting about things you have no knowledge about.
    Now, peace be with you. You will meet your creator one day and he’ll explain it all to you.
    I’m moving on to more intelligent people and conversations that do not develop into anger.
    Stephen

  75. nowayjose says:

    Precious indeed. Men wrote about the man Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago. We have thousands of copies of their originally recorded words describing him and quoting him and telling us all about him. Imagine! Many apostles were murdered for believing in him when they could have been spared had they simply denied him. They were stoned to death, sawed in half, stabbed to death. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated. They had no earthly profit. Aye, matey, he is all too real. That isn’t the issue. The issue is, what are you going to do about him?

    • nowayjose says:

      A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

      Not new evidence but often overlooked and something for which His kids are not necessarily receiving rave reviews. Who wants evidence? Let her hang out with Christians who strive to obey this, the newest of the commandments. Little children, I am with you only a little while longer. You will look for Me, and as I said to the Jews, so now I say to you: ‘Where I am going, you cannot come. ’A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”…

      The burden is partly on Christians to convince the world that Jesus was who He said He was. Any form of real evidence is important, but this type of proof is only something those who love him can present. It is a huge responsibility but also a blessing and a half. To see hearts melt overwhelmed by exposure to divine love as it flows back and forth among His followers. “My gosh man, maybe this christian god dude is the real deal!”

      To me the key is this: as I have loved you, you love each other. How did Jesus love? He forgave. He was patient, kind, always believing the best about us. And he sacrificed everything to become a ransom for us, to rescue us from all that sin takes from us and others and from the hell of never fulfilling our destiny.

  76. Stephen says:

    Why is it that people keep making these claims but never can produce an ‘ancient’ text, one that predates the christian created documents to prove their position? Don’t they realize the RCC Encyclopedia by it’s self, admits much of the ‘NT’ was created at the first Ecumenical Council, the Council of Nicaea? There are no ancient texts, chinese or otherwise that speak of Jesus. Besides remember, ….. The letter J with the J sound we use …… did not exist till1500 AD. How could anyone have said the word ….. Jesus …… as we do today? Not possibly. Just malarkey.

  77. Ian Yoo says:

    No evidence for Jesus outside of the Bible? Seriously, this site is killing me. There’s thousands of historical documents written about Jesus even BEFORE he came. Like I tell literally everyone here: RESEARCH. Even ancient chinese writing proves Jesus’s existence. Many traditional/ancient characters contain stories exactly matching the descriptions of major events in the Bible. For example, the Chinese character for boat/ark/big boat contains the character for “boat,” “eight” (ba), and “people” (kou). Now, why on Earth would ancient Chinese people have those specific characters there? Oh, maybe because there was a global flood where EIGHT PEOPLE went on a BOAT to escape a FLOOD.

  78. Stephen says:

    All of those 42 or so documents are documents that were or are datable after Jesus.
    And you folks never seem to get it. The letter J, for the j-j-j- sound did not exist till 1500.
    So really you are telling me that a name with a letter/sound that did not exist until 1500 was indeed in what you call ‘ancient texts’?
    Really
    If Jesus was who the christian/RCC claims he was the Roman Empire would have tons of literature on him. Not just one scirbbling here or there.
    It would be comprised of volumes after volumes of documents about this Nazarien that came out of nowhere, raised the dead, made the blind see, cured the sick, and came back to life after being crucified.
    This group of events would have been written about by every scholar in the known world and the volumes of works would be astounding.
    Yet, there is little or nothing outside of the RCC’s massive ‘in house documents’ regarding Jesus.

    Thallus?
    “Thallus (Greek: Θαλλός) was an early historian who wrote in Koine Greek. He wrote a three-volume history of the Mediterranean world from before the Trojan War to the 167th Olympiad, c. 112-109 BC. Most of his work, like the vast majority of ancient literature, has been lost, although some of his writings were quoted by Sextus Julius Africanus in his History of the World.[2][3][4]

    The works are considered important by some Christians because they believe them to confirm the historicity of Jesus and provide non-Christian validation of the Gospel accounts: a reference to a historical eclipse, attributed to Thallus, has been taken as a mention of the worldwide darkness described in the Synoptic gospels account of the death of Jesus, although an eclipse could not have taken place during Passover when this took place.[5][6][7] Most modern scholars see the darkness as a literary creation rather than a historical event.[8]”

    This person is noted to have written works but you don’t tell people that he lived @ 700 years before Jesus.
    And there is no note of Jesus in the Jewish ‘Word’ which is also used as the OT in christian bibles.
    Why would not such an important issue be included in the Jewish ‘Word’ (Tanakh Tora)?

    Christianity as is with all man made religions is just that. Man made.

    So many mithras, so many mithras.

    There is but one God and he is yours and my savior and none other is.

  79. Angel says:

    I believe you are wrong about all of this. This is so stupid I have to say this but this is all lies and these bible verses aren’t right.

    • tomschaber says:

      OK, I’m all ears. Prove to me anything that is wrong in what I wrote. ALL lies? Really ALL? Then t should be easy for you to provide evidence that even one statement is false.

  80. rayjwarren says:

    So we have come down to attacking Nationalities now and not stupid religious belief, I am sure there are many Aussie Drongoes out there who would like to talk to you about that and I am sure many Brits would like to know why you have brought them into your paltry arguments. Steeevie Weevie, you just cannot be taken seriously.

  81. rayjwarren says:

    Here is the reference to Bale and his Satire on Pope Leo 10 who was a Pedophile and debauched person of the Roman Catholic faith. Today we have the same type of person wearing Priest’s cassocks and who probably make such statements among one another. The fact that a wayward priest or even Pope makes evil and traitorous statements is not unbelievable but that does not mean that Jesus did not exist just as surely as surely as hundreds of other heroes whose names appear in human history. Below is what I believe Pope Leo’s punishment was for his wrongful sexual activities within the Church. For those who make statements that they say have been previously recorded on this matter, please present the written proofs not unsupported hearsay.

    Question;

    Non-Catholics have told me that Pope Leo X said, “It has served us well, this myth of Christ.” Is this true?

    Answer

    Although the quote is commonly attributed without source documentation to Pope Leo X, it is believed to have originated in a satirical piece titled “The Pageant of the Popes” by a Protestant controversialist named John Bale (1495–1563). Bale wrote: “For on a time when a Cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: ‘All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie.’”

  82. Stephen says:

    Ray, you need to study the DSS. I have. They have great information and insight.
    Where did an inbred person like you ever hear or read that I did not have any belief in the DSS?
    You doing DOPE, you DOPE?
    I am shocked by your ignorance in not being able to read a post and stick with the topic without making stuff up?

    So please, where did I say that I did not believe in or know of or have any faith in the DSS?
    Where?

    Besides, the electronic copies of the DSS that I have seen are broken, torn, incomplete for the most part.

    The ones that have been reassembled and made as complete as they could be were done primarily by the Jewish scholars, not christian scholars.

    I’m really sad to think you may not have anyone around to care for you. You may be sick.
    I’m not a Jew and have never desired to become one, don’t have to be one to be rewarded when I leave this rock.

    My upbringing as a catholic is all I needed in later life to see how I was lied to.

    You are one of those ‘drongo aussies’ or a ‘banana bender’ aren’t you?
    More British than Aussie in reality?

    • rayjwarren says:

      Stephan, I am truly worried about your Hebrew sucking beliefs trying to undermine Christianity, you don’t like it, so, I do not like any stupid thing you say, your brain is like a colander, it can hold nothing. If you have studied the DSS as you wish to call them, perhaps you can tell me what language they were written in and when without resorting to you little Wiki assistant. If you like oh Brainless one, we can begin discussions on just what books were and were not found and to what extent each book follows the Biblical data preserved. You and I already both know that the Hebrews brought the Aten Religion out of Egypt and although trying to continue the Apis religion, the eventually formed the religion of the Hebrews and Jews from Atenism and Hammurabi’s Mesopotamian religion. The Jews have taken the God of the two greatest civilizations the Earth has produced and today you claim that same God as your number one belief, why, because like all religious peoples, you have nothing else to put your faith in. Oh yes, by the way, Jewish scholars are scholars are only scholars in Jewish material, they have nothing but hate for anything that differs from what they try to portray as true religion yet no matter where you go in their religious material, it is all a copy of much earlier material from countries that they tried to infiltrate. What you need to do my friend is go by yourself a fish head mitre, get the Egyptian book of the dead and the Song of the Aten [psalm 104] and put your feet up and read for a couple of centuries. Whatever I might be Steevie Weevie, I do have a Banana to bend, I bet you wet your leg quite a bit Middle Easterner.

  83. Stephen says:

    It is a unique trait of persons not able to support their claims about christianity to wander on with meaningless information.

    There is a group, the largest group in the world, the RCC, that has more documents from antiquity concerning not only Christianity, but many civilizations past than any other group outside of the Hebrews/Jews.

    Their own documents, whether or not someone wants to believe it, are their documents, they are actually ancient unlike those used to create the ‘bible’ Christians use and have used since it’s first existence in @ 325/328 AD. These are facts, scientific facts, agreed upon by the RCC.

    They may not be believable to any one person here, or all of you, but the largest group of Christians believe it to be so.

    So instead of attacking me or others, why not spend a decade reading them, researching them, and trying to understand that there is a huge flaw in not only this group but all man made religions.

    He said (God), Besides me there is no other savior. Go figure why the Christians say Jesus is their savior. Why Islam says Mohammad is their prophet, why Buddhist say Buddha is and on and on and on. Only God is your savior, whether or not you like it.
    Who/what he is? I have no idea.

    • rayjwarren says:

      Nobody is attacking you poor Steevan Stephen, Steffan are you feeling a little insecure at thew moment? Yo have to stop posting such easily broken down rubbish and try coming up with something that will make you minutely believable. Stevie weevie, You know that the dead sea scrolls are the oldest known biblical scripts that have been written down intact in BC, other than the Bible itself and that book has been followed long and hard by Jews, Christians and Muslims. The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia is merely a copy of documents written or passed down verbally and is no different to hat you accuse the Christians of doing. Steve you are a fool and should not try to create argument in this Blog because you are no good at it, you sound more like an uneducated Troll who makes far too many mistakes. Sure Christians have only the material written by the Jesus disciples but that should be enough no matter when they were written, even if they were written yesterday, they would be pertinent because the information has been handed down by word of mouth. The Australian Aboriginals have been dispossessed of their lands for over one hundred years now [some much longer] and yet they still know their dream time records and their lands are now recorded and believed in law, yet foolish you try to take away the oral records of native peoples all around the world by trying to dispel that which is believed by Christians. Any sensible person understands why the Aboriginals believed a giant snake created the rivers in Australia, how mountains were formed and etc. Yet you in your stupid backwoods way, try to show that oral traditions are not acceptable? Steevie Weevie, grow up and leave people to their own beliefs, as long as they do not come and attack you, they are, like you entitled to follow what they like. Stop quoting the Catholics all the time, they did not want you in your weakness and would not like you using their material against them in your untruthful way. Poe Leo was your worst stupidity so far and you should try to leave it at that.

      • Stephen says:

        Well until you can provide actual proof, not just your beliefs, to support your position, there is not much I can do or say.
        And your supporting structure is : “handed down by word of mouth” is still pertinent? You don’t know much about sociology it appears.
        This is one of the weakest methods of receiving factual information, most assuredly over centuries.

        I’m not here to sway anyone, just thought more intelligent responses would flow. Learning is enjoyable if one is surrounded by intelligent people.
        It seems you have a chip on the shoulder or some other reason to be spiteful or attempt to degrade other people and their beliefs.
        Either way, we’ll all know when we pass on to whatever there is.
        I’ll pray for you anyway.
        Cya

      • rayjwarren says:

        Well now Steevie, Is that your “Holier than thou” attitude? I notice that you jump straight off the ralis and ignore the Dead Sea Scrolls completely, that shows where you are coming from so if you have your God belief, why are you here annoying those who do not believe, pestering those who do and creating anger in those who believe in historic people but not their doings. Give up Steven, you are just a nuisance for everyone because you have nothing you can discuss.

      • Stephen says:

        Ray, you avoid so that you cannot be conversed with. But that’s you, not me.
        You try to belittle people but it’s coming from a weak posture, proven in your childish rantings.
        Did mom or dad abuse you and cause this attitude you have or did someone else in your life do something to make you this angry about a simple thing like whether or not there is a God?
        I have always given you the names of the supporting documents for you to peruse but you have never done such according to your statements, and that’s okay. You expect someone to spoon feed you but it’s not going to happen with me. You must be a grown up or at least the age to be considered one so you need to do it yourself.
        One has the right to do so but it’s weak.
        Wish you well, and praying for you.
        Gone to the Golf Course, back later!
        Cya

      • rayjwarren says:

        In pure Aussie vernacular Stevie, you are a dope, a moron who is here simply to bung on an act and that is what you do the whole time. As the Platters once sang, You are the Great Pretender. Why do you still avoid the Dead Sea Scrolls, they shut down your ancient document rubbish? You have no arguments at all and I now firmly believe that you are entrenched in Judaeism and are trying to walk the anti-Christian line with that sect. I know longer read you Stevie Weevie.

    • rayjwarren says:

      Stephen you are a bloody idiot, the pot you are smoking has too much meth in it. You are a walking advertisement for the RCC and for the Jews, yet you say that they are not believable? What are you trying to promote, your own self styled Benny Hinn type religion? You are a complete nutter and have no real sense for what you are posting. I think you are a woman going through Menopause. Oh, by the way, Christians do not say that Jesus is their savior you fool, they say that God is their savior and that Jesus is God in human form, whereby you get some of them making it short and just stating that Jesus is their Savior. You are really one sick puppy..

    • Deacon Mark Baker says:

      This is Deacon Mark Baker again it is not a scientific fact that the N.T. existed for the first time in 325/328 A.D. 150 A.D. In his works, Justin quotes from all four gospels. In his first Apology (66), he writes,
      “For the
      apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto
      us what was enjoined upon them…” Then Justin describes the institution of the Lord’s Supper. He also writes in his first Apology (67), “On the day cal
      led Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased the president verbally instructs, and exho
      rts to the imitation of these good things.”
      Justin quotes Matthew 11:27 and 16:21 in his Dialogue with Trypho 100. He quotes Mark 3:17 in his Dialogue with Trypho 106. He quotes Luke 22:44 in Trypho 103 and Luke 23:46 in Trypho 105 and he quotes John 3:3 in his first Apology 61. Although Justin does not specifically mention the name of any author of the gospels, he clearly shows that they were written by apostles and their close associates.

      Now this does not prove Christianity of Jesus as the Messiah but you keep making the statement that the Gospels were written 325/328 A.D. Do not make such foolish statements. All four Gospels are quoted extensively before the 300’s. All the council of Nicea did was to determine the cannon of the N.T.

  84. rayjwarren says:

    Yes Truthslayer, as long as you stick to deriding the miracles and not the people, it is fine. You have not seemed to understand that all notables in history had a beginning and to try and take away from that beginning is so silly. If you do not like the doings of Benny Hinn [the Evangelist miracle worker] then attack his workings but to say that he does not exist is ridiculous in the extreme. Stop attacking Moses Abraham and Jesus in that way, they have been known to history for a very long time. If you don’t like their cooking, do not eat it but do not deny their being.

  85. Dan says:

    One may as well say , rather than all this , that Jews don’t believe in Jesus , all writings were destroyed by the Jews

    • Stephen says:

      Can you send me a link to whatever it is that will tell me the Jews destroyed any and all documents regarding Jesus?
      I’m just asking. I’m not trying to open up another can of worms. This blog has way too many of them opened already.
      But it would be worth reading if you can direct me to something ‘specific’.

      • Yeah, I want to see that too. Like Stephen, I am also interested not in debating, but finding out the truth. If you can provide us with a link to the info, I will be very thankful.

      • rayjwarren says:

        As you who study ancient documents [Steevan, Stephen Steffan] will obviously know, the ancient cave scrolls from Qumran [spelling may not be correct] of which there were 11 caves containing many books of the Bible found in the 1950’s? The scrolls were found to contain one complete book [Isaah] and many other incomplete books along with a copper map of buried Jewish treasures that were placed during the Roman occupation. This area was occupied by the Essenes who were a religious group [Jews] that did not follow all the teachings of the main Jewish group. They were much disliked and their work certainly could have been the reason for any destruction of Jesus belief at that time. The Romans destroyed their village, perhaps with Jewish pressure but the Essenes saved their scrolls hidden away in the caves. The teachings of the Essenes had some similarity with the Jesus teachings and this could have been a concerted effort by the Jews at getting rid of an unwanted break away group or sect. The leader of the Essenes was also killed and could have been a standard for the Jesus story, who knows? I do know that the Jews digging up Israel and all over the Palestinian lands will be destroying anything of religious significance to both Muslims and Christians for they are a jealous people who believe that only they are the chosen ones, no matter how much they are battered throughout history for their wrong doings, they believe that they are special. Sad is it not?.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Even to the most energetic hater of Jesus, would realize that the Jews destroyed Jesus himself [according to Rome and to the Christians] so why would the Jews not cast out all written material on someone they hated so much? That is not too hard for childish minds to understand is it not???

    • rayjwarren says:

      The Jews do not believe in anything or anyone outside their religion, mark my words, they [if they ever become a great population] will be the destroyers of all races on Earth because their hatred exceeds their brothers the Muslims.

  86. Stephen says:

    I’m not really interested in whether or not a person named (J)esus ever existed in reality.
    This all came about after a discussion with some christians that wondered why (J)esus was not my savior.
    I indicated because God himself said in the Book of Hosea, an ancient text, not a more modern or AD text that besides him there was no other savior.
    I kinda took it upon myself to see what’s up.
    It turns out that there is actual ancient texts, stuff dating back thousands upon thousands of years that indicate and support the Book of Hosea as being a real, ancient hebrew text. It’s actual verbatim translation is from ancient texts not from later civilizations such as the greeks which did much translation of many/most christian text.
    after this eye opener I have always wondered and looked to find more info as to whether or not the (J)esus was the one and only son of God as the christians claim (I was a christian/catholic for 40 or so years) and have found much that contradicts the chrisitan belief system and nearly 90% of it is in the RCC encyclopedia(s) (since there are several versions). However the RCC has one they reference and it seems to run true through all of them.
    I am really amazed at the anger that is raised her. Off the charts. Just trying to learn.

  87. rayjwarren says:

    Well it does not rub me mate, I could not care less about your little search for God, it does not matter to me in the least if you find a God or not. I do not have that worry in my life and could not care if there is or if there is no God/s I just do not like3 the things that you insinuate in your mild mannered Clark Kentish way. You constant reference to the Catholic Encyclopaedia tells me that you are coming from the same direction as D.M Murdock and frankly, I do not believe a word you say, you are just trolling around hoping someone will convince you that a God does exist, if one does, it will not be for you.

    • chris says:

      Did Jesus Christ really exist
      Did Jesus Christ really exist, or is Christianity built upon a legend? Few scholars question Jesus’ existence, but some enemies of Christianity are attempting to prove otherwise.

      In a lawsuit against the Vatican, the Church was accused of inventing the story of Jesus’ existence. Although the case was thrown out of court in February, 2006, the plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, appealed, but ultimately his case was closed.

      The argument against Jesus’ existence was made public on CNN TV when Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, declared:

      “The reality is there is not one shred of secular evidence there ever was a Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and Christianity is a modern religion. And Jesus Christ is a compilation from other gods: Osiris, Mithras, who had the same origins, the same death as the mythological Jesus Christ.” – Ellen Johnson, atheist

      Johnson and a blue-ribbon panel of religious leaders were discussing the question, “What happens after we die?” on a Larry King Live CNN broadcast. The usually unflappable King paused reflectively and then replied, “So you don’t believe there was a Jesus Christ?”

      With an air of certainty, Johnson responded, “There was not. It is not what I believe; there is no secular evidence that JC, Jesus Christ, ever existed.”

      King had no follow-up and went to a commercial break. No discussion of any evidence for or against Jesus’ existence was forthcoming. The international television audience was left wondering.1

      Fifty years earlier, in his book Why I Am Not a Christian, atheist Bertrand Russell shocked his generation by questioning Jesus’ existence. He wrote: “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one.”2

      Is it possible that the Jesus so many believe to be real never existed? In The Story of Civilization, secular historian Will Durant posed this question: “Did Christ exist? Is the life story of the founder of Christianity the product of human sorrow, imagination, and hope—a myth comparable to the legends of Krishna, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and Mithras?”3 Durant pointed out how the story of Christianity has “many suspicious resemblances to the legends of pagan gods.”4 Later in this article we will see how this great historian answered his own question about the existence of Jesus.

      So, how can we know for sure that this man, whom many worship and others curse, was real? Is Johnson right when she asserts that Jesus Christ is a “compilation from other gods”? And is Russell right when he says that Jesus’ existence is “quite doubtful”?

      Myth vs. Reality
      Let’s begin with a more foundational question: What distinguishes myth from reality? How do we know, for example that Alexander the Great really existed? Supposedly, in 336 b.c., Alexander the Great became king of Macedonia at 20 years of age. A military genius, this handsome, arrogant leader butchered his way through villages, towns, and kingdoms of the Greco-Persian world until he ruled it all. In a short eight years Alexander’s armies had traversed a total of 22,000 miles in his conquests.

      It has been said of Alexander that he cried when he ran out of worlds to conquer. (I’m thinking, this is not the person I want to play Monopoly with.)

      Before he died at age 32, Alexander reportedly accomplished greater military deeds than anyone in history, not only of the kings who had lived before him, but also of those who were to come later, down to our own time. But today, other than a bunch of cities named Alexandria, a boring film by Oliver Stone, and a few books, his legacy is all but forgotten. In fact, the name Colin Farrell had more drawing power at the box office than Alexander’s.

      In spite of the box office flop, historians believe Alexander existed because of three primary reasons:

      •written documentation from early historians
      •historical impact
      •other historical and archaeological evidence

      Historical Documents About Jesus
      The historicity of Alexander the Great and his military conquests is drawn from five ancient sources, none of whom were eyewitnesses. Although written 400 years after Alexander, Plutarch’s Life of Alexander is the primary account of his life.

      Since Plutarch and the other writers were several hundred years removed from the events of Alexander’s life, they based their information on prior accounts. Of the twenty contemporary historical accounts on Alexander, not one survives. Later accounts exist, but each presents a different “Alexander,” with much left to our imagination. But regardless of the time gap of several hundred years, historians are convinced that Alexander was a real man and that the essential details of what we read about his life are true.

      Keeping Alexander as a reference point, we’ll note that for Jesus there are both religious and secular historical accounts. But we must ask the question, were they written by reliable and objective historians? Let’s take a brief look.

      The New Testament
      The 27 New Testament books claim to be written by authors who either knew Jesus or received firsthand knowledge of him from others. The four Gospel accounts record Jesus’ life and words from different perspectives. These accounts have been heavily scrutinized by scholars both inside Christianity and outside it.

      Scholar John Dominic Crossan believes that less than 20 percent of what we read in the Gospels are original sayings of Jesus. Yet even this skeptic doesn’t dispute that Jesus Christ really lived.

      In spite of Crossan’s views, and those of a few other fringe scholars like him, the consensus of most historians is that the Gospel accounts give us a clear picture of Jesus Christ. Whether the New Testament accounts are trustworthy is the subject of another article (See “Jesus.doc”), so we will look to non-Christian sources for our answer as to whether Jesus existed.

      Early Non-Christian Accounts
      So, which first-century historians who wrote of Jesus did not have a Christian agenda? First of all, let’s look to Jesus’ enemies.

      His Jewish opponents had the most to gain by denying Jesus’ existence. But the evidence points in the opposite direction. “Several Jewish writings also tell of His flesh-and-blood existence. Both Gemaras of the Jewish Talmud refer to Jesus. Although these consist of only a few brief, bitter passages intended to discount Jesus’ deity, these very early Jewish writings don’t begin to hint that he was not a historical person.”5

      Flavius Josephus was a noted Jewish historian who began writing under Roman authority in a.d. 67. Josephus, who was born just a few years after Jesus died, would have been keenly aware of Jesus’ reputation among both Romans and Jews. In his famous Antiquities of the Jews (a.d. 93), Josephus wrote of Jesus as a real person. “At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men, and joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah.”6 Although there is dispute about some of the wording in the account, especially the reference to Jesus being the Messiah (scholars are skeptical, thinking that Christians inserted this phrase), certainly Josephus confirmed his existence.

      What about secular historians—those who lived in ancient times but weren’t religiously motivated? There is current confirmation of at least 19 early secular writers who made references to Jesus as a real person.7

      One of antiquity’s greatest historians, Cornelius Tacitus, affirmed that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. Tacitus was born around 25 years after Jesus died, and he had seen the spread of Christianity begin to impact Rome. The Roman historian wrote negatively of Christ and Christians, identifying them in a.d. 115 as “a race of men detested for their evil practices, and commonly called Chrestiani. The name was derived from Chrestus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, suffered under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea.”8

      The following facts about Jesus were written by early non-Christian sources:
      •Jesus was from Nazareth.
      •Jesus lived a wise and virtuous life.
      •Jesus was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king.
      •Jesus was believed by his disciples to have died and risen from the dead three days later.
      •Jesus’ enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called “sorcery.”
      •Jesus’ small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading as far as Rome.
      •Jesus’ disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Christ as God.
      Theologian Norman Geisler remarked:

      “This general outline is perfectly congruent with that of the New Testament.”9

      All of these independent accounts, religious and secular, speak of a real man who matches up well with the Jesus in the Gospels. Encyclopedia Britannica cites these various secular accounts of Jesus’ life as convincing proof of his existence. It states:

      “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.”10

      Historical Impact
      An important distinction between a myth and a real person is how the figure impacts history. For example, books have been written and movies produced about King Arthur of Camelot and his Knights of the Roundtable. These characters have become so notorious that many believe they were real people. But historians who have searched for clues to their existence have been unable to discover any impact they have had on laws, ethics, or religion. A kingdom with the grandeur of Camelot should certainly have left its footprints on contemporary history. This lack of historical impact indicates King Arthur and his Knights of the Roundtable are simply mythical.

      The historian Thomas Carlyle said, “No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men.”11 As Carlyle notes, it is real people, not myths, who impact history.

      As a real person, Alexander impacted history by his military conquests, altering nations, governments, and laws. But what of Jesus Christ and his impact on our world?

      The first-century governments of Israel and Rome were largely untouched by Jesus’ life. The average Roman citizen didn’t know he existed until many years after his death, Roman culture remained largely aloof from his teaching for decades, and it would be several centuries before killing Christians in the coliseum became a national pastime. The rest of the world had little if any knowledge of him. Jesus marshaled no army. He didn’t write a book or change any laws. The Jewish leaders hoped to wipe out his memory, and it appeared they would succeed.

      Today, however, ancient Rome lies in ruins. Caesar’s mighty legions and the pomp of Roman imperial power have faded into oblivion. Yet how is Jesus remembered today? What is his enduring influence?

      •More books have been written about Jesus than about any other person in history.
      •Nations have used his words as the bedrock of their governments. According to Durant, “The triumph of Christ was the beginning of democracy.”12
      •His Sermon on the Mount established a new paradigm in ethics and morals.
      •Schools, hospitals, and humanitarian works have been founded in his name. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Oxford are but a few universities that have Christians to thank for their beginning.
      •The elevated role of women in Western culture traces its roots back to Jesus. (Women in Jesus’ day were considered inferior and virtual nonpersons until his teaching was followed.)
      •Slavery was abolished in Britain and America due to Jesus’ teaching that each human life is valuable.
      •Former drug and alcohol dependents, prostitutes, and others seeking purpose in life claim him as the explanation for their changed lives.
      •Two billion people call themselves Christians. While some are Christian in name only, others continue to impact our culture by teaching Jesus’ principles that all life is valuable and we are to love one another.
      Remarkably, Jesus made all of this impact as a result of just a three-year period of public ministry. If Jesus didn’t exist, one must wonder how a myth could so alter history. When world historian H. G. Wells was asked who has left the greatest legacy on history, he replied, “By this test Jesus stands first.”13

      Documentary evidence and historical impact point to the fact that Jesus did exist. If Jesus did really exist, we also would expect to discover his footprints imprinted within the details of history. Myths don’t leave such confirming details.

      One of the keys here for Durant and other scholars is the time factor. Myths and legends usually take hundreds of years to evolve—the story of George Washington never telling a lie was probably a lie, until two centuries turned it into legend. News of Christianity, on the other hand, spread too quickly to be attributed to a myth or legend. Had Jesus not existed, those who opposed Christianity would certainly have labeled him a myth from the outset. But they didn’t.

      Such evidence, along with the early written accounts and the historical impact of Jesus Christ, convince even skeptical historians that the founder of Christianity was neither myth nor legend. But one expert on myths wasn’t so sure.

      Like Muggeridge, Oxford scholar C. S. Lewis was initially convinced that Jesus was nothing more than a myth. Lewis once stated, “All religions, that is, all mythologies … are merely man’s own invention—Christ as much as Loki.”15 (Loki is an old Norse god. Like Thor, but without the ponytail.)

      Ten years after denouncing Jesus as a myth, Lewis discovered that historical details, including several eyewitness documents, verify his existence.

      Jesus Christ has impacted history’s landscape like a massive earthquake. And this earthquake has left a trail wider than the Grand Canyon. It is this trail of evidence that convinces scholars that Jesus really did exist and really did impact our world 2,000 years ago.

      One skeptic who thought Jesus was a myth was British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge. But on a television assignment to Israel, Muggeridge was faced with evidence about Jesus Christ that he didn’t know existed. As he checked out historical places—Jesus’ birthplace, Nazareth, the crucifixion site, and the empty tomb—a sense of Jesus’ reality began to emerge.

      Later he stated

      “It was while I was in the Holy Land for the purpose of making three B.B.C. television programmes on the New Testament that a … certainty seized me about Jesus’ birth, ministry and Crucifixion. … I became aware that there really had been a man, Jesus, who was also God.”14

      Some German higher-critical scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries had questioned Jesus’ existence, pointing out that such key figures as Pontius Pilate and the chief priest Joseph Caiaphas in the Gospel accounts had never been confirmed as real. No rebuttal was possible until the mid-20th century.

      Archaeologists in 1962 confirmed Pilate’s existence when they discovered his name included in an inscription on an excavated stone. Likewise, the existence of Caiaphas was uncertain until 1990, when an ossuary (bone box) was discovered bearing his inscription. Archaeologists have also discovered what they believe to be Simon Peter’s house and a cave where John the Baptist did his baptizing.

      Finally, perhaps the most convincing historical evidence that Jesus existed was the rapid rise of Christianity. How can it be explained without Christ? How could this group of fishermen and other workingmen invent Jesus in a scant few years? Durant answered his own introductory question—did Christ exist?—with the following conclusion:

      That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.

      Scholars’ Verdict
      Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, remarked of Jesus’ historicity, “Christianity knew its Saviour and Redeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith. … Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself on the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts.”16

      Few if any serious historians agree with Ellen Johnson’s and Bertrand Russell’s assertions that Jesus didn’t exist. The extensive documentation of Jesus’ life by contemporary writers, his profound historical impact, and the confirming tangible evidence of history have persuaded scholars that Jesus really did exist. Could a myth have done all that? All but a few extremely skeptical scholars say no.

      Dr. Michael Grant of Cambridge has written, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.’ “17

      Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan declared, “Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries. … It is from his birth that most of the human race dates its calendars, it is by his name that millions curse and in his name that millions pray.”18

      ——————————————————————————–

      ENDNOTES
      1.Ellen Johnson and Larry King, “What Happens After We Die?” Larry King Live, CNN, April 14, 2005.nn
      2.Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 16.
      3.Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972), 553.
      4.Ibid., 557.
      5.D. James Kennedy, Skeptics Answered (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1997), 76.
      6.The Gemaras are early rabbinical commentaries of the Jewish Talmud, a body of theological writings, dated a.d. 200–500.6 Quoted in Durant, 554.
      7.Quoted in D. James Kennedy, Skeptics Answered, (Sisters Oregon: Multnomah Publishers Inc., 1997), 73.
      8.Quoted in Durant, 281.
      9.Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino, Unshakable Foundations (Grand Rapids, MI: Bethany House, 2001), 269.
      10.Quoted in Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, vol. 1 (Nashville: Nelson, 1979), 87.
      11.Quoted in Christopher Lee, This Sceptred Isle, 55 B.C.–1901 (London: Penguin, 1997), 1.
      12.Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (New York: Pocket, 1961), 428.
      13.Quoted in Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago: Moody Press, 1957), 163.
      14.Malcolm Muggeridge, Jesus Rediscovered (Bungay, Suffolk, U.K.: Fontana, 1969), 8.
      15.David C. Downing, The Most Reluctant Convert (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 57.
      16.Quoted in McDowell, 193.
      17.Michael Grant, Jesus (London: Rigel, 2004), 200.
      18.Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus through the Centuries (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 1

      • Wow… that’s pretty impressive. I presume you didn’t just develop this treatise as a response to my little anti-religion rant did you?

        Nonetheless, until some deeply faithful Christian lays hands on the sick and cleans out a hospital of everyone in it ( … they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. Mark 16:17-18:) I remain certain that Jesus, the Christ, never existed.

      • nowayjose says:

        Good stuff Chris. Better than any atheist’s rationale for dismissing Christ as a myth. One other form of evidence is so simple, so basic, I wonder why his disciples fail to mention it very often. If anyone truly wants to know if He existed and who He was–go to Him and find out personally. What’s wrong with that? If He isn’t God’s Risen Son, you will not be hearing back from the guy. No one’s home. If He was real and if He is God’s son and He did rise from the dead, seek him, pray to Him with sincere heartfelt longing and brother hold on for dear life. You will be blown out of the water. He is real. He is alive. He does love us and He can’t wait to enter into a personal, intimate relationship with us. If I told you that a drug could make you feel half as good, people would flock to get it. He’s better than any high anyone ever had, plus He’s for real, not some chemical.

        If His purpose was to heal the sick and He wanted all His followers to heal others, He’s a terrible failure. He performed miracles and gifted others to heal others as a means of proving who He was. “Dispensationalism” is not something I’m crazy about, nevertheless, I think there are different and distinct ways God chooses to manifest Himself over the dispensations of time. The healing touch of His manifest presence inside of us is the greatest healing there is. Unlike the phony electronic/evangelical mass media faith “healers”, exploiting people to make money, He Himself, by Himself, having Him on the inside, is the greatest message of all, in all the world, in all world history, for me, How else can I say it? He is the most beautiful, overwhelming, experience I’ve ever known, by far, not even close. Sensing His love for me was way beyond miraculous, way beyond the most incredible fantastic thing that ever happened to me.

        FIND OUT!!!

        ASK HIM IN!

        ASK HIM TO REVEAL HIMSELF TO YOU

        He will. He promises

      • nowayjose says:

        Great stuff Chris. You know what’s funny? Atheists are not known for being timid, are they, at least when they control the editing on a website. They are like Communist dictators. When they are in charge of banning people and blocking comments, they do so with haste and jump at each opportunity to ridicule, insult, bait, harass, bully, and in every other way they can think of, to rule ((and ruin) a forum.

        Here, when they cannot refute evidence for Christ’s existence, whether it is external, internal, in-between, you name it, they abandoned the place. Apparently, they don’t have the authority to run roughshod. It’s kinda cute. The arguments Christian scholars use to defeat the atheist’s positions are plain to see and read and well articulated. And, it’s not as though we don’t want a real debate; it is they who refuse and inevitably devolve into nonsensical, unintelligent and blusterous quips that are intended to shift the focus away from their inability to critique solid Christian apologetics.

        Repeatedly asking them in all sincerity, to engage in healthy debate, leads nowhere. I can understand not wanting to debate others when I’m on the wrong side. Now, it is becoming clear they are haunted and filled with trepidation, knowing they cannot win and will not be able to silence Christians.

      • The Village Idiot says:

        Chris: Sometimes is best to leave some of the info out! Here is the quote of Yahsua in the Munich Talmud manuscript of at b.San.43a preserves passages censored out of printed editions, including the controversial trial of “Yeshu Notzeri”. Chronological analysis of the layers in this tradition suggests that the oldest words are: “On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and leading Israel astray” This is one of
        the oldest original still in existence. Out of Germany of all places.
        But you see how he whisk it away(your info that is); Supreme TruthSayer, nonetheless has only eyes for the truth. What he says is the only truth and nothing else counts. And if it doesn’t suffice he will start attacking you personally. He lacks credulity and that is the truth. [You say you see therefore you are still blind.] Not defending anybody or attacking anyone either. Just calling them as I see them. Not a Christian, not a Moslim, not even Jewish. But a very curious idiot!

        Signed by: The Village Idiot.

  88. Stephen says:

    I guess people really do not read and comprehend? or maybe i’m not good at getting my ideas across?

    I started off in this journey trying to figure out where the christian beliefs started. the christian belief of catholicism i was raised under.
    Some say with the jesus, some say later at the first council of nicaea @ 325 to 328 AD.

    I’m not a jew nor am i interested in becoming one, but the fact that you used the term ‘the jewish god’ is really odd.
    i for one believe that there is only one god, no matter who’s man made religion it may be.
    how many gods do you believe there are?

    my quest took me to many places, including this site.
    however, with respect to the historical documents people like to quote from or like to try to destroy; i will respectfully state the same thing again.
    the roman catholic church is the single biggest depository of ancient documents regarding christianity.
    there exists no other place that holds as much in terms of documents of all types/kinds as the vatican, the rcc.
    whether or not anyone here believes that, is insignificant since it is a fact. they are the center core of this religion and all other christian beliefs sprang from this or are fed off of this single entity, without exception. why? because all bibles are based on the documents they, and only they hold in the earliest of times. all others came after them.

    so i’m sorry if you are a christian and this is your belief i am questioning, because i am not questioning you, just the origination of the belief system called chrisitanity and what it is based on.
    there are no ancient texts, which i have explained are texts in their original language/form/verbatim that support christianity.
    only after the greeks used textual criticism and several other methods to reword the ancient texts did this begin to sprout, if you have read as much religious text as i have. and no, i am not a teacher of any faith, i do not hold to any faith, i do not believe in any faith except my faith in God.

    this seems to rub people.

  89. rayjwarren says:

    Steph4en, you are spouting so much Jewish crap that you will have to soon buy yourself a set of Oi Vey underwear and wear your pubes with side locks. I wonder how they pronounced Jerusalem or Joshua or Joseph or you are a bloody Joke Stephen, get off the case, you are writing stuff that even the greatest scholars [non-religious] would go batty trying to understand. You belong in Professor Clines realm, he too is round the bend with his religious rubbish. all of you detractors will get your come-uppance and we shall see what transpires then. Leave off with your dumb attempts at making ppeople think that you have some knowledge of what you are trying to spout. Just because we turn a Y into a J to suit our own language, you try to show that nobody had a sound for J. Go away Stephen, come back when you can show me why we should not call you Steven instead of Stephen, why can we not just call you Steffan or Steefan or Steevan or whatever. If that does not show you how stupid your comments are then nothing will..

  90. Stephen says:

    You noted, ‘Other ways of writing it is not the same’.
    Thanks for the supporting info on my post.
    J did not exist. None of the prophets could ever have said Ju Ju Ju Jesus as is taught in christianity.
    You see, I never said he did not have a name, or that he may have been called by many names, I only noted the letter J did not exist as is used by christianity.
    The J you refer to is not the letter J as used by christianity, which is my statement. It was a sound but not the ‘Ju’ sound.
    There was no word Ju Ju Ju Jesus.
    Was he, if he existed, called something else, common sense says yes, but not Ju Ju Ju Jesus. The letter sound as christians use it did not exist.
    Gotta keep your thoughts in line with my posts.
    You seem to be off on a different hunt than I am.
    I am only pointing to one word and one letter.
    If you can’t stay on target with me for this then we have nothing to discuss. It’s too simple for the average mind to not grasp.

  91. Stephen says:

    You folks have to stop doing this. The letter J was not used/created until 1500 AD. There are no ancient texts with the name Jesus in them. Why do you keep trying to quote known ancient texts or the Jewish Word or ??????????? and claim Jesus’ name is mentioned? Please explain. Better yet quit doing it? Be honest in this area?

    • rayjwarren says:

      Another of the same old spiel by the feeble brained Stephen. This banana keeps quoting D.M.Murdock in all his post on this subject. Stephen, for your feeble mind, I will again try to tell you that the letter J was used in Egypt for many of the Hyksos kings. One King had the name Jusuf -Ium which of course was written ancient Egyptian and the letter they used to depict the letter J was the Cobra Snake which had the sound [Tch] . What you are trying to put forward in your simple minded way, is that no where on Earth was the letter J sound used or shown, that the letter J was not invented until 1500. Grow up man, many peoples had their way of writing a letter that depicted the sound for J yet your feeble mind can only accept that if the letter J was not around until 1500, then the sound and letter never existed??? You are definitely a nutter mate, come out of your black hole [or back hole] and catch up with the rest of the studied world. If their was no sound for the letter J then how did we end up with so many words and names beginning with that sound. The letter J as we know it is English sure but other countries have their own way of writing it.

    • rayjwarren says:

      Dear Steevan, Stephen, Steven, Steefan,

    • rayjwarren says:

      Dear Steefan, Steven, Stephen Steffan Steeven, Steephen. Much of the material posted by truthslayer and others on this Blog is just so much unmitigated rubbish. It is painful to see the errors that you all make in your attempts to destroy that which you never will, Nero could not do it, the Jews could not do it, the Muslims can never do it and a bunch of hypos like you all, can certainly never do it. I do not for one moment care about the supernatural events written in the Bible, I do not for one moment care about the miracles attributes to Jesus, Copperfield can probably copy them anyway. What I care about is the way in which you attempt to try and prove that a personage did not exist in history. You people are mentally sick in your attacks, why do you not start abusing Islam, are you scared? If so, then leave off with your gutless attacks on what you know will not harm you. I have never seen such crap in my life and do not understand why you are attempting to do what you are feebly doing. Did Jesus exist? Yes, he was written about by several different Authors no matter where or when, he was talked about and written about and that is what caused such a massive religion with such massive belief. Just because the feeble minded among Christians choose to believe the miracles and/or supernatural events, that is no reason for you all to deride them or their religion. I don’t like Gays but I do not attack them, I do not like Atheistic people that attack believers or other religions that do the same, nor do I attack them or their beliefs unless they are trying to down play history. Stephen, you are a pro Jew and think that tthe Jewish God is the be all end all when in fact it is just a reproduction of Egyptian material. Go read the Song of the Aten and then read psalm 104.

  92. Mary Ann says:

    Possibly the reason you can not find mention of Jesus outside the NT is because of the translation of the name.. there are many..

    Celsus (175AD) “Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands

    “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)

    “It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), “He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him.” But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover. (b. Sanhedrin 43a) Talmud

    The Talmud records the man Jesus.. but He is called Yeshu.. He was always accused of practicing magic.. which sounds a lot like miracles..

    Each person can make up their own mind.. but what if the stories are true?

  93. Stephen says:

    Look you have got things all wrong here:

    What kind of idiot are you?
    **********************
    Not a nice mannerism you are showing. Be nice?

    You are trying to rtell us that all religions are man made except one, the Jewish religion!
    *********************************
    No I have not and am not trying to tell you this. Where did you read and please ‘quote me’ when making claims?
    This is what the christian belief system as all man made religions do to support their own beliefs.
    And yes that is sad when THEY do this.

    I’ll get what I deserve when I meet my creator. That’s all I need to count on.

    I have never stated anything other than the Hebrews and their beliefs are in fact the current day Jewish faith.
    They are the same ‘people’, Gods Chosen Ones.

    You may have access to a citizenry that has as much or greater actual ancient documents relating to their relationship with the Creator/God.
    If you do, then please provide them or a link and I’ll gladly look them up and ‘learn’ from them. I love to learn yet few provide any proof of their disagreement with what I post.

    But it’s going to be a real tragedy if in fact you believe there is a segment of the worlds population that we know of (past/present) that have more first hand access, connection, conversation, interaction, etc than the Hebrews/today’ Jews do with the creator.

    You may not like it. You sound as if you have a bone to pick with Jews, but this is only a feeling I have based on your tone. I’m not saying that you have stated such since I don’t make claims with regard to what people ‘may have’ said without proof. You should try it?

    How can you try and show that the Hebrew religion, stolen from Mesopotamia and Egypt, is not man made when the documents you speak of are all written documents that had no need to be written at all, all your brain screwing information is re-runs from previous material and is as nonsensical as what you are trying to pass off. God of the Bible is totally man made and is so badly man made that this Blog on it’s own shows many proofs of it’s failings. Stephen, your beliefs are childish and your attempts to show that the God of the Bible is the true God is excruciatingly painful to behold for it shows that brainlessness is truly welded into the human thought module.
    ************************************

    That’s your belief and I understand you have that right.
    For one to believe the Hebrew God, the current day ‘God’ of all religions, although could be named incorrectly, still represents what humans believe is the ‘creator’ which is why I use this term, creator, to refer to him often.
    It’s not important to me as it seems to be to you, that someone has a belief system that you do not agree to or share. That too is okay. It’s our free will, given to us by the creator. So by simply expressing your ‘free will’ here in this blog pretty much tells me there is a ‘creator’ and the free will he gave us all is being exercised by you.

    CYa

  94. Stephen says:

    Well you can believe anything you want to believe.
    As for tearing down my ‘building blocks’? I’m certain you would like that but you have not changed anything that is of a factual nature.

    Christianity is simply a man made religion, under the reign of a pagan ruler and the NT was created at this first gathering in 325 to 328 or so AD.
    This does not constitute a religion of any fact nor with any basis to claim it’s existence back to the time of their claimed savior, Jesus.

    It’s kinda funny how christian try to chip away at unimportant items yet leave the huge boulders of truth alone, such as the Book of Hosea where God himself says, ‘besides me there is no other savior’.

    It’s these statements by God that tells me christianity is no different that Islam or any other man made religion. It’s not Gods’ religion or condoned by God. It’s just a man made religious tool to use to get their way.

    I believe what I can verify in things like the RCC encyclopedia and ancient doc’s I get from persons whose family had spend hundreds of years translating true ancient doc’s. Not latter day or nearly modern day text as in the christian NT. Truly old texts.

    I’m not here to argue or say rude things or be insulting to any person or group of people.
    I just came here to express some ideas/questions and learn if possible.

    Wishing you well, lots of good stuff her.
    Cya

    • rayjwarren says:

      Stephen aka Calvin Cline Netanyahoo or is that just yahoo? What kind of idiot are you? You are trying to rtell us that all religions are man made except one, the Jewish religion! That is the saddest attempt at insane belief I have ever witnessed, you do not deserve the right to post anything online for when you do it is not only sheer stupidity but is also discriminatory and downright ludicrous. How can you try and show that the Hebrew religion, stolen from Mesopotamia and Egypt, is not man made when the documents you speak of are all written documents that had no need to be written at all, all your brain screwing information is re-runs from previous material and is as nonsensical as what you are trying to pass off. God of the Bible is totally man made and is so badly man made that this Blog on it’s own shows many proofs of it’s failings. Stephen, your beliefs are childish and your attempts to show that the God of the Bible is the true God is excruciatingly painful to behold for it shows that brainlessness is truly welded into the human thought module.

  95. rayjwarren says:

    So much for the parting of the Red Sea, Exodus 17.3, But the people were thirsty for water there, and they grumbled against Moses. They said, Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to make us and our children and livestock die of thirst?
    4
    Then Moses cried out to the LORD, What am I to do with these people? They are almost ready to stone me.
    5
    The LORD answered Moses, Walk on ahead of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go.
    6
    I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink. So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel.

  96. Stephen says:

    It’s part of the RCC encyclopedia. The actual documents written by a cardinal or bishop Bembo (spelling) are there too.
    Just enjoy what you believe and let others do the same.
    I’m happy with my God/Creator/Savior; he is all one in the same.
    CYa

  97. Stephen says:

    It’s in the RCC encyclopedia, a cardinal or bishop Bembio (spelling) is the author.
    You just have no idea what you are talking about.
    When it’s not what one wants to hear, people simply deny it. Typical.
    Go get a copy of the original RCC encyclopedia and read it.
    This christian thing is just bollocks and nothing more.
    Your creator said it him self ‘besides me there is no other savior’. Book of Hosea. You’ll have to live with it or turn your back on God, if you believe in God, which is your choice.
    Belief in any man made religion is just foolish. None are right, none are condoned by God, none have his ear, none are better or worse than any of the others because they are all man made.

    • rayjwarren says:

      Stephen, please, stop trying to show fable as fact, do some study and stop denigrating the church. Several Authors at the time of the division between Caholic and Protestant wrote badly about the Catholics.

      In short, the evidence indicates that the Skeptics are posting fiction as fact, using the work of someone who thought the Catholic Church to be the whore of Babylon.

      So then — based on the data, as far as I’m concerned, anyone using this quote is perpetuating error. But if any Skeptic can answer the questions following, providing documentation for their replies, I will revoke this essay and report the facts. Not allowing Bale as a source, the questions are:

      When did Leo make this statement (the year is enough)?
      To whom did Leo make it, and who heard it?
      What was the context that prompted Leo to make this statement?
      In what document did those who heard it, report it?
      What reaction, if any, was there to this statement?
      In what contemporary works is all of this reported?
      Based on the above, show what in context the “fable” Leo refers to — the entire existence of a man named Jesus? Not his existence, but just certain events? Etc.

      Objection: You’re glossing over the real story about Leo X, namely that he was one of the most corrupt, morally bankrupt popes the Catholic Church has inflicted on the world.

      I’m not “glossing over” anything. This is not an article about Leo’s lifestyle but about a false quote attribited to him on the Internet and in books, in support of an idea that Jesus never existed.

      You seem to think that Bale’s mention of bizarre prognostications, shows he is unhistorical. That’s a strange attitude to take if you believe in the bizarre events readily accepted by Christians in the Bible.

      Not at all. That Bale wrote this as a satire — which Happe identifies as Bale’s genre — is what shows it is “unhistorical”. It was never meant as a history. I inserted the part about the omens to ask Skeptics if THEY were willing to take the matter as historical and Bale’s intent as such. If they want the fable quote to be historical, what of this?

      I would have no problem accepting Bale’s report of supernaturalism, prima facie — if this were actually a document of historical intent — but it isn’t.

      If you’re right in making Bale into a liar, then he is illustrating Christian dishonesty.

      No more a liar than Monty Python, actually. Remember: satire.

      If Bale was indeed a liar and his alleged quotation of Leo X was false, then why was it remembered for so long?

      It wasn’t. The “fable” quote was revived by Robert Taylor, the heretic who wrote from his jailhouse and confused an Isaac Watts hymn with one for Prometheus, and Wheless followed Taylor uncritically (McCabe did not, however). The quote was not remembered at all out of care or concern. Contrast: If the quote was true, why was its context so quickly forgotten?

      Tekton Research Assistant “Punkish” brought our attention to a discussion here between Roger Pearse and another person who claimed the source of the quote as Pope Alexander VI.

      Update, May 2013: I have some more people trying to validate this thing other ways now. Here’s three explanations that are making the rounds these days, and the replies:

      It was Pope Leo X who made the most infamous and damaging statement about Christianity in the history of the Church. His declaration revealed to the world papal knowledge of the Vatican’s false presentation of Jesus Christ and unashamedly exposed the puerile nature of the Christian religion. At a lavish Good Friday banquet in the Vatican in 1514, and in the company of “seven intimates” (Annales Ecclesiastici, Caesar Baronius, Folio Antwerp, 1597, tome 14), Leo made an amazing announcement that the Church has since tried hard to invalidate. Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted: “How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors.”

      Answer: This one’s not going to work, because Baronius’ text is a history of the church since New Testament times – and it stopped recording at the year 1198, because Baronius died before he could finish it. That means he didn’t get to Leo X’s time by several hundred years. But in case some critic wants to say he mentioned the quote anyway, maybe as some sort of illustration…fine. There’s a link to the history on Google Books below. Let’s see one of the critics tell us where it is.

      The second and third references:

      The pope’s pronouncement is recorded in the diaries and records of both Pietro Cardinal Bembo (Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, 1842 reprint) and Paolo Cardinal Giovio (De Vita Leonis Decimi, , op. cit.), two associates who were witnesses to it.

      Answer: The Letters and Comments work by Bembo does exist…sort of. But there is no 1842 edition listed in OCLC, and the title is actually this:

      Petri Bembi Epistolraum Leonis decimi Pontificis Max. nomine scriptarum libri sexdecim ad Paulum tertium Pont. Max. Romam missi

      Translated, that’s “16 books of letters written in the name of pope Leo X, dedicated to Pope Paul III” — not quote the same title. So I’m betting the quote is also not in here. But, here again, this work is on Google Books (link below) so maybe some enterprising atheist can find it in there. I can’t.

      As for that last item by Jovius, it turns out Roger Pearse – who also gave me some feedback for this article – has a copy of it on his website (link below). He says the quote isn’t in there. Again, maybe one of you atheists can find it for us.

      Of course I’m being facetious. We have other reasons, besides not finding it, to suspect the quote isn’t in these works. The source of these claims is an article for the conspiracy/UFO magazine Nexus, and an article by Tony Bushby on the alleged criminality of the papacy. For those who may not recall, Bushby is the author of The Bible Fraud, a book that uses the Leo quote on the cover and also has a tendency to include made-up factoids. Bushby has no scruples when it comes to documentation – so it’s no surprise this one’s turning up bogus, too.

      Most of this the above information has come from Encyclopaedia Britannica and Tectonics.

  98. Mart says:

    Do you Have any formel education on the studying of History Like a PHD or are you just another ranter on the Internet?

  99. Eric Breaux says:

    You are either ignorant of history or haven’t bothered to look for any of it, because there’s only one record of Jesus confirmed to be a forgery, which was a christian tweaking of one Flavius Josephus’ records, but we have his original document anyway. And there’s plenty of well known ancient historians who wrote about Jesus, one of which being Luke who also wrote a gospel, so it doesn’t matter who didn’t. There’s about 42 documents saying something about Jesus, a lot of which are either hostile or indifferent to Jesus and Christianity. Some historians also mentioned a few of the alleged miracles recorded in the gospels and/or mention Jesus as being famous for miracles that they dismiss as illusionist tricks, or otherwise sorcery. An example is a record from Thallus mentioning the darkness and earthquake that occurred during Jesus crucifixion and attempting to explain it as a solar eclipse. Africanus, who quoted this record about 2 centuries later, mentioned that an eclipse wouldn’t be possible because it happened during the Jewish Passover, when the moon is full and diametrically opposite from the sun. both of these historians records only survive as quotes in other historical writings, like in the records of Eusebius, from what was still left of their respective work during the time. Hardly any scholar, regardless of background, doubts Jesus was a real historical figure, it’s mostly the miracles that are controversial, but with no evidence against them, just skepticism that miracles can even happen. http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm https://bible.org/article/historical-reliability-gospels

  100. Stephen says:

    Sorry, I just deal in facts.

    • rayjwarren says:

      Not always Stephen, not always. Most of the time you deal in material that you think and hope are facts but certainly do not study them before accepting them as being fact.

      • Stephen says:

        Well I’m just appreciative that we can still have independent beliefs. I respect yours.
        I’m happy with the big guy being my savior/creator/father and hope that when we meet I won’t be saddened to find out I was wrong.
        Christianity is indeed a man made religion and not based in any true ancient factual documentation, IMHO.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Stephan, all religion is man made, not just Christianity. without man, who was going to spread the word, Gorillas? Christianity believes in God the father, they just give him a son the same as Osiris and Isis had a son [Horus] the same way that many other Gods had sons. Yes, Christianity is man made but so too are all others. You cannot deny one religion in favor of another when 90% of what they believe is the same material. So tell me, why do you believe in the old testament God and not the New Testament trilogy? Can you not see that without man God does not exist, man created the Gods and your God, not the other way around.

      • Stephen says:

        As stated many times, all religions are man made with the sol exception of the jewish faith which i see as the extension of the Hebrews.
        They don’t have a bible, they have ‘The Word’, the word of God. We man, christians, called it the bible and referred to ‘The Word’ as the ‘Old Testament’ and gave the christian doctrine which was created at the first council of Nicaea (the First ecumenical council) under a pagan ruler, Constantine. But you know all of this so why must someone repeat it?
        The old testament as people call it was written by persons that walked with God, spoke with God, did Gods works, populated this planet and were ‘chosen by God to be His people’ his special people. Some just don’t like the fact that they are Gods Chosen People. Don’t know why but many don’t.
        My God created all that is including me. I did not create any God. I am the product of a great being of some sort. What? I do not actually have the knowledge to tell anyone what he is, but he exists or we would not be here.
        God is God, Jesus is not God. God is not Jesus. There is but one savior in my opinion and it is God.
        Pretty simple.
        I don’t mean to cause any ruckus here, I’m just asking questions for the most part and responding to others anger and sharp words.
        I was raised a catholic, have access to many many many scriptures the RCC used and uses as part of their ‘law/cannon’.
        When I realized they were a man made religion with no basis in God nor any condoning by God for it to exist, I left and went on a search at 42, I am not nearly 65.
        I found a group of individuals that offered up many ancient texts with no explanation nor any implication as to their meanings.
        They were given to me to read/learn and take away from them whatever I chose to.

        These individuals are Jews. They don’t want me to join, I can’t join anyway, they don’t want me to take up their banner and spread the word for them. They just answered my request for a source to find ancient texts translated ‘verbatim’ so that I could read them and make my own mind up.
        I do not know if you have ever seen an ancient text with it’s verbatim translation but if you have you should understand that it is a very difficult read.

        What christians teach is not verbatim ancient texts, it is textual criticism at best and at worst, just made up.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Then what they gave you Stephen is a man made religion, one that they were handed by several other nations that were a part of the evolution of religion down through the ages. Yest there probably is a creator of some kind but you cannot call him YOUR God until you know him and sadly for you, that will never be for he may be a God of Cats or a God of Dogs or Monkeys.

      • Stephen says:

        I don’t deal is the absurd.
        I’m just guessing that I can call anyone I want, my God. I have a free will, so I cannot be denied my choice in this by any person.
        So you cannot tell me I cannot?
        He ‘may be a god of ………………… monkeys?’
        I don’t deal is the absurd.
        But I respect your right to your belief.
        CYa

      • rayjwarren says:

        Insanity obviously runs a good race with you Stephen, when you cannot see a way out of the hole you have dug, you then fail miserably with your answers. Go bacdk to dabbling with the Jews, they will steer you in the right direction or send you broke.

      • Stephen says:

        Ray,
        You seem a bit angry. Insanity? Is this the normal manner in which you debate or attempt to push a discussion topic off the table top? If so then there are deeper problems and I’m not saying ‘Insanity’. I’m just saying that bitterness is the tree from a deeper root.
        If you don’t like Jews (I get that feeling from your response) then so be it, just say it. Many people don’t like christians.
        But all people will meet the creator (whatever one wants to call him) and will be judged without exception (again IMHO).
        So I’d like to keep it civil and just enjoy others opinions, which all of this really is, you understand this ?

        No ones view has more or less value behind it since they are simply different peoples ‘free will’ being expressed.

        CYa

      • rayjwarren says:

        Yes Stephen, they are all man made, just as your thoughts on a creator are man made by you! Please read the answer I have placed regarding your Pope Leo and stop quoting erroneous material. The article you refer to in the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an agreement that Pope Leo stated the apparent comment, it is simply showing what was purported to have been said. Please study things before you accept them as fact for there is no direct proof that the comment was ever stated.

  101. Elmore says:

    It appears that a lot of people have performed much research on this subject and I can’t imagine why. Why would you invest all this time and thought on pure silliness? Think about it. Religious people are trying to validate a book full of nonsense as real history or to put it more bluntly if you honestly believe that there are invisible people living in the sky who have magical powers then you are an absolute and total moron. Using logic and reason when taking to people of faith is like trying to teach a dog calculus and non-believers are wasting their time on fools that believe in this nonsense.

  102. Stephen says:

    Typical christian rhetoric.

  103. John H says:

    The entire premise put forward by this writer hinges on the very aspect he or she declines to accept as to why he or she dismisses the new testament as a detailed account of one Jesus of Nazareth. Using his or her own logic, when Christianity was in its infancy – why didn’t no one, who would have been alive during the time that the events took place, ever write that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Even works that were bent on dismising or eradicating Christianity never play up or mention that Jesus never existed. That would have been the ultimate shut down argument to dismiss Christianity. Surely the writers of the 1st century bent on dismissing Christianity would open any discussion that there being no record of any one fitting the description of Jesus of Nazareth.

    • Stephen says:

      John, actually, there are no historic ancient documents stating that jesus ever did exist outside of those from the belief system of chrisitianity.
      If you know of any or have any to share, and I’m going to require them to be ‘ancient’ not from the AD era, then send them along.
      CYa
      Stephen

  104. Doc says:

    I have no problem with any position you have. I simply do not believe, Christianity, as we know it today existed until long after Jesus’ time here on earth, if he was actually here. I’m still not convinced since there is no mention of Jesus anywhere except in the christian NT, same as only Mohamed and his teachings are only in the Koran.
    Jesus was a Jew, so he could not be a christian, and if he could not be one, he could not have started a religion based on christianity without first turning his back on Judaism. Just an opinion. I just believe it’s man made and nothing more.
    But I’m just saying.

  105. stephen says:

    Well I have to agree with you totally about the pedophiles and corruption of the RCC. Just a short bit back the current pope told some new bishops or the entire group of bishops that they did not have to turn in abuse! WTF? A supposed God loving church does not have to turn in criminals?
    The RCC and the whole christian entity is just as bad as any other group, deserving of nothing from me and doubtful that the entity it’s self holds any favor with the creator.

    • rayjwarren says:

      Stephen, surely you know a little about the founding of the Christian Church. The group that began this mission was not Jesus alone, he was the
      figurehead for a group of Semite Greeks who did not adhere to the Jewish way of thinking although the Bible was a great starting point with plenty of history thrown in. Prior to the Egyptian stay by the Hebrews, they inhabited parts of Mesopotamia [Ur] where child sacrifice and the abuse of children has always been rife. Some withing the Hebrew religions disliked the abuse of children and hinted so when they brought Sodom and Gomorrah into their history. You will also find that archaeologists know much about the murder of Children at sacrifice and even the eating of children in the very early times. Hammurabi changed much of that for Mesopotamia, Egypt does not appear to have been adoptive of such practices. The Christians adopted some of the ways of the early Hebrews and as you know the penchant the Greeks hold for boys [colopetho, spelling may not be correct] and so, when the religion made Rome [already suffering debauchery] we have a religious group able to operate more like devils that churchmen. Anything that opposed their enjoyments was quickly quashed and the Popes ran the religion like they would run Hades.
      This is my opinion based on constant study of the Christian religion and its controversy. My opinion of Jesus and his group is that they were all sexually knowing of each other, the washing of feet and the Greek kissing etc all appear a little on the Gay side and the lack of women concerned with any of the group is odd, only his mother and the other are there. As I said, this is only my opinion and this has come from the study of the ways of these men who began one of the worlds largest religions.

  106. stephen says:

    It is documented, written about by many scholars and the RCC’s catholic encyclopedia as well as the vatican have this info in hand.
    This is simply the loosening of the lips and the truth came out. IMHO

    “At banqueting he delighted greatly in wine and musike: but had no care of preaching the Gospell, nay was rather a cruell persecutour of those that began then, as Luther and other to reveale the light thereof: for on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuouse aunswere saiying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie:

    I’m just saying?

    • rayjwarren says:

      Does it not enter your brain that just as the detractors that are posting in this Blog take what they can away from his story, so to do the Pedophiles and miscreants that inhabited the church during that and other periods. Pope Leo can probably be compared to Clinton, “I did not have sexual relations with that alter boy”.It is obvious that Pope Leo was a bastard to his church and profession and those who supported him were no better.

  107. stephen says:

    Here is a tidbit that most christians don’t know.
    Pope Leo X said:

    Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted:
    “How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors.”

    This statement was verified by several bishops/cardinals at the time he said this and is in the many books of the RCC and it’s vast depository of documents.

    It’s not arguable unless one does not want to believe the RCC which would actually benefit from it being false, yet have too many in house priests/bishops/cardinals like Bembo and Giovio who were there in person according to their accounts.

    Just a tidbit to consider.

    • rayjwarren says:

      How funny, non believers who belittle Jesus come forth and quote what may or may not have been said by a Pope at a [perhaps] drunken reverie and yet they give no credence to the the men who were with Jesus and who went out to preach his doings. To me, this sounds like rivalry within the RCC rather than a credible comment if in fact it ever took place. Besides, what would Pope Leo have known that all others did not? Jesus probably was a false Prophet just as many who came after him, it is only the faithful who believe. I doubt very much that any Pope said this of his leader, if the comment was stated, it was probably misheard and could have been How profitable this tale of Christ has been….

  108. Doc says:

    Lets all play nice!
    Cya

  109. I got an email announcement of a Reply that I’m not finding when I arrive on this site, but one I wish to respond to nonetheless if I may, because entirely too many presumptions were jumped to thereby.

    Ray, for somebody who just “met” me, you presume to “know” a lot about me. You know the saying about “a-s-s—u-m-e—makes an…” …and there you are with an apt description of your guestimationary response. #FAIL It’s just as well you removed your comment, if indeed you were the one who removed it; the shortcoming of your arguments (and the number of other arguments here, for that matter) is the apparent exclusive reliance on only texts. Things will invariably become clearer when you rely more on archaeology, which is why I am interested in posting this response even if your response has been removed. Records, not narratives, is where the truth lies, and that includes carved records such as the Arch of Titus. Such records aren’t texts.

    • rayjwarren says:

      Then keep your personal names for those who like to be called Mate, women do not refer to me or for that matter should not refer to men as Mate unless they have some kind of relationship outside of writing. You are correct in one thing, I did not meet you, you inserted yourself into conversations I was having with Stephen and I did not appreciate your calling me by something that offends me. I am interested in the fact that mky post was removed and wonder if that which caused me to be offended suffered the same fate. I did not interrupt your posting at any time and would have asked permission to intervene rather than insert myself without introduction. You began by calling me “mate” a term that I dislike with intensity.

  110. Doc says:

    Nazarite?

    It’s a reach for persons of this time and understandings to use a word and assign a definition to it when we were not there at that time.

    The word, nazarite from the Tanakh is described this way, generally:

    In the Hebrew Bible, a nazirite or nazarite, (in Hebrew: נזיר, nazir), refers to one who voluntarily took a vow described in Numbers 6:1–21.
    “Nazarite” comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning “consecrated” or “separated”.

    And, having an unknown father is much different than having no father at all and being from a ‘virgin’ birth, IMHO.

    I’m not challenging your post, but am still not certain where the definition you posted came from. I’d like to know though.

    Cya

    • I did say “nazorite”, but the definition you proffer matches except that includes the sugar-coating of the state of being a child of an undetermined father placed there by the society which coined the term in the interest of protecting royal reputation. The uncoated definition has a synonym which begins with the letter B, a term which also serves as the name of a tool described as a round file.

  111. There is also no evidence outside of the bible that the Jews were ever in Egypt. Egyptian history has no evidence or record of the events revealed in the Old Testament as ever having taken place and the Biblical stories stating the contrary are nothing but fiction or lies. The first time in history the Jews set foot in Egypt was during the infamous 6-Day-War of June 1967.
    All this just proves that coupled with this lack of evidence about Jesus the whole bible is nothing but a fictitious fabrication based on superstitious nonsense. It is completely contradictory and full of stupid absurdities, atrocities, unfulfilled prophesies, broken promises, immoralities, indecencies and obscenities. Also as a book of literature it hardly has any literary merit either.
    Jesus Christ can be compared to Humpty Dumpty because they have one important thing in common and that is they are both fictitious characters.

    • Quite so, Deryck, but biblical stories performed a function at the outset of their invention. Keeping in mind that the Christian Old Testament doesn’t date any further back than Paul’s Epistles, Masoretic Jews were prevailed upon by Roman authorities to produce the Old Testament in accordance with time-honored practice of using the religions of the conquered in order to dominate them. In the Levant, they were looking at quite an amalgam of differing but similar religions but they also had to deal with the rivalry of the Persian Empire and included some references to Zoroasterism/Magism for good measure…as is the case with Egypt, then ruled by a Greek dynasty (Ptolemy).

    • rayjwarren says:

      The statement you have used in example was written by Tacitus some 60-100 years after Jesus died.Disciples took the new religion to Rome and like modern day religions, did not take long to gather members among the oppressed.

    • rayjwarren says:

      You are a complete imbecile, please do not sit on your head, pregnancy will not become you. Go back to school and study for about ten years.

    • Dewayne says:

      Well I have to say I’ve seen several Documentaries of archaeological findings that tell a different story of the bible, many of which support the Bible as being true. It is amazing the efforts people put in trying to prove that Jesus never existed and that there is no God, if you don’t believe then why does it bother people so much when Jesus is mentioned? No one really gets excited when Ali or Mohammad is talked about; but start talking about Jesus an the world at large gets angry and offended. Wonder why that is? Could it be true today just as Jesus told the disciples that many would be offended because of Him? He spoke truth and the world does not want to hear the truth, the nay Sayers of Christ day did not really deny his existence but rather plotted to quiet him for good. The truth he spoke bothered them, made them agitated we Christians call that conviction. I know what Christ has done in my life and it is too late to tell me otherwise, I know God is real. I pray your eyes are opened and you see your need for salvation before it is too late, because I can assure you my friend there is no non-believers in Hell and when death comes to claim your soul and the demons of hell begin dragging your eternal soul to hell, you will wished that you had called on Jesus while you still had time. If you don’t believe then that is your right and if we Christians are wrong then you have lost nothing….but….if what we have devoted our life to is indeed true and there is a God in heaven, a heaven to gain and a hell to shun; then you my friend have lost it all for all eternity. May the God of Heaven have mercy on your soul.

  112. That period of history is quite a mess to sort out, isn’t it. And of course one shouldn’t use any Bible to prove the veracity of any other Bible, even though that’s what’s been done since the late 1800s with English language versions under the Standardization movement, and every generation comes up with someone who sinks a lot of time and effort into sorting this era out, proclaims he/she’s arrived at The Truth, and gets debunked by the next generation’s epiphany announcement. Me, I’ve chosen to read a number of Bibles as political commentary for the purpose of effecting an enforcement of imperial rule, and when read that way, it sounds like a script from West Wing Meets Julius Caesar. What’s important aren’t the names because Bibles play clever name games to protect the insurgents, and an insurgency was indeed the thing at stake here. Several of them, in fact. What’s important are the character types played up as principles: the Jesus character who, more than once, instructed his followers to pay taxes. Another minor character, but important to illustrate influence over the movement associated with this character, was Simon the Zealot. The most important character is Paul the Roman constable, contemporary and erstwhile buddy of Titus of the Arch of Titus, which portrays a celebrated crucifixion of Simon Bar Giora, and the history behind the mythology comes in focus more clearly.

    • I should add that the tales told in Bibles resemble Greek morality plays for a reason, as Greece was under Roman rule at the time and, true to time-honored Roman practice since the day of Romulus & Remus, Rome incorporated the religions of the conquered; thus was the case of Greek mythology as well. The Levant was part of a larger set of spoils Rome gained at the close of the Mithraic Wars mid-80’s BC.

  113. John Alger says:

    Regarding the moniker “Jesus of Nazareth”, it should be noted that archaeological evidence shows that the city of Nazareth did not exist until the late fist or early second century. Yet another nail in the biblical coffin.

    • Among Jews there is a term: “nazorite” which would have undoubtedly be accurately descriptive of any male of noble blood born of a mother with an unknown father. If Romans understood what nazorite meant, it wouldn’t have gotten translated as Nazarene, I’m sure.

  114. stephen says:

    Ray,
    I think Mark 12:17 is where the Caesar statement is located. Or at least it’s what I recall. Then again it’s from a source that the catholic church notes and admits is not actually written by Mark. It’s written by some priest of an unknown name, yet they admit it’s false when it comes to being written by Mark.

    • Mark is an interesting character in the New Testament, because he goes by 2 other names. Paul is on record as having kicked him to the curb before he wrote Romans, and Romans is the chronologically last of Paul’s Epistles even though it’s printed first.

  115. stephen says:

    Ray,

    I guess people don’t read and pay attention to what they are reading or it’s more difficult than I thought to encode a message these days.

    You stated; ” so why this attempt to show that the ancients had writing that could not be read? ”

    I can’t for the life of me figure out where I ever said that it cannot be read. Just can’t.

    What I said and I guess poorly is the ancient texts compared to today’s christian NT are nothing alike yet christian’s yell and scream and thump their bibles and tell you it’s Gods word which it is not and if you do not believe in Jesus you burn in hell.

    Theirs is a translation, poorly done and in most cases changed to present a meaning the the people that is not the mirror image of what’s in the ancient docs. The catholic encyclopedia notes this statement to be true but they don’t inform their congregations of these facts of false teachings by the christian churches in many areas.

    There are many Jewish scholars and theologians that can read the ancient text perfectly. They are the ones that know Gods words since God only spoke to the people of this world in the OT. He did not speak to the people in the NT unless you believe some post 325 AD writing?

    I really don’t understand why this is getting so confusing, misquoted and troublesome.

    Your comment about different levels of writing type being used in a single scripture is dead on. This is how we as humans attempt to date documents since carbon dating does not do well on parchment. By following the changes in writing technique and the introduction of new letters and words into text the ‘scholars’ can create a timeline that shows when Generally something was written.

    In regard to the inferences to the Supreme Court or for that matter any court and religion, I don’t need a court to tell me what God wants from me here on earth. He told me everything I need to know with the 10 commandments and his comments to Hosea and Amos. The courts have no bearing on my belief in God nor will they ever. So why the court is brought in by you is beyond me. Makes to sense and no I am not holding a trial. I am not a judge or lawyer. Just a poor man, child of God, looking for clear answers as to why the Roman Catholic church, my original faith, veered off so much into the room of liars, in creating the catholic church, that’s all.

    I mean no harm or disrespect to anyone or anyone’s religion. It’s just these tough questions that are supportable by those learned few that seem to cause such a ruckus in the christian faiths. I like to learn and for me to do so I have to ask questions. I hopefully receive good quality answers that I can then research and think about and possibly accept as a good answer thereby adjusting or supporting my current thought about religion, man made religion.

    sorry to have offended if that is the case.

    Be safe.

    • rayjwarren says:

      You are not offending me with any of your anti Jesus, Moses or any Christian material for I am not religious at all. I do though get a little miffed at people when they attack historic figures over deeds accredited to them by others. It is plain to see that these people did exist as no matter when the items on him were written, they were written. I recently solved a history mystery that was 160 years unsolved and although it took me 25 years to complete, it was solved. Her story was mostly based on a few lines recorded by Thomas Huxley, John MacGillivray and Sir Oswald Brierly during the 1840’s. Nobody had or could get to the bottom her story because the three scientists offered up not the full story but only a part thereof. I fnally got to the bottom of it in 2007 when missing family made contact with me while doing their family tree for the first time. They found that they were the grandchildren of this girls sisters who also went missing at the same time as she did. Barbara Thompson was found living alone with head hunters in the Torres Strait in 1849. So sometimes writing can be done by others not connected and yet the truth b e found, I did no exaggerating and followed only factual evidence and was rewarded with success. I am sure that the Jesus event was simply a way of starting a religion that stepped away from the Jews even though Jesus was a Jew and never was a Christian. There is too much evidence for his existence for him not to have existed, yes he was a hoaxer he was perhaps all the things the detractors say nut he probably believed in a different set of principals and being unbaptized and perhaps of a different form of the Semite faiths, he found John and set out to change the Israeli way of doing religion.

    • I admire your noble commitment to what you believe God told you in the form of The Ten Commandments, but there are more commandments than just 10 in your Bible. They weren’t whittled down to just ten until the Reformation movement, so those were human-invented. Sorry.

  116. rayjwarren says:

    So if you are a Jew, be a Jew, who cares. just stop detracting from the two billion people who do believe in him.

  117. Stephen says:

    I keep getting long winded responses to very simple questions or statements.
    I’m not here trying to prove Jesus did or did not exist. That’s not a question I need answering. Whether or not he existed is not a question of any interest to me anyway.
    What is interesting is the belief that he is Gods son and my savior.
    Well all I’m saying is according to Gods words, God is the savior and it’s found in the book of Hosea.
    I’m a child of God. I’m a male. Therefore I am a son of God. So are all other males that have or do or will live here on earth.
    All the females are daughters of God.
    These should not be arguable and it seems that they fall into the category of unacceptable to christians just as when they are shown the word Virgin is not in the original ancient texts so Jesus could not have been born from a virgin woman.
    All this other ‘stuff’ all these if’s-and’s-but’s-and candy or nuts is just a waste of time effort and seems foolish to me.

    My view is my own view. God’s my savior. Jesus, whether or not he existed, he was born like I was and his mother was not a virgin as my mother could not have been a virgin when I was born. I was the second of 4 children and even Jesus, per the christian church had older and younger brothers so how is the virgin issue even possible? Why is it a question to argue?

    Lets keep it civil and let me learn but through facts only. No opinions turned into fact ‘just because’ someone says so.

    • rayjwarren says:

      And in your Christian belief, God made Jesus and Jesus is God. Jesus himself would not deny he was God nor state the same and so was crucified. Christians believe that God came down to Earth in human form and God and Jesus and the holy ghost made up the trinity as far as I can tell, in other words, they were all one. That is it from me Stephen, you are beginning to get irate over matters that do not even slightly worry me so cheers and good luck with whatever you find.

      • stephen says:

        Well I’m not a christian by any means. Left that dog in the woods to hunt on its own. I simply believe in a greater than I entity, regardless of the name used. I believe the OT to be much less infiltrated by mans needs than the NT, which was written/assembled/duplicated at the first council of Nicaea according to the RCC. I kinda believe this is true since it’s heavily documented throughout history. I do reference what we call Gods words from the OT, specifically I believe I have brought this up before, the book of Hosea, where God says that besides him there is no other savior. So, I have to believe he is the savior, not Jesus as Christians believe. And being the son of God? I’m a child of God and a male, I too am a son of god in that sense.
        Just saying.

    • Stephen, the simple answer to your simple question as to why the belief there is a God’s son and he is a savior. Clue one is that his revered symbol is an emblem of Roman capital punishment. Imperial Rome conquered the region that originated the story and commissioned Masoretic Jews to come up with an Old Testament which gives prophecy to be fulfilled in the New Testament so that both would agree, and then put a Roman law enforcement officer, a full Roman citizen with full rights of such a citizen, in charge of, well, enforcing Roman rule–in the form of Paul. In the delivery of commandments to Moses, God admitted that there are other gods in existence when he wrote what you know as the first Commandment. And so it has come to pass that Sun Day has always been the first day of the week so that none of the other gods honored the rest of the week came before that one.

      • Sun Day still isn’t Jesus Day, is it. That’s Clue One. Sun Day isn’t God Day either, for that matter. Get a clue. 😉

      • stephen says:

        Saturday is the 7th or last day of the week, so I’m putting my coin on it being the day that God rested as described in the OT.

      • Clara Listensprechen says:

        That never ceases to amaze me: a God that had to take days to create anything, a subject of time rather than the creator of it, and a God that gets pooped to boot. Some God.

  118. rayjwarren says:

    Stephen, you have stated in your posts that you do know something of the ancient Torah or written text of the Hebrew/Jews, so why this attempt to show that the ancients had writing that could not be read? The ancient Egyptian priests were the only ones that could read their script and I surmise that the Hebrew priests were doing the same. Many of their characters not only formed a letter but could also form a word or even a sentence. The Hebrew Torah was rewritten between 600 and 1000ad and it was written straight into it’s present form by Jewish specialists who knew exactly what was written in the ancient text and they got it right no question. You also made mention that there were no documents indication that the ancient Hebrew was written with punctuation or vowels, I have already made comment on how they wrote but will add this material for your perusal;

    Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls written in Hebrew include biblical texts, non-biblical literary works, and documents such as deeds and letters. While some documents contain specific dates, most are dated on the basis of paleographical analysis (the study of the development of scripts over time), and sometimes with carbon-14 dating. These texts illustrate the vitality of the Hebrew language in ancient Jude

    Most of these Hebrew Scrolls are written in the standard “square” (“Jewish”) script, very similar to today’s Modern Hebrew, while several are written in paleo-Hebrew, an ancient script from the First Temple period. Interestingly, some Scrolls written in the standard script use the ancient script specifically for writing the divine name. Additionally, some Scrolls are written in cryptic scripts (Cryptic A, B, and C), which use unusual signs to represent Hebrew alphabet letters.

    Scholars commonly speak of “Qumran Hebrew” as a literary Hebrew dialect. Some Scrolls from the Qumran caves have certain distinctive features, such as the use of “plene” spelling (using the letters א, ה, ו, י to indicate vowels), which scholars have identified as “Qumran Scribal Practice.” The documents from the refuge caves of the Judean Desert are written in a less formal Hebrew.

    For some very fragmentary manuscripts found in the refuge caves, there is no way to determine whether the language of the text is Hebrew or Aramaic. Several works from Qumran, such as Enoch and Tobit, are preserved in both Aramaic and Hebrew versions.

    This should give you an idea of what I meant when I stated that the priests [like the Egyptians] had a way of reading texts inshorthand rather than longhand.

  119. Stephen says:

    You could earn much benefit from learning how to reply to a question or post quickly and precisely instead of just rattling on with incorrect statements and or christian beliefs that are not able to be defended by any ancient text. Rambling on is a show of weakness in train of thought and in the belief of ones own statements.
    *****

    No I am not saying I believe in anything except my God/creator/savior.

    What I was trying to convey and believe you really understood my intent is that even if one were to believe that Peter and or Paul was a so called early pope although they were not, never appointed or elected into pope-hood, that even they had differences.
    Differences so big that they came to a physical fist fight according to christian texts.

    You gotta lighten up on the long laments or comments.
    I don’t ask tricky questions but you feel or seem to show the need to twist or change meanings like the christian church does.

    Are you a christian? Is this why you attempt to twist or change what I post? This is indoctrinated in you through your belief system?
    Just asking. Because it is very odd.

    In fact I see much of the same old same old with your responses and queries.
    Nothing new, no supporting ancient texts or sources other than the christian church cannons.

    Islam is misunderstood by you. They have the very same right to believe their man made religion as the christians do.
    Both chanted “Convert or Die’ throughout history so they have much in common.

    You actually bring the ‘Supreme Court’ into religious matters? Really? This is very very odd. Do you believe the Supreme Court should run the christian religions?

    Per your Jesus, give unto Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God’s.

    Why intertwine the two if your Jesus did not and specifically noted to not do so?

    Just asking Ray.

    • rayjwarren says:

      Stephen I hate to say this mate but you are rambling and it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand what you are talking or rather writing about. I shall try to answer your statements but may not be able to answer all. I have already made it quite clear to everyone in this forum that I am an agnostic, I do not believe in religion. I am an historian and Author with some little standing in the UK and Europe. I have tried to answer your way out of line questions with precise attention to detail and frankly, your posts are generally much longer than mine which you apparently do not read or follow. I have nominated the Dead Sea Scrolls to cover your “there are no vowels in the ancient scripts” section of your posts and only ask that you give the priests credit for being able to understand what they had written.
      I am now beginning to wonder if you are not a troll enjoying a walk on the wild side.
      Islam is not understood by me?? Muslims do not believe in Muhammad as a God nor that he made their religion. They believe that he received the word of God and that he was told to pursue it in it’s purest form only, like that of old. Islam preaches identical religious tales the same as the Jewish works except they have kept the old practices What ever they chanted is of no consequence, your statements that Jesus was not real is a failure on your part to accept history, I have already provided you with argument and ancient text for almost everything you have posted so that you can curtail your diatribe against historic figures. If you were a Christian or a Jew trying to pervert history by using history to falsely cause religious myths to be part of a nonexistent history, I would also come down on you for history and religion only mix together when there is no supernatural additions.
      The Supreme court was placed in my post to show that if a trial were held [and you are constantly holding one] The court would find in favor of the defense. As for courts being brought in on religion? I am sure that you have not forgotten the man-to-monkey court trial in the USA where religion was heavily used by the prosecution against a sturdy defense maintained by the famous Clarence Darrow. The rest of your material appears to have gone a little off target as I do not remember giving that exact statement on Caesar; Perhaps you can explain it because I cannot.

      Per your Jesus, give unto Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God’s.

      Why intertwine the two if your Jesus did not and specifically noted to not do so?

      Just asking Ray.

  120. Stephen says:

    Rayjwarren,

    If it’s okay for a modern day church to choose to claim something or someone was their first pope or whatever; then, it would be equally fair for a different person to claim that same person is/was something different than the other person claims.
    With your line of thinking, Islam is correct simply because they choose to say so.
    This can’t be correct. Really warren this can’t be what you are saying?

    The problem with your argument is that you are arguing only based on the christian churches teachings which have no ancient text to support it in terms of documents. You also forget to mention that Paul and Peter had a physical fight at one time because Peter did not like what Paul was teaching. Peter wanted more of what the church called Jesus’ teachings and Paul believed more in the Jewish traditional belief system. Even back then the apostles could not agree. So, are you smart enough to tell us all that some 2000 years or so ago, you can tell today in 2016, which was really correct and which was wrong?
    Really?

    Come on warren? Not really!

    • rayjwarren says:

      So in effect what you are saying is, you believe in Peter and Paul because they had a fight over their teachings and yet you do not believe in Jesus because they flooded him with miracles?? I am saying that he did exist because their is more than enough evidence to show that he did. I also believe that Robin Hood existed because he is written about but the information is vague just as it is for King Arthur who also gets quite a bit of supernatural material shoved his way with Merlin and pulling a sword from a stone [probably symbolism for making a sword from iron] It matters not what each wanted, both were right for the Jews got their long time church and banned Jesus and the Christians got theirs in Christianity.
      Any person with half a brain would understand that a new religion with so few followers should be quite easy to dissipate, especially after the ringleader had been dealt with yet right from the beginning, right from the very first, from Peter and all the other believers that were crucified on the roads into Rome and in the arenas etc were done in because of a nonexistent person, You forget Pontius Pilate who was judge at Jesus trial and you try to throw Peter away just to deny Jesus in history. Sorry Mate, I do not believe he was anything of a God or even a martyr, he [in my belief was simply a Benny Hinn trying to make people believe he was a wonderful Messiah when in fact he was just a leader of a religious sect that got lucky. I am not arguing the point based on Christian Church teachings, I care not about them, I am simply stating fact that unless we have a motor, we do not have a car, unless we have wings we cannot fly like a bird. As for telling who was right or who was wrong is not my dealing, it is you who are trying to show that Jesus did not exist! I am only trying to tell you that yes, he was made mystic by 2000 years and a bunch of exaggerating followers but the Christian Church and those who believed in him including the earliest popes would not have gone to such terrible deaths unless there was an engine, unless there were wings.
      One thing I can tell you is the Christian churches teach love and compassion to their followers in the 20th and 21st century and what harm is that doing at this moment. why try to eradicate those particular niceties from the people? Do you think mankind can do such things themselves?

      Surely you can understand that the Christian Church was no three thousand year old Egyptian faith, it was a fledgling belief that was still being formed when Jesus departed the scene [Read the story of Gebeleisis in Herodotus by Google Gebeleisis] How can you expect to have drawn up an entire script for a religion when the events were still happening. Nobody could do very much except go out and preach just as the Mormon leader did and the many other newly formed branches of the Christian Church did. What you are asking for is the horse before the cart and in that era, there was no possibility. The disciples went out and preached the word and told the story and other writers put the words down in the New Testament. As with most everything written, there was some exaggeration down through the ages but there id no reason to attack the originator and to deny his presence simply because you want documentary proof like a birth certificate or a license to practice religion. Think of it this way, the dinosaurs could be just rock and never were bones yet we believe they were real, why because we want to believe it and that is why people wat to believe in a savior and should be allowed to without others trying to disrupt that belief. You know, we believe in Julius Caesar, Nero, Hellen of Troy and many other Greek and Roman heroes and they are just as vague in memory as Jesus is, with all the suffering our forebears endured in their belief, do you not think it a little off that you deny them all? Remember what I have said, he existed, you just do not like what has been attributed to him by exaggeration but that is no reason to dent his existence.

      • Sorry, mate, but there is no evidence whatsoever of Jesus as such existing–the most celebrated crucifixion in Roman/Levant history was that of Simon Bar Giora, a contemporary of Paul’s. Both you and Stephen are about the business of what many scholars before you spun their wheels on since antiquity. I daresay neither of you will be able to dig up anything more convincing than what has been pored over by scholars with greater credentials for centuries. 😉

    • rayjwarren says:

      On the subject of Islam, the history of that religion is fairly well know and where they got their model from is also well known. Their Koran comes from the old testament at the time the Torah was being rewritten in its present form. They do not choose to say that they are correct simply because they say so, they are following the writings of the old testament in the form they were originally written probably before the Jewish rewrite.
      The first name is Ray if you missed it, I have no worry about my last name but would prefer to be called by my first. I do not see any problems with my argument because I argue not, that is your definition. I only offer up historic fact to those who would deny it simply because they want it to go away. Stephen, put yourself in the shoes of the Apostles, those who thought of Jesus as a Messiah were in danger of their lives and that is why some of them turned back to the Jewish way. Some were committed to Jesus and went on their way preaching his teachings until they were killed or died. All of this was happening at a very weak time in Middle Eastern history and so a new religion with a new King was much required. The Apostles had not I phones or Lap tops or even radios or typewriters, they had only their preaching by mouth. They were not scribes, they were followers who did much as a street preacher does today. I think that you expect too much from a very simple people in a very harsh and simple minded era. Finally, every history teaching no matter about who what or when, has much theory attached to it and in many cases, we are forced to follow the theory when we have no facts to back it up but in the case of Jesus, the Supreme Court with a full jury of unbiased people could not find Jesus did not exist, there is too much evidence in the belief of the people, the writings of Tacitus and a few others, the new testament. the popes and the Christian Religion itself. Yes I believe that what you are trying to say is wrong and there are about three billion people [including Muslims who also believe in Jesus as a prophet] who will also tell you the same.
      Oh really??
      Case closed Jesus existed wins!!

      • Jesus existed does not win without physical evidence, sorry. And you’re wrong about the origins of Islam, besides. What you don’t know is that there was a Nestorian monk by the name of Felix who was excommunicated for helping Mohammed with his Quran. Well, those were the charges against him, anyway. Felix, Gabriel, potato, potahto. Nestorians were deemed by Rome to be heretical, eventually.

  121. Stephen says:

    Rayjwarren

    Seems to be a lot of words needed to express a simple thought or feeling or position. I’m being honest, not a smart ass.

    I as all persons are, in my opinion, have a free will.
    Mine is such that I choose to believe in a God that created me and that I serve in my actions.
    I don’t need any religion because all religions are man made.
    Some are just older than others and have quite amazing and verifiable texts to read that completely conflict with all christian/islamic beliefs.
    It’s just historical fact.

    I have many friends in every possible man made religion and all are I hope, good people. Again, I need none of their religions.

    In the book of Hosea God says besides him there is no other savior.
    I choose to believe my Gods words since the scripture has been verified as authentic.

    In the book of Amos God tells this prophet that he will turn his back on all the prayers, hymns, psalms, sacrifices, celebrations and etc.
    All he wants is a flow of justice and righteousness throughout his world.

    This later statement by God is taken by me, with free will being my basis for choosing what I understand or believe, to mean that God has no need for a man made religion.
    It, man made religions, have no place in his existence and offers no value in his view.

    He just wants us to be just and righteous people.

    • As long as you believe that the words in a Rome-crafted Bible are God’s words, the Roman Empire still lives.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Listen don’t speak Clara, you are like a fly buzzing about in a bottle with no way out, you appear to have some basic knowledge or history but your efforts to put down the Christian beliefs or for that matter any religious beliefs is becoming pathetic. Try [if you can] to understand where I am coming from, I do not hate religion to your extreme, I know that people such as Ulysses, Achilles, Helen of Troy and others were written about because they had a part in History. Yes, we cannot prove that they did exist but history has been affected in that Troy was found because of the records of Homer. Your constant attacks on the Jesus character are unwarranted for he, like many other famous people of the past was also written about and therefore has been consigned to history by those who knew of him. I do not follow nor believe in anything he did of a supernatural kind but I do know that he existed just as surely as Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes existed and as many Egyptian Kings named but not found existed. Also, I would prefer it if you did not call me mate, not even if you are a butch bitch, you are not my mate and would certainly not ever have a chance at being so. I thing you should take your Simon’s bar and enjoy that for a while, stop trying to be a troll among people of whom you could not and do not come within a thousand leagues of an equal mentality. The fact that you are trying to dig into conversations shows that nobody wants your idiotic viewpoints because you do not understand history. You simply put down anything you o not believe without trying to understand how the history came to be. Leave off and go back to your nursery butch.

  122. Stephen says:

    Atheos
    It’s not that you don’t have documents that are credible or that those that I get to investigate are or are not older or newer.
    I just find it easy to take a document and then start going backwards and find it’s origination point or at least travel back as far as possible and then establish a date nearest its origin.
    ALL, christian text in the NT are from 320-325. This is the time that the catholic church says the NT was assembled by gathering all the known documents in the lands and then recreating them to become the NT. This is just part of history and the Pagan Ruler Constantine, the Sun God worshiping ruler, oversaw this gathering. The catholic church has a complete record of attendees, notes regarding conversations and copies of all the documents that were then assembled and sent to the scribes to start making copies to be forwarded to all of the attendees. I can’t make this stuff up, it’s part of the history of the catholic church and is covered quite well in their historical documents and encyclopedia.

    What I continually find with christians, which i was at one time, is reliance upon documents that can only be traced with documentary proof back to this council since all other documents were destroyed (in my opinion because they caused fear in the church. why else would they destroy something that was beneficial to their beliefs? they wouldn’t).
    The catholic/christian churches run on ‘believe what we say, not what you can find on your own, even if we are not telling you the truth.’
    I prefer for each person to read a true historical document in it’s original form translated verbatim into english without any ‘interpretation or extrapolation’ and then ask them if their current day christian bible reads the same way. It doesn’t because ‘men’ took the documents and interpreted them into what they as men decided was the story to tell.

    There are no less than 5 persons in history that have lives that mirror image Jesus’.

    If there is a God like I assume there is, then I believe there is only one at the apex of power, that’s the one I believe in and I believe he is my savior because from ancient texts, he says so. I don’t say so, he does. So what I believe is simply the end result from what I have been able to read and then ponder it’s meaning without input by myself as to it’s intention.

    I tell people to google this: paintings of Jesus and Krishna side by side

    If someone googles this phrase and click to images, they will see Krishna and Jesus side by side floating in the air almost exact in every aspect except for hair and clothing. Even positioning is identical and these paintings are thousands of years apart in terms of the time they were originally created. This one thing in and of it’s self should cause anyone to stop and think.

    My best to you and yours, be safe.

    • Minor correction to your assertion that all books in the NT are from the 4th century or later: Paul’s epistles date to the late first century. John’s Gospel, 2nd century. Mark was Paul’s contemporary although the date on Mark’s Gospel aren’t certain.

      • Another correction needed here, about Constantine the sun worshiper. He wasn’t. Along the lines of Greco-Roman mythology, he was a Zeus worshiper. The sun worshiping became a necessity for the Roman Empire when it conquered the federation of kingdoms associated with the kingdom of Pontus–they were playing both ends against the middle, as it were, playing Persia against Rome and vice versa. Those were the Mithraic Kingdoms in that federation, and the bit about the sun ( a lesser god to Romans and Greeks) being primary deity was a Mithraic/Egyptian adaptation.

  123. Stephen says:

    I’d like to make a statement here. I do not post on these websites so that I can create an argument or anger anyone. It’s not my goal.
    I was raised a catholic and at age 42 started reading and found some really nice Jews on some crusies that opened the door to many ancient documents that were translated ‘verbatim’. Not some later day Greek or Roman interpretation, which is what I see/hear most people talk about.
    I’m not certain how deep some of you go in terms of truly ancient documents but if you were to read a portion of one that was 5 thousand years old or older you’d be hard pressed to make a true complete sentence out of the text. Which is why I wonder where some of these statements come from. The old language is kinda, but not exactly, like taking proper english in a sentence form and have a mexcian say the same thing in street slang and then have that street slang translated ‘EXACTLY VERBATIM’. The original english sentence and the subsequent “EXACT VERBATIM” lines of text will not look anything alike and in most cases will lose some/much of the original meaning, ‘unless you speak both the proper english and the street mexican language.
    That’s all I’m trying to get across here.
    Texts used in the current and past NT are man made.
    With proof from the christian/Catholic church and it’s records kept from the first council of Nicaea the NT was developed/created/written at this meeting. There have been 21 or so of these Councils. The last one is still going on I believe and has been open for quite some time.
    The current NT, no matter who disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church, the writer/author of the current NT that is used worldwide by all christian belief systems (there are @ 40,000 different christian belief systems worldwide) was created at the first council of Nicaea and produced from that meeting and is still in use today for the most part.
    The documents they used were documents that were translated over and over again and many are noted to have been written by priests by the catholic encyclopedia not the apostles. In fact no gospel is known to have been written by the author noted on the gospel. The Catholic church, the greatest record keeper of religious documents in the modern world, notes so in their encyclopedia.

    We have a single God. He’s the only God, he’s our creator. No one else is.

    The reason we have religious disputes is people have followed these man made religious beliefs and have become to imagine they are Gods words. They are not. Gods words are only found in the OT. God did not speak to man in the NT. Remember I said God, not Jesus, the christian deity, but God.

    I just don’t need any half hearted responses on responses without actual ancient text as back up documents.

    Text that has been translated and changed or written by man after the time of Jesus, both are not ancient text.

    • rayjwarren says:

      I told you before Stephen, you are trying to find or suppress, you are afraid to die not knowing and you are afraid to live without confirmation. All persons who question their faith are afraid of what is to come and need proof of an omnipresence to comfort them and reassure them of an afterlife. I have covered you questions on the ancient texts and even given you two self written texts that are set down in a similar manner to that about which you complain. Perhaps you should contemplate becoming Jewish if you need their God rather than Jesus of the Christians. Look, as you know from my posts, I am not a believer in Religions of any sort, as far as I am concerned, man created God and not vice versa. I have though, studied religions to a certain degree in my history research whilst following tribes and people around the Middle East, Asia and North Africa. One thing I find amusing in all this is that anthropologists and religious researchers and atheists all talk about when humanity began and where it began and how religions got started and etc. Most of them state that man was created or came into being some time between 4000 and 40,000 years ago. Anthropology is still in it’s infancy and very little research has been done in China, Siberia and the areas around the Black sea and in fact many areas worldwide. Besides that, the race of people that they should be studying is alive and still going after a proven 60,000 years, the oldest race of people on Earth the Australian aboriginal. They all appear to just hold off on the aborigines simply because they predate all else [human] on the planet. The religious system of the aborigine was simple, there were no Gods, only spirits of the rivers, the creeks, the trees, the rocks, the hills and that was that. He sis believe in ghosts for that was what he thought the white man was when first seen. So the aboriginal is man in his garden of Eden except there is no God, only the spirits of all that is on Earth. The Aborigine never, repeat never had any type of God so that is why I believe that man created the Gods and not vice versa.
      Creation?
      That is a question that is not easily answered, all things have a beginning and I am comfortable with man coming out of the sea or primordial soup but that does not speak for the Earth, the Sun, the Solar System, the Galaxy and the Universe. Somehow there was a creation of all that we know exists and we are the evolution of that creation, we are the peak of of somethings creative performance and we are the chosen who continue that creation onward. What we believe caused all this does not matter, it has happened and to each man and tribe and nation involved, goes the workload of continuing until all energy has been exhausted. I say that we are evolving and creating and that we already have the example of the earliest of men ]Caucasian aboriginals of Australia] and the most modern of men to compare. The Gods have been required ever since man had to face the great inundations, quakes and Volcanic eruptions that have occurred everywhere on Earth except Australia, so all men except the aboriginal have had to look for a supreme being to assist them in their hour of woe. Not the Australian native, he has been at peace with his world, only bush fire and flood have caused him worry until the European arrived.
      Belief in a creator is not a problem because it is an unanswerable question, the Australian native believed that a giant snake carved out the rivers and mountain ranges and they had stories for every unnatural outcrop etc. Europeans and Asians of the Christian variety wanted a father figure and the women wanted a mother figure whilst the children wanted a child figure and so we see Isis and Osiris, Isis and Horus, Mary and Jesus and so forth. If the Aton religion had hung around in Egypt, it too would have formed a family as did Osiris and Isis and Horus. My view of western religion is that the God of the two major religions is the sun and that although Islam has taken the Torah and Bible as it’s religious format, it follows an Arab mood god as it’s deity.
      Now this is what I believe and I do not expect anyone to follow that, I only work on what I know has been recorded and is fact t this moment in time. If the Gods [he tends to use the plural quite a bit in the Bible] wanted man to believe in him and he created man, then why would he not give the Australian native his credentials?

    • Requiring ancient texts that don’t exist is a pretty tall order. Just sayin’.

  124. Stephen says:

    Been there done that and understand quite completely the languages of the ancients.

    The Jews are the source to go to in all ancient texts and I have many very close friends in this industry within the Jewish faith.

    What I have stated is correct. One may twist and twirl things around such as christians do but it remains that the language was still in developmental state and, no, there were no vowels in the ancient text. The total number of ‘characters’ are enormous though.

    Vowels are vowels. You mistake the spoken sound for a vowel. Even today we only have 5 vowels. Where you get the number of vowels you cite is odd. A vowel is defined, we have 5. I’m speaking of a strictly written used ‘vowel’ which should have been understood. You are speaking of sounds.

    That is why I have noted that the early speech was mostly a ‘cave man’ type sound making without the intricacies of todays language where we have been lied to about the actual historical documents and instead have been given man made/priest written non-God authorized texts and are told to believe it because it is the Churches words. Many of the current mid-east still uses language which seems barren of vowels at times.

    To this date, Jewish religious scholars continue to interpret the texts to a more refined state and increase their interlinear accuracy.
    Hope this puts your mind to ease.

  125. Stephen says:

    Excuse my spellin, i’m on the road.

    It seems like lots of things are being said here that are just not true. I was raised a catholic, have access to the catholic encyclopedia and in it you will find many statements by past popes regarding the fact that the gospels were not written by those names attached to the gospels, just for starters.

    It will also provide (as do ancient text) that the word Virgin is not in the ancient texts. The word the christians claim means virgin actually means Young Girl and was changed during the translations by greeks/romans. These are simply facts and nothing else. So a Virgin Birth did not exist.

    To resolve any question regarding ‘who the savior’ is one only has to read one book in the bible. I use the term bible loosely since the Jewish Word is what is actually now called the OT. It’s just an effort by constantine to make it seem outdated and the NT that was created @ 320/325 AD was called the NT. Anyway, back to ‘ who is the real savior ‘.

    The book of Hosea. In this book, in Gods own words (the Jewish Word has never been translated and changed. it has always remained true to text) God says ‘besides me there is no other savior’.
    Now this was said many centuries/millennia before ‘JESUS’ existed (there was not a ‘J’ till @ 1500 AD so it’s hard to say what his name was).

    So we have a person that is claimed to have been named Jesus where in fact he was not.
    So in fact we have a person that was claimed to have been born by a virgin, where in fact he was not.

    Another significant fact is that the Romans, being the most detailed citizenry in history up to and through their demise, has not one actual document regarding Jesus or his miracles, or his healing’s or anything about him at all. Only christian writings have these stories.
    One would easily conclude that the most documented civilization in history would have had many documents written about Jesus’ 3 year campaign teaching his beliefs wouldn’t you? Not to mention his miracles? Would not the Romans and even today, the US government, document such a person?

    And we are to believe that after 3 years of healing/teaching/etc and the citizenry of Rome loving Jesus, that in one week they all turn against him and ask for him to be crucified and to let Barabas, a murderer/rapist, go free? Really? You don’t find this to be much BS?

    Lastly the oldest in tact bible (OT/NT combined) is the Codex Sinaiticus Bible has no mention of Jesus in it at all. How’s that?

    It’s been proven that God is our savior by Gods own words. To believe any other person is your savior requires you to turn your back on Gods words plain and simple. God is God, no one else is God.

  126. rayjwarren says:

    When you keep getting three when all you are adding is one and one, something is not right. It is either your calculator or your fingers that are misleading you. When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then to all ends it is not a turkey in the Bush. I am convinced that things were not as they seemed on that little adventure and will just watch future events for my final say on the matter.

  127. rayjwarren says:

    The name given to Jesus [Hesus] at his birth was Emanuel, a common Greek name now and that was changed to Jesus shortly after. The name Joshua, Yeshua or Yashua are not what I have ever seen him called until this century. Perhaps it is because I am not a religion follower but I believe that you are all wasting your time over one small religion from one small group of tribesmen that none of you will ever prove false or true. Start your own religious beliefs or those of you who believe, stop coming to this type of site looking for religious argument. One thing that I will comment upon is that for several years I have listened to Americans giving Australians what for over their convict heritage, this gave me some anger problems originally but then a few years later whilst getting convict lists for prisoners who left England, I came across the many ship loads that were taken to South Africa, India and of course, you guessed it, the United States from the middle 1600’s. Now why was I never able to find such things or hear such things from Americans? Why they were covering up their convict past and are still doing so today, my goodness me, I guess that Australia must bear the convict brunt because the States and the West Indies got lucky when the prisoners assisted the gentry to kick Britain out. Australia also had it’s independence attempt but the English once bitten, twice shy.

    • Atheos says:

      Ray
      Where do you get that the name of Jesus was originally Emmanuel (Hebrew word) then changed to Jesus? As a few folk here are aware Jesus is an English transliteration of ΙHΣOYΣ Ἰησοῦς which is a Greek transliteration of Y’shua and other variants. The nearest Greeks could get to the Y’sh part of the name was Ἰησ which served as the stem, so the remainder of the word is used to note the Greek Case of the noun, ie Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative and Vocative, which helps identify whether Jesus is the Subject, Object, Possessive, Indirect Object or being directly addressed within a sentence.

      Being an Australian citizen myself, you would be surprised to see many of the petty ‘crimes’ that people were transported to Australia for – ‘Talking back to the master’. If ever you get chance to visit Tasmania, just go to Richmond Gaol or read the pavement bricks in Cambletown to see how trivial some ‘crimes’ were.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Atheos, who has not been reading their Bible then?

        Isaiah 7:14 (NIV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

        Matthew 1:23 (NIV) “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”(which means “God is with us”).
        The prophesies state that a king would be born to a Virgin and she would name him Emmanuel [most religious writers appear to be trying to change this to Immanuel from Emmanuel, there may be some difference but I am unsure of that point. Jesus means “with Jehovah” I believe and the meaning of Emmanuel is the above so they virtually meant the same thing.
        Now you have arrived at a field that I do have a little competence. Google my Blog “The Warren Register” and take a look in the Convict Ship section. I have corrected Bateson’s work in a few areas and so it is a reasonable coverage of what you are talking about. I have included several ships passengers [convicts] within and I can assure you that things were not as apple blossom whit as you ,might think, Beastiality was the first to catch my eye and from then on the list of offenses was amazing. Sure their were many trivial offenses especially when it came to children below 15 years but many well deserved their sentences and some got off light with 14 years. I think you said I should visit Tasmania, well yes that would be nice but as an Tall Ship Historian whose oldest photographic image is of the wharf in Hobart, I can say that I feel that I have already been there. I also have a collection of images dated 1853 done by King [from memory] that depicts Truganinni and her family and all my research shows that she and her family were not the last of the Tasmanian natives, they were the last of the mix race [West Indian Negroes and native aborigine] and that anthropology and Australian science has got it wrong.

      • Stephen says:

        Atheos,
        Not arguing with you however, the ancient texts, the Sumerian the Aramaic the Hebrew the early Jewish languages had no capital letters no spaces between words, no vowels and no punctuation.
        A real true verbatim translation of the ancient texts is really an eye opener to see.
        It’s not as coherent as people are reading the modern day bibles that are pushed down our throats.
        They are all written by priests or others charged with writing the stories that the ruling theocracy wanted.
        It takes a real scholar to read the ancient text and make clear sense out of it.
        So the ‘ and the Y and the u and the a are not found in the ancient texts.
        Their speech was more in broken sounds much like Farsi is to us now or even a cave man type speech.
        They spoke in very broken sounds, not in sentences.

      • Atheos says:

        Stephen
        Thanks for the info on other ancient languages, and I thought that this site was useful for learning, assessing opinions and debating. I was aware that Hebrew had no vowels and now you mention it I do not recall ever seeing lowercase and capital versions of Hebrew letters. I certainly did not know about these other ancient languages that you and Ray are more familiar with. That is one reason I did not learn Hebrew as it looked like you could make any stuff up and fit between the letters that were present, as the YaHWeh or YeHoWa debate illustrates. Instead I learned Classical Greek at uni and in honesty found parts of it difficult because I also learned not just Greek but also more about how the English language worked than I ever did at school. Koine Greek of the New Testament period and beyond was originally written in capital letters (Majuscule) without spaces between words and lower case Greek (Miniscule) appeared centuries later, along with Latin. The first thing I do when studying a section of a Greek manuscript (no more than two or three sentences at a time) is to write/type out a transcript, then add the spaces and then make a lower case copy and add breathings to indicate whether a vowel is aspirated (leading ‘H’ sound), or non-aspirated (no leading ‘H’ sound), then translate it.

        It truly is an eye opener trying to translate text from Greek, because there are nuances and plays on words that add a difference to the meaning. For example the Nicene Creed in English is …

        “We believe in God the Father Almighty,”

        The Greek text reads …

        “Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα”

        which translates as “We believe in one God father RULER OF ALL”

        The Greek word παντοκράτορα (pantokratora) means “ruler of all” and not “almighty”. The reason we have ‘Almighty’ is because the Latin translation of the creed uses ‘omnipotentum’ meaning ‘omnipotent’ or ‘almighty’ …

        Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipoténtem,

        The Roman church adopted this, as did the Protestants about a Millennia later. Apparently there was a bit of a bust up between the Greek speaking and Latin speaking churches over this and a few other phrases that the Latin Churches added to their translation of the creed.

        The problem we have translating Greek to English is that there are some 50,000 Greek words and only about 20,000 English words (that figure has probably gone up a bit if we include mobile phone SMS talk) so we go from a precise language like Greek to an ambiguous language like English and inevitable lose things in translation. Sometimes texts don’t appear to make sense when you translate literally, or suggest something that is not in the English. One problem translating for bibles, like NIV or Good News is do we go with a literal translation, a translation that uses modern concepts to convey the atmosphere of the text like the Good News version, or somewhere in between like the NIV translation. Another problem is that it is impossible for any translator, Christian or otherwise, not to allow their own cultural, personal theological assumptions to affect their judgement. A Christian translator is more likely to, believe in prophecy, miracles, a virgin birth, the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, which certainly influences the translation of passages that Ray has kindly taken the trouble to quote verbatim for us. A Jewish or Hebrew scholar translating these same passages from Hebrew scrolls would give an alternative, non-messianic translation, something that I will suggest to Ray later.

      • Stephen says:

        I forgot to add. IF Greek text are what you consider ‘ancient’ then we are thousands of years apart. Greeks took ancient text and translated them where in the end their writings many times are different than the original texts. This is part of the degree study in ancient languages. When I speak of ancient languages, I am speaking of the ‘Original’ Sumerian/Hebrew/Aramaic and some early Jewish documents. Never do I consider translated extrapolated interpreted works from scribes.

      • Atheos says:

        Ray,
        lmao, yes I have read bibles but can sometimes be a silly arse, so thanks for getting back to me and taking the time to explain things in more detail. I am familiar with the text from Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1 that you have quoted from the NIV translation.

        When I compared the Hebrew names, comparing the meanings of the Hebrew names Immanuel (מנואל) from the Old Testament with Y’shua (ישוע) from the New Testament. I understood Y’shua/Yehoshua/Joshua to mean ‘Salvation’, ‘Deliverance’ or even ‘God Saves’ according to some sources, so I am puzzled as to how you get Immanuel (God with us) to mean the same as Y’shua (God Saves).

        As for not reading my bible, maybe I use a different version to you, for I note that you have mentioned various Hebrew texts in previous posts, so assumed you would be aware that the NIV and many other bible translations incorrectly translate the passage in Isaiah 7:14 to mean ‘the virgin’, when the Hebrew Ha Almah (הָעַלְמָה) means ‘the young woman’ and is not a reference to her sexual status, virgin or otherwise. If the writer of Isaiah had explicitly meant ‘Virgin’ in reference to her sexual status then he would have used the word Betulah (בְּתּוּלָה), which does get translated as ‘virgin’. Some scholars have commented on those who translate Isaiah 7:14 as ‘virgin’ and inconsistently translate the word in other places as ‘young woman’, deliberately do so for theological reasons. As I said in my response to Stephen, any translator is prejudiced by their own cultural and theological assumptions.

        This passage in Isaiah is not a ‘Messianic prophecy’ predicting a future ‘virgin birth’ in any way shape or form, as the historical context and later passages from Isaiah indicate. This is a natural birth that is about to happen quickly. The historical context this occurs in is when King Ahaz faces the imminent threat of invasion by the Northern Kingdom and their allies like Aram (Syria?), so is forced into contemplating an alliance with the king of Assyria. Isaiah’s message is that God will give Ahaz this sign that the young woman (clearly a specific woman known to both Isaiah and Ahaz, some suggest that it is in fact Isaiah’s wife) was going to give birth to a son, but by the time the boy had reached a certain age, the king of the Northern Kingdom and his allies would no longer be a threat. A miraculous virgin birth taking place some 560 years later would be completely useless to Ahaz as he needed to find an immediate political/military solution there and then in his day, not in a distant future many centuries beyond his own life time.

        According to some Hebrew scholars and Jewish commentators, Christian translators have got the tenses wrong, for the Hebrew text better translates as “The pregnant young woman will (soon) give birth to a son and she shall call him ‘Immanuel’ which means ‘God with us’”. According to their interpretation, the young woman is ‘already pregnant’. Hebrew is not one of my strong points but they seem to make a good case for their translation of the Hebrew text.

        The author of the infancy narrative in Matthew (my personal opinion is that this text was added to the main corpus of Matthew at a later date to embellish the hero Jesus, and make him fit the typical formula of a demigod, hero or legendary figure) made several sleight of hand alterations and errors when quoting from Isaiah. His first error is his use of the Greek Septuagint and not a Hebrew text, for the words ἡ παρθενος (he parthenos) betrays that he was obviously quoting from the Septuagint and not a Hebrew text of Isaiah, so used the incorrect translation of ‘The virgin’ instead of ‘The young woman’.

        If the Jewish scholars I alluded to earlier are correct about ‘The pregnant young woman …’ (she is already pregnant), then the author of Matthew made subtle changes to the tenses regarding the pregnancy state of the young woman. In Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 her pregnancy is in the present tense (she is already pregnant) and the future tense refers to her giving birth, yet in Matthew 1:23 both the young woman’s pregnancy and her giving birth are in the future tense.
        Next, Matthew changes ‘She (the young woman) will call him Immanuel’ from Isaiah, to ‘They will call him Immanuel’. Who is this mysterious ‘they’ that Matthew is referring to? The last nail in the coffin from my point of view is that Mary did not call her son Immanuel meaning ‘God with us’, but instead called him Y’shua meaning ‘God Saves’, ‘Salvation’ or ‘Deliverance’.

        Assuming for the sake of argument that Isaiah 7:14 is a messianic proclamation, then the author of Matthew has made a huge blunder regarding Joseph’s reaction to the news that his ‘virgin’ wife was pregnant. If Isaiah 7:14 is such clearly messianic prophecy, then surely Joseph, an alleged descendant of King David according to the Matthean genealogy, would have know about the prophecy. So when his ‘virgin’ wife claimed she was pregnant he should have been jumping for joy, that his betrothed woman was going to give birth to the Messiah. Yet we read that, far from being delirious that his intended wife was a virgin and going give birth to the Messiah, instead, Joseph immediately assumes that his wife has had pre-marital sex and secretly plans to break off from her, needing an angel (enters stage left) to prompt him (how convenient).

        The concept of a ‘virgin birth’ is totally alien to Judaism. To think that a single mistranslated word in the Hebrew text could create such an entire theology, let alone a multitude of ‘translations’ and ‘interpretations’. It is little wonder that Christianity adopted the ‘virgin birth’ formula from the pagan world, both to appeal to the rival pagan religions, and embellish the provenance of the founder of the embryonic Christian religion at the same time, only to be later caught out by this single mistranslated word Ha Almah.

        So I think we can safely say that I have read my bibles and enough other documents, but maybe need to step back from the text now and then to take a deep breath.

        On a more personal note I will certainly check out your blog on convicts and shipping. Thanks

      • Atheos says:

        Stephen
        I get the same response from family who study ‘Ancient’ Egyptian’ culture, who also pull me up for this as they regard my Classical Greek and New Testament period as far too late for them to even call ‘old’ let alone ‘ancient’. Yes I take your point that maybe I should use the term Christianity in Antiquity instead of ancient times. I’m afraid when it comes to Christian texts, copies of copies of copies of copies of the original autographs is about the best we are going to get, even if that is a scrap of papyrus the size of a credit card with part of John 18 on both sides (P52). At least you and Ray have monuments in stone, metal and clay with engravings to work on that have lasted thousands of years, umpteen invasions and countless tourists trampling all over them. All I have is the 5 main manuscripts and a few others like P46, that in some instances have had as many as about a dozen different scribes make alterations down the centuries. It is a lot harder to chisel out the “King Kong Woz Ere In 3000BC” and replace it with “Anyone Who Says Punk Music Is Dead Will Be”.

  128. Andy says:

    Really awesome discussion.

    I believe anyone worth their wit would agree with the following:

    If one were facing an important medical surgery, certainly that individual would do a little fact checking on the credentials and experience of the operating physician. Agree?

    Why should it be any different with spirituality? If one were seeking spiritual learning, wouldn’t it be a good idea to do a little fact checking on the credentials of the spiritual texts one is exploring? Again, I believe anyone worth their wit should agree.

    Strangely, in western christendom, its seems this fact checking procedure has always been discouraged. For example, speaking of recent history, the claim of telling the truth in courts of law has long been verified by placing one’s hand on a bible and saying that you will say nothing but the truth. Hmm, seems truth and the bible have long been bound to each other by social authority in places as important as our courts of law. Therefore, we have been taught that it can be assumed that speaking truth has something to do with biblical truth. No fact checking necessary right? Just place your hand on a bible and you are understood to be a truthful person.

    I say do a little fact checking if you personally would like to see yourself as a truthful person. Follow your instincts, not how you were socialized. Give that fact checking a good go. Trust your own intuition, I think you will start to see things quite differently.

    So, we see that war is around us a great deal these days. Seems these wars always have some relationship with the ongoings of the Middle East. Hey, Israel is in the Middle East. World history according to the bible is placed in the Middle East. In this context, we find that only the genealogical relatives of Abraham have the god of western christendom in their ancestry as the Judaic text claim. Everyone else is thus a Gentile. So, looking at the historical accounts in the early Judaic texts, we find that same war in the Middle East, and Moses et al. served the purpose of being god’s chosen few. We are to believe this to be true, so we can hold the bible true, and thus be truthful ourselves. But wait!

    Supposedly, Moses lead 600,000 Israeli slaves out of Egyptian bondage and defeated the Egyptian Pharoah with a series of deadly plagues etc. Unfortunately, there are no reliable accounts for this outside of the Judaic texts. More so, the Hebrews of Canaan are hardly mentioned in Egyptian history. Nor in the Syrian or Babylonian historical accounts of the time period and region. Furthermore, 600,000 people would certainly have left some trace of their activity of escaping Egypt would they have? Hmm, no archaeological finding of that either. Even more, skip forward a bit and we find this other fellow David. Rulers in his time were very passionate of having images of them reproduced, in busts, paintings, on the battleground etc. Hmm, not a single rendition of David. Going a little further, the supposed location of the ruins of king Solomon have recently be shown be of Syrian origin by unbiased archaeologists.

    Yet the Egyptians, Syrians, Babylonians (Iraq) are all equally vilified in the hebrew texts as idol worshipers, sinners and not of god.

    Hmm, lets look at something else shall we . . .

    Many ancient structures in India, many that were built in the same times as David and Solomon, are 1. still intact and 2. the history of the builder and tradespeople contributing to the structures can be verified today. Why can we not do this undoubtedly for the historical claims and accounts of the Judaic texts archaeologically? The question can’t ever be answered. No neighboring culture of the Hebrew Canaanites really made much of an account of the Canaanites, yet these neighboring peoples have precise accounts of history that can be shown to be accurate by time period and cultural proceedings. Massive colonies and empires have very little account of the folks detailed in the early Judaic texts. Yet, the Hebrews somehow have account of their neighbors and conflicts that existed and continue to exist only with them.

    By the time we get to Jesus, the evidence becomes even more sparse, contradictory and erratic.

    What do these things suggest to you? Sounds like war to me. In a nutshell, according to the Hebrew texts, god acted through the Hebrews to discredit everyone around them in this god’s name. In these texts, we get the introduction of monotheism in a very polytheistic time period. Hebrews in general had monotheism imposed on them by the ruling Canaanites, removing them of association with neighboring cultures.

    This little tidbit was pure gold to the Romans, who wanted control of the region. As such, a christ was the perfect way to win over the Hebrews, as the Romans were fully aware of their searching of the god promised savior of the Hebrews. Moreover, the Romans would gain an allegiance of ‘truthful’ loyalists as they had in hand the story of christ, connected to the ordinance of the Hebrews by god. This works perfectly in causing a loss of loyalty to Egypt, Syria and other competing cultures of the region at that time.

    This bible we speak is better understood as it really is, a playbook of cultural appropriation and war strategy. These tactics and doctrines have proven very effective, remove the ordinance of god from these texts and it is what it appears to be, one culture’s isolated story, with a messianic follow up story tacked on by an oncoming ruling empire. Its no one else’s story and should not be held as one’s own truth.

    Lesson: have pride in your own origins, respect the origins of others, leave the discrediting folly of past times in the past. We should be much better people today. The truth of the bible is inconsequential to your personal truth, which requires no hope or faith whatsoever.

    • Stephen says:

      Well it’s been a thorn in the side of christians for hundreds of years. No proof, no documents, nothing they can show the world and claim ‘ah ha! we told you so!’ I always wondered why they would claim Jesus is in the OT or NT? The letter J did not exist until @ 1500 AD. So what was his name if not Jesus? The ancient texts had no capitals letters, no vowels and no spaces between words so is Jesus’ name really ‘ss’ (no j, co capital letter, no vowels). Sounds like what a snake says or maybe the emblem on a Nazi uniform? SS. Just being light hearted here. I just can’t believe I spend 42 years as a catholic until I learned the lies they taught us all. Now some 20 years or so later I’m a little smarter.
      In the book of Hosea, God tells the prophet Hosea something like: “besides me, there is no other savior.” So why is the OT book of Hosea in every bible in the world yet christians claim that Jesus is the savior and they turn their backs on God’s words? Just asking. I like to learn.

      • rayjwarren says:

        The Spanish and Hispanics pronounce the name as did the ancients, The only vowel that was lacking for the Jews was E as per the Egyptian language. If you like to learn, do as the scholars do, study factual material, not the words of those who are biased for of against. This Blog is a combine of both and is merely a humorists paradise simply because neither for of against has conclusive proof and both are attempting to force through their beliefs not factual evidence. So far the Bible is comfortably in front of this Blog because those who enter their words in it are attempting to down play history whether it be exaggerated or not.

        They attack everything with a will rather than try to see what is meant by such writings. One thing that leaves them open to scorn is simply this, why, why write a long history and keep it for 2000 years, why maintain the names of their historic heroes just as Hercules, Achilles, Herodotus, Nero, Julius Caesar, Queen Bodecia, Helen of Troy, Robin Hood, King Arthur, and so many more epic heroes of the past have been maintained even though we are unsure that they existed. You are another who is looking for his God before he goes, another who needs to know he is not going into oblivion. I am not of any religion, I believe what I believe and need no God to unlock a door to a heaven. I need no spacemen, no dual universe, no “greener on the other side of the hill” and do not care if there is something else somewhere. History is history and what has been written down should be examined and screened between the lines rather than say this is unbelievable and discard it.

        You did not spend 42 years as a Catholic trying to find out if they were lying to you, you have been waiting for Santa to come all night and now that the dawn is upon you, fear has set in, fear that there may be nothing out there so you look here for support while awaiting your final day. That is why most of these people who denigrate religious beliefs are also here, they need someone to prove to them that a God exists for if the books are fiction, there is no proof for anything else. Sure the Bible and many other literary works are error ridden but so too are newspapers and magazines. What other history do you know that has stood for 4000 years and is still worshiped by every Christian and Jew all over the world? Go back to your church my friend, there is comfort within their book and if there is a salvation you will be part of it. Put it this way, you have 10 dollars, you can bet it on a horse and possibly double it or you can eat it, it is only one meal so why not take the punt that millions before you are right or those you seek comfort from here are correct in their assumptions? I think that I would want to be buried with my kith and kin and would want them [as did the Pharaohs] to pray for me right or wrong.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Also Stephen the Hebrews only left aside vowels in their religious writings simply because the priests and scribes were the only one who could read and write. The Masoretic text below was an addition of the vowels left out so that all could read and understand them in the future, this was only done with the Hebrew, not all written language. The religious scholars of that time were very precise in doing the work and virtually left records as to what letter had been placed. by whom and etc. There is nothing abnormal in that and they certainly were not trying to change things as you will see while reading the below. Have Faith man and stop trying to find yourself, you are making too many errors.

        Masoretic text, (from Hebrew masoreth, “tradition”), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around the 6th century ad and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever oral traditions were available to them.

        The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they called attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted discrepancies in various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation. Among the various systems of vocalization that were invented, the one fashioned in the city of Tiberias, Galilee, eventually gained ascendancy. In addition, signs for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue.

        When the final codification of each section was complete, the Masoretes not only counted and noted down the total number of verses, words, and letters in the text but further indicated which verse, which word, and which letter marked the centre of the text. In this way any future emendation could be detected. The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600 years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late 9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible.

      • What was his name if not Jesus? Try Simon. The Simon whose crucifixion was a cause celebre in Rome. The most mention this Simon got in the New Testament was “Simon the Zealot”, but he’s the one that got the huge party crucifixion on Roman record. Simon Bar Giora.

  129. Wak says:

    Just a thought:
    The bible says Israelites are God’s CHOSEN people. It then says God created the world and everything in it. But throughout the Bible’s history, God is on the Israelite’s side, sending prophets and more prophets to lead them and guide them in his “ways”. He even deals with their enemies like Canaanites,Egyptians, moabites… etc. So I wonder, would you call a group of children yours, whom you created and put on this earth, then proceed to exalt one of the kid (israelites) to show you are his/her powerful father? And subsequently show you are the one true God? and then centuries later you decide to send your son to die for the whole of mankind cause now,now they all deserve to come and bask in Paradise worshipping me for eternity…
    And second, Christ performed so many miracles and so many people witnessed it yet the elders of the people and the scribes could not easily identify him from a crowd and required Judas to kiss him for them to seize him?

    • rayjwarren says:

      I am sure that in this fledgling religion, Jesus was about as well known as were his little group of followers. Remember he was not attracting big crowds [feeding the 5000] and was about as popular as Hitler was to certain Jews;. the Bible is a man written book that claims certain religious rights ie; a claim that God has stated this or that. Priests come and go and one thing that this site appears to be missing, is that every Pope since the very first head of the Catholic Church came into being is recorded within the Vatican where the Popes have ruled Christianity since St Peter went from being an Apostle to being a Pope. I am sure that St Peter would not have invented such a story for his dearth was not a particularly good one and for that matter, would not future Popes have slunk away from such an ending?

    • Stephen says:

      Ray say what you want but you will not find an ancient text with any of these:
      vowels
      capital letters
      punctuation
      spaces between words

      If you don’t believe me, simply ask a historical document scholar and have them answer you in writing.

      I am speaking of documents that are the basis of the OT, not the later day written works that Constantine created at the first council of Nicaea @ 320 to 325 AD.

      Just give it a look see and you’ll understand what I’m saying is absolutely true. The letter J did not even come into existence until @ 1500 AD.
      So what is his name? Jesus? Really with a J? Really?

      Need to do some research my friend.

      Once a cult starts teaching from lies they continue to do so. Just look at Islam. They shout ‘Convert or Die’. Guess where this was said before Islam said it? The Crusades! Yep, Christian Soldiers Said it first! OOPS!

      • rayjwarren says:

        Stephen, please start reading things yourself, it becomes embarrassing having to show you things that you do not understand.

        Akkadian, written in a cuneiform script developed from that of the Sumerians, contained about 600 word and syllable signs. The sound system of the language had 20 consonants and 8 vowels (both long and short a, i, e, and u). Nouns occurred in three cases (nominative, genitive, and accusative), three numbers (singular, dual, and plural), and two genders (masculine and feminine); the feminine was distinguished from the masculine by the addition of the suffix -t or -at to the stem. The verb had two tenses (past and present-future).
        Sumerian
        Sumerian is clearly an agglutinative language in that it preserves the word root intact while expressing various grammatical changes by adding on prefixes, infixes, and suffixes. The difference between nouns and verbs, as it exists in the Indo-European or Semitic languages, is unknown to Sumerian. The word dug alone means both “speech” and “to speak” in Sumerian, the difference between the noun and the verb being indicated by the syntax and by different affixes.

        The distinctive sounds (phonemes) of Sumerian consisted of four vowels, a, i, e, u, and 16 consonants, b, d, g, ŋ, h, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, ś, š, t, z. In Classical Sumerian, the contrast between the consonants b, d, g, z and p, t, k, s was not between voiced (with vibrating vocal cords) and voiceless consonants (without vibrating vocal cords) but between consonants that were indifferent as to voice and those that were aspirated (pronounced with an accompanying audible puff of breath). The semivowels y and w functioned as vocalic glides.

        In the noun, gender was not expressed. Plural number was indicated either by the suffixes -me (or -me + esh), -hia, and -ene, or by reduplication, as in kur + kur “mountains.” The relational forms of the noun, corresponding approximately to the cases of the Latin declension, include: -e for the subject (nominative), -a(k) “of” (genitive), -ra and -sh(e) “to,” “for” (dative), -a “in” (locative), -ta “from” (ablative), -da “with” (commitative).

        The Sumerian verb, with its concatenation of various prefixes, infixes, and suffixes, presents a very complicated picture. The elements connected with the verb follow a rigid order: modal elements, tempo elements, relational elements, causative elements, object elements, verbal root, subject elements, and intransitive present–future elements. In the preterite transitive active form, the order of object and subject elements is reversed. The verb can distinguish, in addition to person and number, transitivity and intransitivity, active and passive voice, and two tenses, present-future and preterite.

        Several Sumerian dialects are known. Of these the most important are eme-gir, the official dialect of Sumerian, and eme-SAL, the dialect used often in the composition of hymns and incantations (see also cuneiform).
        Sumerian is clearly an agglutinative language in that it preserves the word root intact while expressing various grammatical changes by adding on prefixes, infixes, and suffixes. The difference between nouns and verbs, as it exists in the Indo-European or Semitic languages, is unknown to Sumerian. The word dug alone means both “speech” and “to speak” in Sumerian, the difference between the noun and the verb being indicated by the syntax and by different affixes.

        The distinctive sounds (phonemes) of Sumerian consisted of four vowels, a, i, e, u, and 16 consonants, b, d, g, ŋ, h, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, ś, š, t, z. In Classical Sumerian, the contrast between the consonants b, d, g, z and p, t, k, s was not between voiced (with vibrating vocal cords) and voiceless consonants (without vibrating vocal cords) but between consonants that were indifferent as to voice and those that were aspirated (pronounced with an accompanying audible puff of breath). The semivowels y and w functioned as vocalic glides.

        In the noun, gender was not expressed. Plural number was indicated either by the suffixes -me (or -me + esh), -hia, and -ene, or by reduplication, as in kur + kur “mountains.” The relational forms of the noun, corresponding approximately to the cases of the Latin declension, include: -e for the subject (nominative), -a(k) “of” (genitive), -ra and -sh(e) “to,” “for” (dative), -a “in” (locative), -ta “from” (ablative), -da “with” (commitative).

        The Sumerian verb, with its concatenation of various prefixes, infixes, and suffixes, presents a very complicated picture. The elements connected with the verb follow a rigid order: modal elements, tempo elements, relational elements, causative elements, object elements, verbal root, subject elements, and intransitive present–future elements. In the preterite transitive active form, the order of object and subject elements is reversed. The verb can distinguish, in addition to person and number, transitivity and intransitivity, active and passive voice, and two tenses, present-future and preterite.

        Several Sumerian dialects are known. Of these the most important are eme-gir, the official dialect of Sumerian, and eme-SAL, the dialect used often in the composition of hymns and incantations (see also cuneiform).
        Hebrew language,
        Hebrew language [Credit: ]
        Semitic language of the Northern Central (also called Northwestern) group; it is closely related to Phoenician and Moabite, with which it is often placed by scholars in a Canaanite subgroup. Spoken in ancient times in Palestine, Hebrew was supplanted by the western dialect of Aramaic beginning about the 3rd century bc; the language continued to be used as a liturgical and literary language, however. It was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries and is the official language of Israel.

        The history of the Hebrew language is usually divided into four major periods: Biblical, or Classical, Hebrew, until about the 3rd century bc, in which most of the Old Testament is written; Mishnaic, or Rabbinic, Hebrew, the language of the Mishna (a collection of Jewish traditions), written about ad 200 (this form of Hebrew was never used among the people as a spoken language); Medieval Hebrew, from about the 6th to the 13th century ad, when many words were borrowed from Greek, Spanish, Arabic, and other languages; and Modern Hebrew, the language of Israel in modern times. Scholars generally agree that the oldest form of Hebrew is that of some of the Old Testament poems, especially the “Song of Deborah” in chapter 5 of Judges. The sources of borrowed words that first appeared during this period include the other Canaanite languages, as well as Akkadian. Hebrew also contains a small number of Sumerian words borrowed from an Akkadian source. Few traces of dialects exist in Biblical Hebrew, but scholars believe this to be the result of Masoretic editing of the text. In addition to the Old Testament, a small number of inscriptions in Hebrew of the biblical period are extant; the earliest of these is a short inscription in Phoenician characters dating from the 9th century bc.

        During the early Mishnaic period, some of the guttural consonants of Biblical Hebrew were combined or confused with one another, and many nouns were borrowed from Aramaic. Hebrew also borrowed a number of Greek, Latin, and Persian words.

        Use of the spoken language declined from the 9th century until the 18th century. Nevertheless, the medieval language underwent development, however spasmodic, in various directions. The cult of the liturgical poem called a piyyûṭ (itself a Greek word) in the 6th–9th century enriched the written vocabulary by giving fresh meanings to old words and coining new ones, especially in the so-called Kalirian style; and the Spanish-Hebrew poets of the period 900–1250 followed suit. This period saw also the addition of about 2,000 or 3,000 scientific, philological, and philosophical terms; some of these were formed by making new use of old roots, as in the case of geder, “fence,” which served also for “definition.” Some were based on existing Hebrew words like kammût, “quantity,” from kammāh, “how much?”, and others were adapted from foreign languages, chiefly Greek and Arabic, such as ʾaqlîm, “climate,” and ṭibʿî, “natural.”

        Modern Hebrew, based on the biblical language, contains many innovations designed to meet modern needs; it is the only colloquial speech based on a written language. The pronunciation is a modification of that used by the Sephardic (Hispano-Portuguese) Jews rather than that of the Ashkenazic (East European) Jews. The old guttural consonants are not clearly distinguished (except by Oriental Jews) or are lost. The syntax is based on that of the Mishna. Characteristic of Hebrew of all stages is the use of word roots consisting usually of three consonants, to which vowels and other consonants are added to derive words of different parts of speech and meaning. The language is written from right to left in a Semitic script of 22 letters.
        I do hope this eases your mind.

        RAY – WHO THE HECK ARE YOU? WHAT IS YOUR BACKGROUND? HOW DID YOU COME TO KNOW ALL THIS? HOW CAN YOU BE SO EDUCATED AND YET BELIEVE THAT 9/11 WAS INSTIGATED BY THE CIA? IT MAKES ONE WONDER ABOUT THE VERACITY OF EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SAY.

        TRUTHSAYER

      • rayjwarren says:

        Stephen, please understand this, you are scraping along the top of the pudding in most of what. I will give you a small example of what you are stating. I will give you a small example of what the Hebrew priests were doing.
        pelase tkae ntoe fo waht wlil stetle yuor mhid. Or this; pls tk nt f wht wll sttl yr mnd. Same sentence, different style but both easily read. Ancient Egypt was their home for 432 years and they certainly knew how to read and write in that language. The letter J in Egyptian was the sign of the Cobra which when warning sound was made, it made a sound like Tch and this is why I contradict you on this point also. The Hebrews certainly knew the letter J and would have had a sound to replace the Egypt letter but because the are now Jews, I believe that they went to their own way of saying J with the Y but this is also unsure,. The city of Jerusalem us ancient Egyptian and means Herusalem or welcome Horus [Horus= Hru=Heru] the U denoting a foreign city. J

  130. Sarel Venter says:

    There would come a day that you too shall take your last breath on this earth. YOU GOT THAT RIGHT. And only then will you know the full truth.YOU GOT THAT WRONG. I WILL BE DEAD. HOW WILL I KNOW THE TRUTH? It all goes past much too soon my friend (TRUE)and you too will want it to go on longer. (TRUE) You better hope that hell does not exist. I DON’T HAVE TO HOPE. I KNOW HELL DOES NOT EXIST IN THE SUPERNATURAL SENSE. SOME PEOPLE (SYRIANS) ARE IN A LIVING HELL RIGHT NOW. WHY? BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS FANATICS DOING WHAT THEY BELIEVE GOD WANTS THEM TO DO. AIN’T RELIGION GREAT!

    • Rick says:

      Typical threat comment from an angry, passive aggressive “hypocrite” who likes to call themselves a ‘Christian”.

    • Switch says:

      This is exactly why I believe in Santa Claus, even now in my middle age. Although Santa has inexplicably not answered my letters, snuck down my chimney, or deposited any presents under my Christmas tree, I assume I have not made it back on to the “Nice List” and just need to strengthen my faith in him, for those presents to start rolling in.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Joining anti Christian sites will not get you on his nice list my friend, you have to feel what is right for you without putting down the rights of others. Take it this way, you may love your wife or partner and think he/she is wonderful but not everyone will feel the same as you do, in fact he/she may be totally repulsive to everyone else. Let them have their faith without malice.

      • rayjwarren says:

        But Santa left you a legacy, one that you will pass on to your children and grand children, it is the Spirit of Christmas and you are infected by it.

    • Rick says:

      “bethinking is brought to you by – UCCF:thechristianunions making disciples of Jesus Christ in the student world”

      Find me a source that isn’t 100% biased and I might actually pay attention. smh

  131. Michelle says:

    Very well done Truthsayer. I have spent years researching this topic, was Jesus Christ real, and am still learning new things. Your inclusion of the timelines was very helpful. Have you read D.M. Murdock’s books? Excellent for further understanding of the Christ myth and how he is just another sun god in a long line on sun gods. Thanks for helping to open eyes, ears, and minds.

    • rayjwarren says:

      Murdock is just another who has reasons behind her attacks on Christianity, I have listened to D.M Murdock and did not like the ridicule. Perhaps related to Rupert Murdock.

    • Stephen says:

      It may be that the christian faith/church/belief system came from the Babylonian times under King Nebuchadnezzar when the God Tammuz was top dog, God, uh, whatever?

      Give this a look see just for information sake:
      http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/book3TheGreatDesception/aTOC.htm

      If you actually read it you might be shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      When you get to the Mitre had the pope wears and see that Tammuz had the first one which was from a giant fish you may have to close your jaw by had.

  132. H says:

    Excellent article but I’d like to ask, how many people are aware that Emperor Constantine ‘invented’ Christianity and had his little mate, Eusebius, doctor the paperwork?

    How many are aware that the paranoid and highly suspicious Constantine, who murdered his wife and eldest son, was later made a ‘saint’ by the Church?

    Not sure if it was mentioned in here (didn’t see it but may have missed it) but Tony Bushby penned “The Forged Origins of the New Testament”, which is an excellent and VERY detailed read for those interested in a little more history: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm

    • Dieter G says:

      Just a comment: Jesus was the final Atonement and second Passover to redeem and save the seed of Abraham (Isaiah 41:8) to enable them to continue with the God’s promises to Abraham for his seed to ultimately become a blessing to humanity. God always keeps His promises.

      I the type the sheep that saved Isaac stayed dead in the manner of all animal sacrifices. In the antitype likewise. Jesus the sheep died in lieu of God’s only begotten heavenly son actually offered to redeem the world of Israel (john 3:16), who were the only ones able to become indebted to God for their sins against a Law only they had.

      Like the sheep which saved Isaac, Jesus the sheep must likewise remain dead for the ones saved to retain theirs. That simple!

      Then again I am only an 82 year old EX-JW, who also dismiss that idea, for which, and other discoveries from Jehovah’s manual, I was removed from their midst in Jan 2008 and shunned ever since, thank God.

    • rayjwarren says:

      How can you make such an uneducated statement, the work you mention “the Foreign Origins of the New Testament appears to accept that the new Testament exists. Now for your statement about Constantine’s invention, I suggest that you take a look at his birth date c287 ad and then take a look at the Poe list for the Roma Catholic Christian Church. There had already been a line of twenty popes before Constantine was born so how did he invent something that existed 300 years before him?? You must go and study a little before making such comments, Constantine helped strengthen the Christian Church but would not have been a player in the belief of the Popes who went on being religious with their belief in Jesus from the time of his death. Study St Peter the first Pope.

  133. Dickson says:

    Hello Truthsayer,

    I like your site and your arguments on the bible, god and jesus etc very informative and convincing..I’m not against atheists or professed Christians. I grew up in a christian family but don’t go to church, I have also questioned some bible versus and the christian teachings. I have an open mind and love and enjoy reading on subjects from both Christians (or theists (in general)) and atheists and on many debates between this two groups. I have not yet made up my mind if I want to be an atheist or theist until I am completely satisfied on doubts I search answers for. You sure put some good arguments on Jesus not existing. One thing I have not read about in this website or any atheist websites is on demonic possession. I mean they do write on this but do not provide the answer I am looking for. What is your argument on this? Most people especially atheist say it is hallucinations, illness, medication side effects, mental illnesses etc..what about the demonic possessed person being thrown around the room, hurt, etc by invisible forces. And why do demons exist? And why are many demons (who posses a person) get driven out or are afraid when Jesus name is mentioned (not only in the bible but outside of the bible)?

    • rayjwarren says:

      No they do not put up good arguments on Jesus not existing. The arguments they put forth in this site are all ridiculing Jesus because of the “miracles” attributed to him.

      RAY! NO! NO! NO! NOT “…ridiculing Jesus because of the miracles…” Merely pointing out all of the non truths in the bible. Which non truth that I have listed do you think is actually true? How about the shadow going 10 degrees backwards? How about all the saints coming out of the ground when Jesus died? Let me know.

      I do point out that Jesus speaks with forked tongue see Jesus Does Not Love You. I do point out that his birth and death are very circumspect.

      TRUTHSAYER.

      As I have said before, Elvis is said to have slept with 50,000 women, can you imagine how many it will be in 2000 years? Jesus was simply put in place by Greek followers of the God Zalmoxis who also sent his son to rule over the Getae peoples [from the same are in which the Jews originated] and thios King was named Gebeliesis who had himself entombed as one who had died and three years [days] later arose from the dead much to the loving enjoyment of his people. Please note that the Jesus’s little group at the last supper all had name changes from Greek to Jewish. Greece had a long history in the Middle East from BC onward and much of it can be found in Herodotus as is the above story on the Getae. Jesus was probably a Benny Hinn type that wanted to lead a new religion. Demonic possession is not real in itself, it is the product of the Human mind which is capable of doing many odd things, Trance like states, power over close proximity and etc. I mention this last because I had a wife whose PMT was so full of vile hate or something, that the atmosphere of the whole house was made as thick as pea soup when these episodes took over her being. No she was not possessed by a devil, she was possessed by her own mind just as those in asylums are possessed and cannot escape from the electrical currents that are jumping about inside their heads. Also many of these people you speak of are ring ins, people who want to be someone even for a moment. Take Benny Hinn to a mad house and have him bring them back to their senses and see what the conversion rate is then.

  134. Lou says:

    There is NOTHING that can be proven to be true that can sway a Zealot from his/her beliefs. They gain WAY to much peace of mind through this belief system. Can you imagine how wonderful it must feel to believe yourself forgiven every lousy thing you’ve ever done AND never have to worry about what will happen after you die? The first human to understand this opportunity for power was a genius. There is a reason why the earliest churches referred to their followers as sheep. Imagine the laugh they had the day they coined that phrase.

  135. […] someone who had done the actual research. While the statement, again, is factually correct, it is a lie to imply that this validates *anything* with regards to the existence of the biblical Jesus. None of the ones that are considered […]

  136. Lonnie. Rittenour says:

    I was hoping for a stronger argument but it was a little weak

    • Help me make it stronger. What would convince you?

      • rayjwarren says:

        truth slayer, I would like for you to place a reply under your introduction so that I can pull all of your various point apart, [no offense intended] because you are using items only in your attack and are not telling the whole story. Unless you can come to terms with the reading of ancient matter and give both sides of the coin, you will make your site unreadable. An instance is your statements that appear to have a wish to show that Jesus did exist by quoting what the disciples had to do and say and on the other hand, to totally dismiss his existence? I think that in your enthusiasm, you are making many errors, most of them because you do not have the courage to show that which proves you wrong! I repeat, I am not a Christian believer as in following that religion but I do believe in the characters who existed. You made a comment “Ray, who are you”?
        Well I suppose I should have answered “I am that I am” but in truth, I have only come to show you the error of your way and that you must change your line of thought to one of “JESUS WAS A PRIEST ONLY AND NOT A SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER” that way you would be allowing for yourself to be kept out of a firing line that has over a billion followers. Jesus was in the public eye for only a year and accomplished one hell of a feat [by deceit or no] in that I would surely like to have a billion people following me 2000 years hence.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Truth-slayer, Now why would you want to convince someone, anyone that what you say is truth, who do you think you are, Jesus, God, Josephus, Tacitus? Are you trying to tell us that you are the know-all of everything from that period of which you speak? My friend you are a bigot of the worst kind, I have tried to give you a fair hearing but your bias and hate for that which does not belong to you is disgusting. Everything that you quote can be quickly put to rest by even the lowliest historian simply because you have no understanding of the time and certainly have no idea of the human mind. Your quotes on The Christians in Nero’s era is a basic in the way you misunderstand how things were at that time. Yes there were no Christians from about 30ad up until about 120ad and the reason for that is that Jesus was not a Christian, he was a non practicing Jew and died a Jew. His disciples were also Jews and Greeks but his followers were Jews who were awaiting the Messiah. Of course they were Jews in Rome, Jews that followed the Christ, the Messiah and for you to go on with this dribble that he did not exist is too much for even this old athiest to bear. Jesus was and existing character just as Julius Caesar and Pope Peter were existing characters, just as Cleopatra was. Stop trying to pervert history, deny Christ as a son of God, deny him as anything more than a frontispiece for the coming Christian religion but,do not deny him as a living human being because your place in this life will be as one with the devil if he exists.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Please allow us to use capitals for emphasis just as you do, we cannot place emphasis within the muck you sprout at times!

    • Switch says:

      If I tell you that I am the “Son of God,” what evidence would you require before you had “faith” in me and believed that I can perform supernatural acts, like transform the chemical composition of water with prayer, walking on water, raising the dead, and ascending unaided into the atmosphere? Would you except the second, third, or fourth-hand hearsay reporting of my “miracles” as sufficient evidence to dedicate your life to me?

      Why would should we have a lower standard of proof for the claims of a prehistoric person, whose divinity and miracles were ignored by all of his “contemporaries” and then recounted, inconsistently and haphazardly, by self-interested “Christians” for the first time decades (or centuries) after his alleged life and death?

      My guess is that, in every other area of your life, it is the exact opposite … you would “hope for” and require a little “stronger argument” for the existence and miracles of another human being. Heck, I require a “little stronger argument” for selecting the restaurant where I am going to eat lunch this afternoon.

  137. Leon Shield says:

    How come the name Yashua does not appear in the New Testament? This guy is not saying there is no creator he is saying that the writings of the New Testament were invented around the 3rd Century CE. I agree with this from what have read. If there is some Divine Creator I have not read or found any evidence that one exists.

    • Darren Hook says:

      Yashua is Hebrew the new testament is Greek.Yahshua is a transliteration of the original Hebrew or Aramaic name of Jesus commonly used by individuals in the Sacred Name Movement. The English spelling Yahshua originates at least as early as 1950 with Angelo Traina’s The New Testament of our Messiah and Saviour Yahshua. As far as no evidence for a Divine Creator…are you really that stupid? can you produce matter from nothing organized into complex structures that work? And yet atheists take a great great leap of faith in believing humans that have imagined a theory with evidence that stacks up immensely against it. I am in awe at the willingness and trust they put in a belief system with no evidence what-so-ever to back it up. The mere fact that evolution is taught as fact in the textbooks, and it ignores all scientific method increases my belief that the world is controlled by a wicked lying spirit and that everything written about him in the bible is correct.

      • Darren Hook says:

        acts 11:26 written about 61C.E. It was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.

      • Darren Hook says:

        1 Timothy 6:3-5King James Version (KJV)

        3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

        4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

        5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself
        2 Corinthians 11:3-6English Standard Version (ESV)

        3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. 5 Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. 6 Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.

        1 Corinthians 4:8-13New International Version (NIV)

        8 Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have begun to reign—and that without us! How I wish that you really had begun to reign so that we also might reign with you! 9 For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. 10 We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! 11 To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. 12 We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; 13 when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment.

      • Switch says:

        If it is impossible to create matter from nothing, then logically and rationally, you must explain who/what created your god. Because as soon as you claim that “god” always existed or created himself, the exact same argument can be applied to “matter” in the universe.

      • Atheos says:

        Darren
        I note that you have taken the trouble to quote from 1 Timothy using the KJV. Are you aware that the pastoral letters allegedly written by Paul are forgeries written possibly as late as the mid second century AD. Paul certainly did noty write them as the wording, sentence structure, theological these and church hierarchly blatantly reflect a well developed second century church. The writter wanted you to think the letter was from Paul the apostle, but is actually written by an imposter at least 50 years after Paul died, to add authorotative approval to the topics mentioned in the letter.

        You might as well be quoting from the infamous ‘Hitler Diaries’

        As for the King James Version with its Shakespearian Ye Olde English, it is riddled with deliberate mistranslations and is based upon a flawed Greek manuscript that was translated from a dodgy Latin manuscript that contained fake additional text that supported the doctrine of the trinity, the Johannine Coma 1 John 5:7-8.

        Are you willing to stake claims on deliberately falsified evidence of a dodgy KJV translation just because you might like the Thee, thou and thine from the era of Shakespear?

      • rayjwarren says:

        Hook you are the silhouette of all those who write here, you take supernatural events and try to have people believe what is said about them over and above reality. Do you believe that Houdini and David Copperfield are or were Prophets? of course not but they could do everything that Jesus did [modified] and make people believe that it is true. Jesus was just another Benny Hinn and he covered himself well enough to create a religion that believed in him, that kept his followers well fed. Sure there were martyrs along the way but that applies to any cause. Nobody wants to destroy your belief and you should not want to destroy theirs. Psalm 104 looks up at the sun God and praises him for creating life yet you deny anything that has a different belief. You are a one-eyed football supporter who has been given a jumper and told to barrack strongly and that is what you are doing. Most of what you state above is incorrect, names such as Joshus Jusef or Yashua/ Yusef came into Egypt eith the Semites Hyksos and Assyrians [cousins to the Hebrews] and as far as the “Divine Creator” is concerned, you have no eveidence that one actually exists other than your faith. Please explain to us why your God suddenly came into being 4000 years ago via the Hebrews [Cimmerians/Sumerians] who did not willingly believe in him and what about the thousands of Gods that preceded him throughout the world. God did not create man, man created gods and you know it. Every thing is evolving and as the years pass, we can plainly see it happening. Just as our bodies change during our lifetime, so too does our genetic appearance down through the ages, it is slow but sure and science can show it in action with the lower shorter lifetime beings that inhabit our Earth. How can you deny evolution when the evidence is all around us in fossils and bones from millions of years past? Yes, some things do remain unchanged like the crocodile and the Coelocanth fish [not sure of the spelling] both of whom must have achieved their greatest form.

    • rayjwarren says:

      How is it that you expect credence when you do not study, just listen to or read the words of the uneducated/ There were some twenty Popes [heads of the Christian Church] before Constantine was born about 287ad. So how could the New Testament have been invented by Constantine more than 250 years after the first Pope came to power? in regard to a creation of some type, go outside and look around you, look in the mirror, just as your father and mother created you, so too did something or someone create all. I do know one thing, man has invented what he could not find and in doing so, many human failings have entered into his religions, Nobody knows what awaits us out there so it is better to have some kind of belief than nothing at all. This though, really belongs to those who fear death and what might await them, especially those who have taken a human life or done evil against others. Personally I have seen death on a few occasions and now fear it not in the least. The only fear is leaving this Earth without doing all that I wished to accomplish. Stop trying to destroy that which people love else ye also shall be destroyed in faith of all and any.

      • Atheos says:

        Ray
        We have manuscripts dating from possibly as early as 110 AD the famous P52 fragment of John 18 in the John Rylands Library and some complete manuscripts dating from 200 AD onwards, which is well before Constantine. Additionally we have evidence in the form of provenance from early church fathers who quote New Testament text verbatim, which helps us to identify which was the original text of a book when presented with variant readings.
        So for anyone claiming that the New Testament texts were originally written under Constantine in the 4th century are ignoring the wealth of manuscript evidence against them.

  138. No point in me commenting about Jesus, I am not a christian, I believe the bible to be mostly trash. If I did choose to believe in one supreme being, he surely would not be the one depicted in the bible. Just telling a man to kill his son to prove his faith in his “all loving God’ is enough to turn me away. The last straw was reading in Revelations how I get to spend eternity if I am a “true believer” I get to dress in a white robe and sing praises to what apparently is an ego-maniacal Deity. Give me a choice, through me in the Lake of Fire. The ignorance and total lack of independent thought of the religious fanatics never ceases to amuse me. As Fromm wrote: “Picture a roaring flame, yet, when you place your hand over it, there is no heat”

  139. Michael says:

    I would challenge you to investigate other historical figures with the same scrutiny that you are applying the man called Jesus of Nazareth. Other hugely influential figures like Alexander the Great have no eye witnesses to his existence either. Texts of his historical escapades are younger than those of the “eye witnesses” of Jesus, yet he lived 300 years before. Clearly writing and record keeping existed at the time and someone who had taken over the whole known world would have more than a few books written 400 years after his death.

    • There is much more evidence for historical figures than there is for Jesus. Monuments, multiple accounts from multiple authors, cross corroboration from enemy writers, ad infinitum. For all the things Jesus said and did and for all the events that occurred on his account (earthquakes, dead coming to life, ad infinitum), the fact that there is not ONE account of any of it outside the bible, speaks volumes. Don’t you think?

      Even IF there were a few mentions, it is all hearsay and repeating what one has been told; it is NEVER from a contemporary eye witness.

      • Atheos says:

        The main problem with Chrisitan writings is that we have clear evidence that the text has been accidentlally and deliberately altered by various amatuear copyists and professional church scribes over the centuries. We have many manuscripts with many variant readings of the text, so it is difficult to determine exactly what the original author wrote. Often translators try and ‘assemble’ a bible trnalsation based upon severtal manuscripts by using them to cover each other’s ommitted parts, thus creating a supra-text for want of a term. A good example is the Gospel of Mark where some translations supplement the original text (ending at 16:8). include verses 16:9 onwards holes. Another example is of Jesus crying tears of bllod which is only mentioned in one variant of the gospel of Luke. I wonder if it is a case of the church, not knowing which version to base their text on took everything they could from all texts available to them, thus assembling a supra-gospel. Some manuscripts might mention miracle A but not Parable B, and vice versa, so by combining them all the church is covering their arses. Better to have everything and later find some text was not original,than to discard texts at the outset and later wonder if we might have ‘lost’ some vital text. I can appreciate the genuine dilemas that some scribes had when trying to produce an accurate text that was closest to what the author originally may have said. That said I fully condemn those weasles and liars who deliberately used the pen to add text to support doctrines and remove text that caused problems.

      • rayjwarren says:

        This is one area where you must correct yourself,you are disposing of Bible texts that were written 2000 years ago as if they were confetti.There are several references to Christ by other Authors but all your group attempt is to show that they were writing several years after the events. Now if you were to write about the First World War, how would you do it? You would of course go to people or their aging families who were alive then or who had been taught about said Christ/Chrestus/Christos and in the case of the Getae peoples, Gebeliesis [see Herodotus or Google Getae] What you and your group are doing is playing with historical facts and trying to pass them off as myth by ridicule. You have no proof that he did not exist whilst the Bible and ancient historians say that he did. One such point that should prove the matter is the reference to Pontius Pilate in Tacitus. You group is becoming somewhat like the zealots in that you are trying to deceive by watering down strong evidence. I too am an Atheist but I am also an historian and will not accept people trying to bring down historic characters by ridicule. The people who wrote these records were writing their history in much the same way as you would write about the heroes of a football team. One thing that I have noticed, you use Biblical records when you see fit and deny them when you have a wish to ridicule. I do not know if you have children but I am sure that you will agree that the intellect of say 14 year old children would equate well with religious people of 2000 years ago so give them a little latitude in their story telling as I am sure they did not mean to mislead you, just to make the people of their own time believe strongly I suspect.

        For your information, I believe many items in the Bible although the great ages for the men of old, were obvious references to towns and villages in Mesopotamia and of course, the great flood came when the Black Sea filled to the brim several thousand years ago . Noah of course was a direct copy from the epic of Gilgamesh [also Mesopotamian] and Adam was also Mesopotamian in origin but may have been a run off from Atum in Egypt. One interesting thing that Christians, Jews and Muslims have been doing for the last three thousand, two thousand and sixteen hundred years that amuses me, is the ending to Egyptian prayers came with the word AMN [there was no E in the Egyptian language] but the Hebrews, Christians and Muslims maintain it to this day with the end of their prayers being AMEN. Why is this so, I guess that many Egyptian habits followed the Hebrews out of Egypt, one such is still in existence is Israel now, Jeru-Salem [meaning Heru Salem [welcome Horus] from the time when Egypt ruled over Canaan. Remember, you will accomplish nothing in trying to knock down the heroes of the Bible, they existed alright, they jaust did much less than was attributed to them. I was once told that Elvis slept with 50,000 women, imagine what that figure will be in 2000 years and with everybody calling him the King, what will ne have become by then?

      • Stephen says:

        Well I have to agree with you since it is common knowledge that there were no capital letters, or vowels, or punctuation or spaces between words back before the time of Jesus or during his life. In fact the name Jesus did not exist simply because it could not exist. The letter J came about @ 1500 AD so what was his real name????? We don’t know. Yahweh?????? didn’t exist either since vowels did not exist. It’s funny the christian churches base so much on writings that they claim to be authentic yet they don’t tell the truth and inform people that their teachings are their own extrapolations and not God’s words regarding these matters. Ask a christian if they believe in God. Ask if they believe in God’s words. If they say yes then ask them to read the Book of Hosea and explain how it is that God says in his own words, ‘besides me, there is no other savior.’, yet they call Jesus their savior where in fact neither Jesus or God ever said Jesus was a savior unless you ‘EXTRAPOLATE’ this, which is not Gods words it’s simply a humans words/understanding.
        There is but one God, and he is the creator and savior of all souls, he says so. I trust him. I won’t turn my back on him like christians have.

      • Atheos says:

        Ray
        Some scholars do take things to the nth degree and claim that Jesus is a fictional character, but they are by and large the exception to the general consensus. If there were no historical Jesus, we would not be having Quest for the Historical Jesus projects every once in a while.

        As a historian, would you agree that ideally you would prefer to evidence for persons or events from multiple eye witness testimony, from contemporary sources, with corroboration of key facts? The problem we have with Jesus, and I certainly do not doubt that he ever existed, is that the vast majority of biographical details about Jesus only come form the New Testament Gospels, to which I also add the Gospel of Thomas. External references are fleeting and often mention Jesus in passing and offer little in the way of biographical material. The evidence is tantalising.

        Your analogy using World War 1 omits going to contemporary accounts written by combatants on the front line and survivors of that war, for we have those, so even if the witness has long since died we still have their written testimony. We also sometimes get access to government and Ministry of Defence documents that can also provide additional information about a battle, a specific combat unit and so on. Without these, then as you suggest, we would most likely start with the families of those who had a family member serve in that war and enquire if they said anything about their experiences. This evidence would obviously be ‘hearsay,’ so whilst not ideal, it would be all we have to go on.

        Where I have to challenge you is regarding how this applies to the New Testament, since the writers of that period did not share our concepts and understandings of history. There is a huge difference between story telling and recording factual history, but these authors did not appear to share this and did not appear bothered by adhering to strict chronological events. Nor were these authors primitives, for they were highly educated to write with such eloquent rhetorical Greek, possibly with the exception of the author of Mark who writes in inferior Greek that betrays his first language was most likely Aramaic. If an account containing ‘historical’ information is constantly changed over the centuries to suit theological agendas, I would hardly call it ‘strong evidence’ for we can never know exactly what the original texts said because they no longer survive to enable us to compare our present collection of manuscripts against.

        The Gospels are ‘hearsay’, which for you a historian and myself a theologian is bloody frustrating to say the least. They are written from a third person perspective, by authors who never made any claims to be eye witnesses themselves or even followers of Jesus, or even indicate whether they believed what they were writing was true in a historical sense. Nor were they merely reporting what they were told, for they each had their own agenda and purpose for writing, so used their source material selectively, be it a complex blend of oral tradition and written accounts. How does your ‘strong evidence’ hold up when different authors write accounts that place an event on different dates, in a different context, or present a very different characterisation of Jesus? Who is telling the truth when we get conflicting accounts? More important how do we decide/identify which conflicting account is more likely to be the correct version of events from a historical perspective?

        I also have to ask exactly what areas have I watered down the evidence please?
        You might not be aware of how the gospels were created or transmitted, however I can refer you to actual manuscripts that provide variant readings that offer a very different textual readings that have a serious theological impact. What would you say about your ‘strong evidence’ if I were to show you passages that were pure fiction invented by scribes writing many centuries after the events deliberately and maliciously amending text to render Jesus divine for example?

      • rayjwarren says:

        As you say, there are many who have corroborated other heroes outside of the Bible but the Bible has one thing that none of the outsiders have, a long line of Popes from the very first [St Peter] right through to the 21st Century. St Peter was an apostle then Pope and he died crucified upside down for his belief in Christ. He was alive at the time of Christ and this speaks volumes for the existence of Jesus. I think that St Peter could be classified as an eye witness or at the very least, a member of the first elite Christians.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Not so, the greatest proof of all, no need for books, Authors, Bibles or anything else. Just understand that Jesus dis exist because Pope Peter was alive and knew him at the time. Pope Peter followed him faithfully and was executed for his faithful belief in Jesus. Since that time dozens of Popes have carried on the tradition and that aslo speaks for their faith in him right or wrong. Whether Jesus was a Benny Hinn or not does not matter, he existed and was the father of his new religion, end matter.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Truth Slayer, when will you wake up,Jesus did exist and probably took part in a false death and burial as did his predecessor Gebeliesis of the Gettae. As you should know, Jesus [ Egyptian pronounced Tchesus from the Greek Iesus] only operated in public for one year, two years were spent wandering about as a minister and healer [of which there were many] and therefore, was relatively unknown when he went to the Passover in Jerusalem. Jesus said and did little during his ministry, it was his disciples who did the groundwork and it was they who brought him to fame over the next two thousand years.

    • Switch says:

      And if a “hugely influential figure like Alexander the Great” possessed the power to resurrect others (and himself), ascend into the atmosphere unaided, and do other things that defy all known scientific and biological facts, we would expect and require “more than a few books” to give such claims any credence at all.

      • Stephen says:

        And isn’t it odd that the most documented civilization in history from as far back as we can look and through the time of Jesus, the Romans, have not one single document regarding Jesus’ life, his miracles, his healing, his teachings, his reported interaction with the Roman state? Seems odd doesn’t it? And to have a person like Jesus loved by all we are told, comes into town on the back of an ass while people are cheering for him and laying down palm leaves in his path as a sign of respect and yet one week later they all turn on him and choose to let a rapist/murderer go free (Barabas) and crucify Jesus? Really in one week, with no proof Jesus did anything wrong? And not a known or found Roman document ever found with any hint of any of these happenings over the last 3 years of Jesus life? Really?
        I believe in God. He is my savior. I won’t turn my back on him.

  140. alan thebi says:

    Lmao this fool is a couple clowns short of a curcis. Dont waste your time reading this crap.

    • Could you be a bit more specific? What is so lame? What is your evidence that contradicts what I have written and shamefully copied from other thinkers of similar ilk?

      I do like your epithet though – even if you don’t know how to spell “circus”.

      • orangesliced says:

        The vast majority of scholars do recognize the fact that Jesus appears twice in Josephus’s writings. There are other writers in antiquity that mention him as well. Even the most liberal scholars acknowledge those facts. Your article shows you have got most of your information from one person. Your argumentation is not solid or based on actual factual data.

        =========================================================================================
        Truthsayer’s reply 4/12/15
        And the Bible is based on “actual fact”?
        The fact that there are two references to Jesus in Josephus’ writings proves my point. If Jesus had really done all that the Bible says he did, then Josephus would have devoted an entire volume to him, not just two references.

        My argumentation is pretty solid. See my list of references here

      • lindsay says:

        These christians are shaken to the core and they know it. Lol Talking about how “weak” the argument is, but offering NO rebuttals because they have no rebuttals to offer. This is one instance where they can’t come up with any of their ridiculous excuses or rationalizations. The evidence (or should I say lack of evidence) is pretty damn compelling…… and they know it! Come on christians, stop talking about how weak and lame the argument against your beloved Jeezuz is and give us as much compelling evidence FOR him as their is against him! Oh, and fyi, a book of contradictions and known plagurized myths is not “proof”. If you think it is, then every so-called holy book becomes proof of whatever it says. The book of Mormon become proof of Joseph Smith and his magic glasses and golden tablets, and the Koran becomes proof of Muhammed flying to heaven on a winged horse. See how that works?

      • lindsay says:

        Okay, I lied. (My first comment is below) I scrolled down and read a little more, and these christians are still trying to defend their superstitious nonsense using the same illogical, backwards, science and archaeology-denying mind manipulation that they’ve been using for 2,000 years. All you have to do is look at the type of “logic” they use to see to religion does to minds. Their kind, just, merciful god sits on his ass and doesn’t intervene in human suffering because “we need to know evil to know good”, or because of “human sin”.There’s no evidence for Jesus outside the bible because “evil people destroyed all the documents”. Jesus’ promises about prayer in the bible fail because “either you didn’t have enough faith or he did answer, it just wasn’t what you wanted to hear”. God was a vengeful, bloodthirsty mass murderer in the bible because people (including babies, animals,, plants ect) were “wicked and disobeyed him”. Jesus hasn’t come back yet, despite saying he would in his disciples lifetimes) because “he was really talking to THIS generation”. There’s so many scientific errors in “God’s word” because “man wrote jt, and men are error-prone. man is not perfect like god – man is sinful, wicked, disgusting, deplorable, wretched, depraved, filthy, stupid ect.” It literally never ends. There is an article on patheos by a former Christian that talks about these mental gymnastics that christians put themselves through to believe their outdated, evidence lacking, anti-scientific, childish and feeble minded beliefs called “Games Christians play: Making your faith impossible to disprove”. Check it out. He hits the nail on the head because he used to deny science, lack common sense, need the religious crutch, feel guilty and “sinful”, think ignorance was a virtue, twist his mind into a pretzel and make all kinds of ridiculous and unbelievably stupid excuses just like them!

  141. jeni k. says:

    Supreme Truthsayer…I am fighting to find “faith”, a gift that many people I know have been “given.” I have always been interested in the historic and scientific facts regarding Jesus, as well as what the great thinkers of our time believe. You can find information to support or debunk Jesus, it’s all there. I am hanging on to hope that not only was He real, but his promises are real. For some reason I am not willing to give up that hope, and am passing on that hope to my children. Have you ever looked for God’s presence in your life? Your wife’s smile, your dog’s affection, your morning cup of coffee, the deep love you have for your son? The next time you hold your grandchild, put his/her hand in yours and look at the miracle of that tiny hand.

    • Two thoughts:
      1. How, why, what does Jesus have to do with my wife’s smile, my morning cup of coffee, my deep love I have for my son, the miracle of my grandson’s tiny hand? That presupposes it’s all due to God. If you don’t start with that premise, then those nice things are just that…. nice things.

      2. What promises from Jesus?
      a. That the believer will receive everything that he prays for? That is not true.
      b. That the believer can lay their hands on the sick and they will be healed? That is not true.
      c. That the end times will come before the those to who he was speaking died? That didn’t happen.
      d. That all things (food, drink, clothing) will be given to those who need them? (Matthew 6:25)
      e. That those cities that did not accept his disciples would burn in hell?

      The above is ample evidence that the promises from Jesus are not real.

      Live your life for now. Forget about some afterlife fantasy. Do you realize that if John 3:16 is for real, almost all of humanity (who God loves) is burning or will burn in hell – including 6 million of his chosen people who were brutally slaughtered in the Holocaust?

      • Hi S.T.! How cool that you wrote back! That never happens! Regarding the “nice” things when I do tend to feel the presence of a higher power, I guess that’s all I can say about that. It just something that has happened to me, on occasion. I guess it’s the beauty, the love, the miracle of life, the peace that you can occasionally feel that transcends everything. Although I’m not sure about a lot of things, I am sure that the odds seem infinitesimal that everything needed to create millions of plants, animals, and human beings came together in a probiotic-type swamp or soup. I remember hearing about the Higgs Bosum, something like that. All of these particles smashing together, billions a day, and whatever gives life can’t be found. We can clone living things but we can’t do it without the material from another living thing. With all of the smarts we have today, it seems like someone should be able to figure it out, especially since, randomly and by chance, millions of living things were created in a swamp. What do you think? Just thinking about how the human body works is astounding. And the universe? No one can explain that. ACTUALLY MILLIONS OF SCIENTISTS, WORKING IN DISPARATE FIELDS (BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, COSMOLOGY, PHYSICS, MICROBIOLOGY, ETC) HAVE EXPLAINED IT Apparently scientists have determined that the odds of a life-sustaining planet, like earth, are astronomically low because of 200 plus things that have to happen for a planet to be life-sustaining, like Jupiter protecting earth from asteroids. How do you think the universe came to be? STEPHEN HAWKING CAN EXPLAIN IT BETTER THAN I CAN – SEE HIS “BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME” A ball of gas that exploded? Where did the ball of gas come from? It’s mind-boggling. WHERE DID YOUR GOD COME FROM? WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE HE “CREATED”? Black holes, worm-holes, other dimensions, do you believe in alternate dimensions in time? I’m not saying that just because I can’t explain these things that for sure there is a higher power, YOUR GOD IS A “GOD OF THE GAPS” – I DON’T UNDERSTAND IT – IT MUST BE GOD but I just think it is the most logical at this point. LOGICAL OR SO ENTRENCHED IN YOUR POSITION YOU DON’T RESEARCH ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS?

        Regarding Jesus…the promise I was referring to was life after death. MANY OTHER RELIGIONS HAVE SOME FORM OF LIFE AFTER DEATH. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT CHRISTIANS HAVE A LOCK ON “THE TRUTH”? The rest of the stuff you mentioned I believe those things will be true in “heaven” or our next dimension. I don’t believe in Noah’s Ark or Adam and Eve. I tend to just trust the New Testament, but I know that Jesus trusted the Old Testament so yeah, that does bug me. I also think religious organizations like churches have seen their fair share of evil. I was raised Catholic, but by no means do I think that Catholicism is the only way to go. I also don’t think being a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jew, or any other religion is bad. Religion is just the human name for things, and humans make mistakes and do stupid things. BTW, do you believe in evil or demons? I DON’T BELIEVE IN ANY FORM OF SUPERNATURAL Did you see that movie “The Exorcism of Emily Rose?” You can listen to the real exorcism on You Tube and let me tell you, it is damn hard to believe that she was just some mental case that spoke in that evil manner and in latin, and named the demon to be BELIEL. I think you are an incredibly smart man THANKS, NOT REALLY INCREDIBLY SMART – JUST OBSESSED WITH HOW BAD RELIGION IS FOR MANKIND (possibly a woman but gut tells me man – YEP) and that you have put up a lot of great information and research.NOW THAT IS TRUE. There are holes in the bible. There are things that don’t make sense. Why is Jesus “the one” when there are other Gods that people worship. EXACTLY! I guess I just believe in a higher power. To me, I visualize Jesus, because that is my comfort zone and what I grew up with. EXACTLY I’m sure more archaeological evidence will be discovered to tell us more. THERE ISN’T ANY THAT SUPPORTS MUCH OF THE BIBLE. I’m sure scientists will learn more about the universe, but right now, no one really knows what gives life. WELL THAT’S TRUE SO FAR (WE’RE CLOSE) BUT GIVEN WHAT WE DO KNOW, WE DON’T NEED A GOD OF THE GAPS AS THE LAST RESORT EXPLANATION. I am living my life for now, but still, with the hope of an afterlife.

        P.S. I don’t believe there are many people burning in hell. Most people that do “evil” things are mentally ill and it’s not their fault. They were created that way so why should they be punished for eternity? EXACTLY – BUT ACCORDING TO JOHN 3:16 AND OTHER PASSAGES IN THE NT, YOU ARE WRONG. THERE ARE MANY PASSAGES THAT CAN BE USED TO SUPPORT PREDESTINATION. IF THE “DEVIL MADE ME DO IT” AM I EXONERATED?

        BUT AMERICAN MAIDEN, WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF JESUS OUTSIDE THE BIBLE. DON’T YOU THINK, IF JESUS REALLY DID ALL THE BIBLE CLAIMS HE DID, THAT MORE THAN WRITERS (MARK, MATTHEW, LUKE, JOHN – THE WRITERS OF THE GOSPELS) WOULD HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT HIS LIFE? PAUL DOESN’T COUNT. EVERYTHING HE WRITES CAME TO HIM DURING HIS HALLUCINATIONS. SEE WHY DO YOU BELIEVE PAUL? PAUL DOESN’T WRITE ANYTHING ABOUT THE LIFE OF JESUS.

        THANKS FOR THE CHAT – INTERESTING.

      • Supreme Truthsayer! This is a response to your response which I’m unable to find a reply button for…Thank you for your comments. If I can come away with faith, even after engaging with you, that will mean something to me. Ok, so you said “millions of scientists can explain things.” I’m sure there aren’t “millions.” Maybe thousands. MILLIONS WOULD ONLY REQUIRE TW0 MILLION AND THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST TWO MILLION SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO OUR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE STARTING WITH COPERNICUS’ “Dē revolutionibus orbium coelestium”. And for each of those thousands, there are thousands of scientists that do believe in a creator. NO THAT IS NOT TRUE – SOME LARGE PERCENT (90%?) ARE ATHEISTS.

        Regarding Stephen Hawking, he thinks NO HE DOESN’T “THINK”, HE HAS PROVEN THAT the universe can create itself from nothing, but where did the space come for gravity and other forces to exist that may have created the universe out of nothing? Where did gravity come from? What caused gravity and other forces to have a need to exist? READ HIS BOOK – A SHORT HISTORY OF TIME FOR ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS. It has crossed my mind that another life form, yes, aliens, may have created us. That really scares me. But then who created them? Everything has to come from somewhere, right? Also, I believe Stephen Hawking did go through a phase in his life where he was touched by faith. NOT SO ACCORDING TO THREE BIO’S I HAVE SEEN. I believe his wife was a woman of faith and he did feel something at one point. I don’t think he will completely reject the possibility of a creator, to this day. NOT SO.

        Regarding where did God come from? Ouch, that hurts my brain. Next, you mentioned the God of Gaps. I understand what you are saying, but I still think it is the best explanation for our planet and our existence, that a creator exists. Do I believe the creator is Jesus and only Jesus? I believe everyone’s God is their perception of God. I honestly don’t think it matters. History is written by human beings. Religions were created by human beings. Human beings are far from perfect and all-knowing. Like I said before, Jesus is easiest for me to visualize, because I was raised a Catholic, but our Creator can be visualized or perceived differently by different people. Maybe this makes me non-Christian? I don’t think so, because I do believe in my Creator, which is Jesus/God. I just believe other people call their Jesus by a different name. Furthermore, all of the different religious texts, the Bible, the Koran, etc., were written by flawed humans so there are going to be mistakes and differences in how people remember things. Just because those texts are flawed doesn’t mean there isn’t a Creator. OK – I AGREE.

        Next up, the supernatural. Watch that movie, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose,” and see if you can go straight to bed with no fear. Also, see if you start waking up at 3:00 a.m. When you are watching the movie, let me know if you start feeling like you don’t want this information to come into your safe home where you and your family live. I want to know how it makes you feel. NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO. I DON’T HAVE TIME FOR SUPERNATURAL NONSENSE. IF YOU HAD BEEN ON THE SET OF THE MOVIE YOU WOULD NOT FEEL THE WAY YOU DO. Please get back to me!

        I had a few experiences in my life. One was over 25 years ago, in college (U of M Ann Arbor- Go Blue!). While sleeping, I came into darkness and heard a lot of scary sounds, like a really loud train coming, and cats fighting. I felt like I was falling into darkness. My brain told me, it’s ok, it’s just a dream, and to wake up. I couldn’t wake up. I started screaming at myself to wake up and still couldn’t. I started to get very scared, like I was dying and falling to hell. Then I yelled “Jesus help me, I don’t want to die,” and immediately woke up. I was so scared I ran to the nearest church the next morning. They said it was God trying to send me a message. I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT YOU HAD A NIGHTMARE.

        Also, the night my grandmother passed away, her daughter, my Mom, had a vision. It was her Mom telling her, “it’s not that easy to get into heaven.” Since my Mom is very bright and not superstitious or overly religious, it does mean something to me. SO YOUR MOTHER IS PRECONDITIONED TO BELIEVE.

        One more quick example, in the spring of 2013 my beautiful and amazing sister Tricia was dying of a brain tumor at age 41. The doctors said she’d probably die in about 6 weeks. My sister who lives in Chicago, and me, who lives in California, really wanted to be in Michigan with her, when she passed. However, we didn’t know when she would die and we knew we couldn’t just stay in Michigan for 6 weeks. About a week into the 6 weeks, my sister and I decided we were going to go back to Michigan. She drove and I flew. When we arrived, Tricia was not-responsive, she wasn’t opening her eyes or communicating at all. Hospice said Tricia wasn’t going to die anytime soon though, the signs weren’t there. My sister and I got a priest to come in and give her her last rites, and we also drove 2 hours to get our Aunt Marie to see Tricia. My Aunt Marie is a nun, at the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Monroe, Michigan. Tricia said that she wanted to see Aunt Marie before she died. Our Aunt Marie had helped Tricia through a lot of hard times in her life. So, my sister and I spent some time talking to Tricia that day, and our Aunt Marie. We drove our Aunt Marie home and got back late that night. Keep in mind this all happened in one day. It was about 11:00 pm and we went in to say goodnight to Tricia. We told her that she had fought enough and that it was time to go and give herself a break. That she had had her last rites and that Aunt Marie was home safely. When we went back in at midnight to give her some medication, she had already died. What are the chances that my sister and I would have chosen the exact day to come home to Michigan, from Chicago and California, the day that Tricia would die when there was such a huge window? I DON’T KNOW, BUT IT HAPPENED. WHEN YOU WERE THERE WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST LAY YOUR HANDS ON TRICIA AND PRAY FOR HER TO RECOVER? “…they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. Mark 16:17-18” We felt that there was intervention, yes, some kind of divine intervention, that allowed us to be with our sister when she died. OF COURSE YOU DID. THAT IS WHAT EVERY BELIEVER BELIEVE WHEN SOME COINCIDENCE OCCURS. A COINCIDENCE THAT OCCURS IN A RELIGIOUS CONTEXT ALWAYS BECOMES GOD’S INTERVENTION.

        On to the next issue, you said that religion is bad for mankind. Really? Take some time to think about that. Even if you hate religions, they promote people to live non-violent and loving lives. YOU ARE’T SERIOUS ARE YOU? NEED I MENTION ISIS? ONLY THE LATEST IN A LONG STRING OF RELIGIOUS WARS. WHAT ABOUT BRITTEN VS IRELAND? SEE EUROPEAN WARS OF RELIGION FOR STARTERS. THAT OMITS ALL THE OTHER RELIGIOUS WARS ON OTHER CONTINENTS.

        Next up, you said that there isn’t any archaeology that supports MUCH of the bible. So are you saying there is archaeological evidence that supports the bible? Also, I think there was a set of teeth discovered in Jerusalem, within the last decade, that date older than the previously “oldest” bones that were found in Africa. This is interesting information. THAT IS ANECDOTAL. ONE LITTLE FINDING DOTH NOT UNDUE THE WORK OF SERIOUS SCHOLARS WHO SPEND THEIR LIVES DIGGING FOR EVIDENCE (AND FINDING NONE THAT TESTIFY TO THE HISTORICITY OF THE BIBLE. SURE, THERE CITIES THAT THE BIBLE MENTIONS BUT I MEAN THE BIG STUFF – LIKE EXODUS.

        Regarding burning in hell, yes, you got me, it’s another area in the bible that I don’t take literally. HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHAT TO ACCEPT AND REJECT? YOU ARE CHERRY PICKING. Again, it was written by humans. The bible says it is a sin to be gay, but Jesus never said that. He said that a man should not lay with another man. Well, I don’t think a homosexual man is 100% a man. OH BROTHER YOU ARE MISTAKEN. There is something in his physiology that makes him homosexual. That is how his Creator made him. So, in homosexual sex, it isn’t really a man laying with a man. Science just hasn’t caught up yet. Ok, getting tired! To wrap up, more evidence may come, via archaeologic findings. I will wait for scientists to figure out how to create life, but in the meantime, THEY HAVEN’T!

        I also think that there are so many people, that have had beyond and back experiences, that they can’t all be hallucinations or the bodies electrical-wiring shutting down. YES THEY CAN; THERE ARE MANY EXPLANATIONS FOR OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCES – NONE OF WHICH INCLUDE REALLY DEPARTING. THE KID THAT “WROTE” A BOOK ABOUT GOING TO HEAVEN AND BACK JUST RECANTED AND SAID IT WAS ALL MADE UP. THIS AFTER SELLING THOUSANDS OF BOOKS. Their stories are too diverse and too detailed for all of them to be BS.

        Another thing that has stood out for me, is how Jesus said “forgive them Father they know not what they do,” while he was hanging on the cross. What kind of human being would say that? Endure that? Keep up the facade for so long, even while being tortured and killed? As far as the writers go, maybe more writings will be discovered, or maybe they have all disintegrated by now. Or, maybe they were afraid to write about Jesus or ordered not to.

        OH SO MANY THINGS WRONG WITH THAT. THAT “FORGIVE THEM FATHER….” WAS WRITTEN BY JOHN (YOU KNOW THAT “JOHN” WAS NOT WRITTEN BY THE APOSTLE JOHN DON’T YOU?) AND JOHN THE APOSTLE WASN’T EVEN THERE AT THE CRUCIFIXION. SO HOW DID HE KNOW WHAT JESUS SAID. ME THINKS THAT THE AUTHOR OF JOHN MADE IT UP IN ORDER TO MAKE JESUS APPEAR DIVINE. AFTER ALL, MARK AND MATTHEW HAVE JESUS SAYING “MY FATHER, WHY HAST THOU DESERTED ME?” NOW THAT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A GUY WHO JUST REALIZED THAT HIS POSING AS A GOD WAS ALL A DELUSION. WE CAN’T HAVE GOD CRYING OUT NOW CAN WE.

        IN ADDITION, IF JESUS WAS ON THE CROSS AND THE JEERING MOBS WERE HOWLING AND HOOTING AT THE CONDEMNED, WHO HEARD AND RECORDED THE ALLEGED FINAL WORDS OF JESUS?

        In closing, no one knows anything. We will have to wait until we die to find out the truth.
        In the meantime, I’m keeping the faith. I’M GLAD IT WORKS FOR YOU. BTW – DID I MENTION MY WIFE IS A BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN? WE’VE BEEN MARRIED 47 YEARS.

        Currently reading “The Power of Now.” Have you read it? NO I HAVE NOT.

        P.S. How do you get an Ohio State alum off of your front porch??? Pay him for the pizza!!!

      • Darren Hook says:

        thank you for fulfilling scripture about false prophets and Anti-christs you have strengthened my faith in Jesus Christ by your doing so.

      • Atheos says:

        Supreme Truthsayer.
        We know the ultimate, once and for all proof that the Christian believer can provide! Based on the dodgy forged text of the additional text appended to Mark 16, all the believer has to do is drink a pint of Domestos, Jays Cleaning Fluid, Petrol, or ingest 1/4 pound of Arsenic or Anthrax, then go down to their nearest Hospital to lay hands on the sick and heal them. They won’t need to tell us when they laid on hands because every news channel will be running with the story so we’ll all see it on TV all these sick people walking out of hospital completely healed.

        We won’t need an NHS (National Health Service in the UK) or Boots Pharmacies any more. Think how much money this would save from the NHS budget that could be used elsewhere like education or investing in technology.

        Most importantly, we will ALL know for sure that yes the Bible is really God’s word and that it really is true despite al the evidence proving conclusively that it is not the divinely inspired word of God at all. Yet I don’t see any Christian volunteers willing to act on their ‘Faith’. They would no doubt come up with some excuse like ‘not putting the Lord to the test’ or the more honest ones would admit that the proof text in Mark is completely bogus. This in itself would be admitting that the text is not the divinely inspired word of God, but a collection of heavily edited texts by men wanting to control primitive and easily frightened, superstitious people.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Would you also take away the pleasure of sex, the happiness of a laugh, the tenderness of true love, you must have been denied much in your unhappy life. The reason I say this, is because you seem to wish to deny those who have faith in something,and have a love for something. Could it be because you are jealous of their ability to find such pleasure from belief? Like I said, I am an Atheist or perhaps an Agnostic might be a better word for Religion does nothing for me at this moment. What does upset me is what you and your group are trying to do to others who do have a faith in something. Why is it so necessary to try and destroy what they believe? Here is a little site for you to contemplate what may be your own final. http://www.near-death.com/religion/atheism/an-analysis-of-the-ndes-of-atheists.html. What does it matter what Matthew said or what Jesus said or what Pontius Pilate of Josephus said, none of us were around then so it is up to the reader what he/she believes. Let them have their Jesus and their God, you and your group are acting very much like people who denigrate because they are searching for someone to lead them
        to the promised land.

      • Atheos says:

        Ray
        For me the problem with letting people believe falsehoods is that these falsehoods are believed so vehemently by a small but highly influencial subgroup of these beleivers who then think we should all adhere to their false beliefs. Obviously most religious people genuinely believe that they are becoming better people thanks to their religions. However when a group of religious people claim that their religious text is somehow sacred and so deserves privileged treatment over all other literature, and that it should be incorporated into our laws so we must all obey what it says or else!, then we have a huge problem.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Six Million of his chosen people??? Where do you get such malarkey, there were only 5 million 700 thousand Jews in Europe at the outbreak of World War Two. How then do we find two million three hundred thousand still living in Europe at the end of the war? Jews are great at exaggeration and at one time in the 1960’s, tried to convince the world that 11 million had been killed in the concentration camps. Even today, the number three million is almost impossible to prove due to the numbers each camp would have had to burn and bury. Please take your Jewish self back to trying to destroy Christianity.

    • Joseph says:

      Hi, I’m slightly behind you in your thinking, I am also fighting for faith, I’m so confused, just when I think I’m an agnostic, the love my wife and children have for me and each other stop me from deciding my position.
      For now I’ll keep searching and hope that God or Jesus, the holy spirit or all three will find me, Atheists put a strong case, for some reason I can’t buy into their beliefs. The bible sounds to me like a made up story, then I think, some of the most outrageous claims turn out to be true.
      An atheist nor a believer can answer the most sort after answers, why are here?, how did life begin?, nobody has the answers and most likely never will. How do we explain human emotions, our thoughts, feelings, the love we can’t control nor ever explain, our conscientiousness, intelligence, the universe.
      I often obverse human behaviour, I admire the selfless people who without any religious beliefs put their lives on the line to help people in need, it contradicts any evolutionary theory, why would a human who is hard wired for self preservation risk their own well being for the sake of others?
      For now I can see three groups, those who believe, those that don’t, those who aren’t sure. I don’t want to belong to any of these groups, the group who know for fact I have not found, this is the group I hope to belong to one day, as all believers and non believers hope to.
      In the mean time, all groups fight as one.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Joseph, you have answered your own question. You are truly not behind anyone, you are in the same position as all who do believe, want to believe, chastise those who believe and who think that they do not believe. Firstly, I think that you would be much better off if you kept your search to one God only, leave the trinity for a later time. The Bible is a made up story of exaggerations and fables [not all of it] that was designed to make the non-believer believe. Why are we here? Because like everything else in the Universe, we are users of energy and our efforts [like the effort of all] keep the Universe moving. How did life begin?

        The same way the entire universe began! The answers are there, it just takes the eye to see. Humans are not the only animal with emotions, all animals have thoughts, feelings and many have a love that is as strong as human bonds. Human intelligence has fought it’s way to the top but is it the top in the entire Universe? The Universe is a gigantic Brain, one that is motivated toward using energy as it’s own power source and ill continue to do so into infinity. So you think that man has not evolved, that evolution is contradicted?

        Why does man do things for others who are at risk? Why do animals do exactly the same for humans and for other animals at risk? Because they are the selfless ones who know deep inside that energy consumers must continue at all cost. The group who know for a fact, are those who understand why we are all here, they know there is an almighty but they also know that the almighty did not create man in his likeness, he created man in his IMAGE, or in his view. God is all around you and he has never met and/or talked to none of his creations for God is a creator of consumers. Why? We may never be able to answer that question but let it be noted that just as the Sahara Desert once used to be green and vibrant, so it shall be that all things will cease to exist one day but will always be replaced by other energy users. For us on Earth, Sol is our God and we were made in his image and without him we would not exist but Sol is only a bit player in the entire universe and therefore, we have not yet met our maker.

        You can believe that there is an almighty out there, it is up to you how you believe. If you have children, you will realize that they have one God from a very early age. One God the Father, one whom they trust to keep them safe from all danger, one who will love and feed them daily their bread,. One who will forgive them their trespasses just as he will forgive those who trespass against him. One who will deliver them from evil for his Kingdom is his family and they are his power, his glory forever and ever. As you are God to your children, you also seek God as a father who can protect you throughout your life. I am one of the agnostics.I do not believe the supernatural writings of man regarding a God for I believe that man is just a grain of sand on a very very large beach.

    • Why should you have to “hang on to hope that not only was He real, but his promises are real.”? If he were real and his promises were real, it would be obvious. You wouldn’t have to grasp at straws as evidence that he and his promises are real. Wouldn’t , shouldn’t it be obvious?. If your only evidence is “hope”, then there it is not real.

      Sorry

      • rayjwarren says:

        Would you also destroy Santa Claus for Children?

      • rayjwarren says:

        Truth-slayer Simply because without the laws laid down by Hammurabi, God or Moses, we would be just as our animal ancestors were. If you do not see the graft and corruption that is able to operate with the laws of today, then you are blind. We needed the early laws upon which our own laws of today are based. You surely are a bigot of the worst kind, have you never been to a race track, a casino or even a gambling den Every man jack [and woman] are taking a gamble and are living in hope, just as they are with Jesus, God or anything else supernatural [like luck] that will change their existence for the better. You really do need a course in human psychology.

      • rayjwarren says:

        And what of the Old Testament, is that not the greatest piece of fairy tale you have ever read, the Jews brought most of their stuff out of Egypt and they still do their hair in a similar way to the Egyptian youth with their side lock. We know that the written histories were garnished with fables , the Ulysses, Hercules, and other ancient heroes may have been real enough but the deeds attributed to them were too fabulous to be true.

    • Stephen says:

      The catholic encyclopedia is all you need. It clearly notes that the gospels are not actually written by the authors that are claimed to have written them and that much of the NT is rewritten or written from scratch by persons within the church to benefit the church. Yet, despite their admissions they still teach these non-truths. Just like Islam does with their man made religion. And yes the christians used to have a convert or die attitude, it was called the Crusades, look it up.

  142. r teller says:

    I absolutely disagree with your conclusions. The amazing book called the Bible continues to be proven as truth over and over again.
    NO…IT IS NOT PROVEN AS TRUTH. YOU ARE WRONG.
    As time goes on more and more evidence is found showing people written about did in fact exist just as the Bible says they did.

    NO! MORE AND MORE EVIDENCE IS NOT FOUND. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THAT JESUS WAS RESURRECTED PLEASE.

    Virtually every single ancient culture has stories handed down generation to generation about the giants that once walked this earth and which were told of in Genesis 6. The remains of these beings have been shuffled away from sight while Darwinism has been put forth as truth. There is overwhelming evidence proving this. It was only a short 100 years ago that our own newspapers used to openly report these remains as they were found all over North America as well as every other country on earth. Then all the sudden the bones and the reports disappeared and are now mostly unknown to the average person. Oh but television has just started yet another reality show with two men on the trail trying to prove the giants existed. I have read and watched many books and videos on this subject already. There are many that have already done this research and have proven sufficiently that the giants did exist and the evidence has already been found.

    Evolution has never come close to being proven.
    ABSOLUTELY WRONG AGAIN.
    Evolution is not just a species evolving over time, it is a species evolving into a whole other species. I don’t doubt that cats or dogs or even people may have evolved over millions of years but I do not believe we all started out as an fish or an ape and then somehow turned into over millions of different creatures as the Darwinian peddlers would have us believe.
    YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION.

    I also firmly believe we are very, very close to the Biblical end times.
    NO. WE ARE NOT VERY VERY CLOSE TO THE BIBLICAL END TIMES. THAT APOCALYPTIC NONSENSE WAS WRITTEN TO AND FOR THOSE UNDER DOMINATION OF ROME. JESUS SAID THE END TIMES WOULD COME WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF THOSE TO WHOM HE WAS SPEAKING. IT DID NOT. PAUL SAID THE END TIMES WOULD COME WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF HIS FOLLOWERS. IT DID NOT. NUMEROUS OTHERS HAVE PREDICTED THE END TIMES BY XXXX. DID NOT HAPPEN.
    YOU ARE WRONG.
    The the corruption within virtually every institution in this country and others has become so obvious even the most casual observer has got to know this is different. Something unprecedented is taking place in the world today. We have nothing even close in recent history to compare to what is going on in the world except the Biblical prophecies that foretold this. Just 1 year ago I was a non-believer. I have and continue to diligently study. I am by no means an expert…
    THAT’S THE ONLY THING YOU GOT RIGHT.
    yet but there are things I now know that I cannot logically explain away. Why in the world would the powers that be hide away the history of this planet from the masses? What other logical explanation is there other than it supports the Biblical narrative? How is it even possible that a book written over 2,000 years ago by 60 different authors OVER thousands of years, could cook up such an incredible tale. The prophecies for the times we are living in right now are written of more than any other and they just keep being fulfilled one after the other. Things are accelerating at an astonishing rate.
    HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? JUST BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO YOU THAT “THINGS ARE ACCELERATING….”?

    Perhaps you can explain to me how Matthew wrote his book or Mark, Luke, John? How does just a common man with no access to computers accomplish the mathematical miracles found in the original text?
    YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS. FIRST OF ALL NONE OF THE GOSPEL WRITERS ACTUALLY WROTE THE BOOKS THAT HAVE THEIR NAMES. EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE KNOWS THAT.
    We couldn’t do that today so how did they manage it? If you are not familiar with the findings in that text I will list out just 14 of 75 miraculous ‘rules’ that were discovered by Ivan Panin.
    1- The number of words written are divisible by 7
    2- The number of letters divisible by 7
    3- The number of vowels and the number of consonants are divisible by 7
    4- The number of words that begin with a vowel divisible by 7
    5- The number of words that begin with a consonant divisible by 7
    6- The number of words that occur in more than one form divisible by 7
    7- The number of words that occur more than once divisible by 7
    8- The number of words that occur in only one form divisible by 7
    10- The number nouns divisible by 7
    11- Only 7 words cannot be nouns
    12- Only 7 other kinds of nouns are permitted
    13 – The number of male names is divisible by 7
    14- The number of generations is 21 (divisible by 7)

    OH MY GOD! SO WHAT?
    All of the above have been found in the first 11 verses of Matthew which was written in Greek. That’s only the tip of the iceberg of the discoveries still being made in the original text of the Gospels. Many things are still to be revealed and with the advances in technology a lot of this could not have been found until these days. We can look at the narrow scope of items you have listed as your reasons for doubting the existence of Christ or you expand and start looking at a huge amount of evidence that I don’t see any of the naysayers talking about. No non believer can explain away these findings and the mainstream is sure not going to point them out. Satan has indeed done an excellent job in convincing man that he does not exist.

    • Ho hum. And all of that 7 stuff proves what? That’s how god chooses to reveal himself to all mankind for all eternity? Couldn’t he be a little more direct? Like appearing in my kitchen and telling me I am wrong? Or eliminating all birth defects, or eliminating Aids or not allowing weather disasters, ad infinitum.

      • Cory says:

        To eliminate aids or birth defects would require him (God) to remove all terrible things, therefore we know no evil, which in my opinion having evil things in our life allows us to know what Good is, therefore allowing us to have free will.

      • orangesliced says:

        God being the creator has the right to choose how he reveals himself. He created language and communication through words. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. We have over 5000 Greek New Testament manuscripts. We have manuscripts written in other ancient languages as well. All together we have over 25,000 New Testament manuscripts. One of the amazing things is that they all agree with one another with only minor variants that does not affect the truth of the gospel in anyway. Most of the variants are mistakes such as spelling ect. That simply is amazing considering there all hand written. Also we are finding manuscripts that go all the way back to the 2nd century AD. The manuscripts being wide spread and in different languages while also agreeing with one another is amazing. There is no other writing in antiquity that has that kind of witness. Even Bart Ehram recognizes this fact. The reliability of the New Testament is solid. Non Christians make faulty assumptions about what we believe and assume that reason is thrown out the window to be a follower of Christ. That simply isn’t true. If one searches for the truth one can see we are just making a rational decision based on the evidence God has presented us with.

        There are a lot of reasons why I believe in Jesus Christ. One of the reasons is how different he is from us. Every other religion in the world has a god. Their god has to be appeased by being good. They say he loves good people ect. That’s how people are. We naturally love people who love us. The God of the New Testament loves people who hate him. Jesus didn’t die for good people. He died for people who not only hated him but also for people who didn’t believe him. People who didn’t want to believe him because they want to live for themselves and not be told what to do Romans 5:6-10. Imagine someone raping and murdering a loved one. Would you take their place in a court of law and take the punishment they deserve? I doubt you would. That is what God has done. The gospel is not of man. It is not a fairy tale. We could not invent such a love as Gods. We naturally try to deserve things. The gospel message is about him taking our place, receiving the punishment we deserve and freely giving us his salvation totally free. His salvation can only be received. My point is that the message of the gospel is one of the reasons, among many, of why I believe the New Testament to be true.

      • orangesliced says:

        I would like to address one thing you mentioned. You asked couldn’t have God revealed himself more direct? He did personally. He came and walked among his own creation as revealed in the gospels of Matthew, Mark,Luke and John. Jesus said whoever that has seen me has seen God the Father. God has revealed himself through and in his son. If you honestly want to know God, read the four gospel accounts. They changed me profoundly and they can you too.

      • Darren Hook says:

        hiv and aids is a hoax look it up…there is no test for it, there are only scorecards that put people in a bracket that doctors then claim is HIV, low T-cells and another illness at the same time is the test…laughable. And you call yourself a truth sayer lmao

      • Atheos says:

        Cory, in your response are you suggesting that God deliberately create Aids and congenital defects in the first place, and that somehow this relates to ‘good’ and ‘evil’? Christians often talk about the ‘Divine Plan’ that everything is predestined by God, that includes nice things happening to evil dictators and cancers being given to people who go out of their way to help others less fortunate than themselves. So how do we have ‘free will’ if every day of my life has been ordered by God? Free will? I do not recall ever being given a choice as to whether I would like to be born into a non-wealthy family with genetic disposition towards cancers, strokes and hypertension, into the 1960’s, into a Western English (hint of Cymraig) Judeo-Christian culture.

        How does a genetic defect, like me having poor eyesight for example, have any correlation with ‘good’ and ‘evil’? Aren’t ‘good’ and ‘evil’ based on moral choices not on the physiology or genetic make up of a creature?

        If you believe that you are genuinely going to go to heaven as a reward and spend a life of bliss, with no pain or suffering as this will not exist in heaven, then you appear to have a big problem. If evil is necessary to allow us to know what good is, then where is the suffering, misery and evil in heaven for you to know that heaven is good? If I understand Christian Theology correctly the Christian deity cannot stand to be in the presence of evil. As an aside this is obscenely hypocritical considering the atrocities and evil that the Christian deity has committed and commanded his followers to commit.

        About 50% of the people alive on this planet today have poor eyesight and need to wear glasses, contact lenses, or have their faulty eyes corrected using modern eye surgery. This rather indicates that we are not designed by a ‘benevolent designer’ since any benevolent designer would not deliberately build design faults into their creations, knowing the detrimental effect that poor eyesight would have on a creature’s ability to perform tasks in order to survive and thrive. The best explanation so far for why we have birth defects that Supreme Truthsayer mentions is … Evolution, as this accounts for imperfections and congenital defects. Not only is there no contemporary evidence from other sources that give an account of the life of Jesus, but there is no objective evidence in history or science to confirm the existence of the Christian god (or any) allegedly the inspiration behind the myth and legendary miracles and teachings of Yeshua/Y’shua.

      • Atheos says:

        Orangeslice,
        Regarding the manuscript evidence you are only telling part of the story which is misleading. Yes B D Erhman did indeed acknowledge that the New Testament is well attested compared with other ancient literature like Homer’s Iliad, Plato’s Republic etc., but you omitted to mention that he immediately goes on to state that this needs qualifying, since it only applies to the vast majority of manuscripts that were created following the invention of the printing process. Printing ensured that copies of a text agreed with each other. This is definitely NOT the case with hand written manuscript copies. So your claim that ‘The reliability of the New Testament is solid.’ is actually false because the earlier the manuscript the more errors and divergent readings we find.

        The argument of New Testament reliability based on such a large quantity of Manuscripts being available has two main short comings; firstly just because you have say 50,000 copies of the same text claiming an historical event took place does not mean that it necessarily took place. Secondly, you appear to be equating truth or reliability of testimony with number of copies, then I’m sorry to say that using this line of reasoning means that Harry Potter and the Koran must also be true based on the tens of millions of copies of those books that we have available to us. Yet I suspect that you will immediately dismiss the Koran, a competing religion, and may even go so far as to claim that J K Rowling and the Koran are ‘ … works of the devil to deceive mankind away from the one true god …’

        “One of the amazing things is that they all agree with one another with only minor variants that does not affect the truth of the gospel in anyway.”

        Regarding this claim, you have evidently never actually read any New Testament manuscripts in Greek have you? I HAVE! Otherwise you would be only too embarrassingly aware of the large number of variant readings that DO AFFECT THEOLOGY. You would also know and see for yourself first hand exactly where the text was deliberately changed by a scribe to avoid a problem or promote their own theological agenda. You will no doubt have heard of the Johannine Coma 1 John 5:7-8, the spurious addition of the woman caught in adultery in John, and the 4 endings plus a longer version to the gospel attributed to Mark. These ALL significantly affect the theology, beliefs and practices of the church. We can even pin point exact places within manuscripts where a certain scribe made alterations, some being deliberate spurious insertions into the text to promote a proto orthodox theology.

        Here is an extract from one of my essays – apologies for the length of this extract but I hope it demonstrates my scholarship and provides you with evidence for why I disagree with your opinion.

        1 Tim 3:16 “Who was manifested in the flesh” was changed in Codex Alexandrinus to “God manifested in the flesh” (KJV) to promote or support the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. The text “OC” (‘OΣ’ or ‘ός’ Greek letters Omicron Sigma ‘OS’) which means ‘who’ was changed to ‘ΘC’ (ΘΣ Greek letters Theta Sigma which is Nomina Sacre abbreviation of ‘ΘEOΣ’ or ‘Θεός’) meaning ‘God’, simply by drawing a line in the middle of the letter ‘O’ to change it to Theta ‘Θ’. The line added above the text to indicate a sacred name abbreviation was even in a darker ink proving it was a more modern forgery and not the original reading of the text.

        1 John 3:16 “This is how we know what love is” (Codex Sinaiticus) was changed to “Hereby perceive we the love of God” (KJV). Adding “του θεου” or “Of God” to the text promoted the doctrine that Jesus was God who laid his life down for the church.

        Matthew 27:9 “what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled” was changed to “… the prophets” to avoid the contradiction that there is no reference to 30 pieces of silver anywhere in Jeremiah. The actual reference to 30 pieces of silver was made by Zechariah 11:12 and not Jeremiah.

        Luke 2:48 “Your father and I have been looking for you” was changed to “We have been looking for you to avoid contradiction that the Holy Sprit was the father of Jesus and not Joseph”.

        Mark 1:41 “Jesus was angry” (Codex Bezae) was changed to “Jesus was filled with compassion” to avoid contradictions about the temperament of the Messiah. Codex Bezae is the only manuscript to have this reading, but this very likely the original text reading of Mark 1:43. Also most manuscripts do not contain either the word anger or compassion in the text.

        My personal favourite, that I transliterated myself from Greek Capitals, is this from Codex Bezea Cantabrigiensis (AKA – Codex D) that currently resides in the Cambridge University Library – just up the M11 road from me.

        Luke 3:22b “εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε” – “This day I have begotten you” (Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis) – a direct quotation from psalm 2 – was changed to “In whom I am well pleased” to avoid adoptionist interpretations and also avoid the internal contradiction with Luke 2:11 where Jesus is portrayed as the Christ at his Birth. (Acts 10:37-38 and Hebews 1:5 both support Psalm 2:7 “You are my son, Today I have begotten you”).

        We do not possess any of the original autographs of texts from the New Testament. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. To understand how copying worked in ancient times, the scribe would need the original manuscript available to make a copy from by hand. Copying was a time consuming and tedious process that invariably introduced errors like misspelling words, using the wrong words, paraphrasing the text to get a different word order, missing out lines of text, repeating lines of text, inserting the text from another external document or marginal comment into the text, altering the paragraph order, etc. Copying is a technically skilled job, which is why scribes were so highly valued and often second in command to the master, ruler or owner. It must be remembered that only the elite of society could read and write in antiquity, so literacy levels were generally low amongst the entire population.

        The earliest manuscripts we have recovered date from the end of the second century AD and are mostly scraps or fragments. The most famous fragment is the post-it note sized P52 fragment of John 18, dated 110-150 AD, that is currently in the John Rylands Library at Manchester University. We only begin to uncover complete or near complete documents dating from the third century at the earliest. Our earliest manuscripts of the complete New Testaments date from the middle or late fourth century AD. To further confound things there is a wide variation in readings between different manuscripts, which presents the added difficulty in deciding which manuscript has priority.

        This presents the Christian who claims that the New Testament is the infallible word of God, with numerous significant challenges. If manuscripts of the same New Testament book contain variant readings then this constitutes contradictions at manuscript level, so the argument that the text is the infallible Word of God is immediately destroyed. That is, unless the believer is willing to attempt to argue for the priority of one manuscript over another, but such apparent solutions invariably rely heavily on convoluted constructions in order for them to be plausible. Priority is conferred upon the oldest manuscript and is generally regarded as being the more reliable since it is closest to the time of the original being written.

        If we can detect differences between a manuscript and a copy of that manuscript, then this also presents further evidence against any claims of divine inspiration and infallibility. If humans can corrupt the text intentionally or unintentionally during the scribal copying process, then the text can no longer be regarded or trusted as the infallible word of God either. This is especially true of the numerous instances where a scribe has deliberately changed the text to pre-empt an inconsistency, or maliciously altered the wording to ensure that the text promotes and supports a doctrine like the Trinity, whilst also serving as a polemic against what was considered to be a rival or heretical view.

        So Orangeslice, which manuscript reading is ‘the word of God’ please?
        Your guess is as good as mine.

      • rayjwarren says:

        I have been following a few of your replies and am now almost convinced that you fancy men [“I think that homosexual men are not 100% men” reply by You” Oh brother, are you mistaken”. No she is not mistaken, men who take it up the ass have a goodly degree of femininity. Men who like to take it in the mouth are obviously still on the mothers teat. No, I feel that your statement leads one to believe that you have delver a little into Sodom and Gomorrah. I am fast losing respect for your attitude toward Christians and their beliefs, why don’t you leave them alone and go find yourself a companion of the Manly kind. Your statements to american maiden were despicable, especially those based on her beliefs pertaining to her dying sister. You should be ashamed of the way you spoke to her, I would never have let you live that down had I been her.

      • Awwww, RayJWarren, thank you for your support! Don’t worry though, I’m ok. Truthslayer didn’t hurt my feelings, and certainly hasn’t affected my faith in God. I have researched as much as I can on “the truth,” and I always come up with the same answer…nobody knows for sure either way, because the people that do are no longer of this world. And, the scientific community only has theories (evolution, Big Bang). Even Stephen Hawkings latest that the universe began due to gravity, is just a theory. And they still can’t create life, even with that particle accelerator machine they have going, smashing billions of subatomic particles together 24/7. So, as they believe their theories, I am going to continue to believe my “theories” about God. I continuously have odd things happen to me, that some would say are coincidence (like what happened during my sister’s death), but they happen too often to be ignored. For example, today’s mass was about “doubting Thomas,” and “blessed are those who believe yet do not see.” After mass your email was at the top of the heap. God knows I struggle, but He is ok with it, because I am charging forward anyway, to attain the gift of faith, and I am most assuredly giving the gift to my 3 little boys. I’m not giving up on God, and I’m officially adding Truthslayer to my prayers tonight, so that he may receive the gift of faith and start seeing and hearing God in his life. God bless you RayJWarren, and Truthslayer both.

      • rayjwarren says:

        For once I agree wholeheartedly.

    • Atheos says:

      R Teller
      The significance of gematria (numerology) in Matthew was not discovered by Ivan Panin, it was well known to the early church too. Matthew used a code to try and show that God had the Doubly Perfect (number 14 is 2 x 7 or twice perfection) for our salvation, but to get this 14-14-14 formula, all Matthew had to do was miss out entire generations and counting the final set of names as fourteen, even though there are only thirteen actual generations. There are ’14’ generations from Abraham to King David, ’14’ generations from King David to the exile and finally ’14’ generations from the Exile to Jesus. Also 5 women all involved in some scandalous sexual impropriety are listed, yet these would be inadmissible in Jewish culture, since hereditary descent is always through the male line, never the female line in the overtly sexist patriarchal society of 1st century Jews. Therefore the genealogy cannot be taken literally.

      Also regarding gematria and King David, David is spelled D-V-D (Daleth-Vav-Daleth) in Hebrew (no vowels written). The D (Daleth) equals 4 and the V (Vav) equals 6, so adding up David’s name in Hebrew totals 14. By crow baring the 3 sets of 14 generations with some tweaking we arrive at a Doubly Perfect divine plan for salvation with emphasis on the Davidic line due to the references to the number 14.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Hooray, I finally found a reply button. I wanted to reply to your post in which you castigated my attempt to show a virgin prophesy [guess the Muslims are the only ones entitled to that] I noted a couple of items that you put forward and only partially agree with you. One thing I think I recall from childhood, is that one of the prophesies stated that Mary named her child Emmanuel but that an Angel appeared and told her to name him Jesus. This may have been one of the Apostles who told this story but I also recall that there was another birth going on at that time and the child was named James and an angel also appeared to the parents. As I have stated, I am not a religion follower and so childhood memories and the occasional need to look something up are the only thing I can go on with this subject. I also do believe that your translations are a little different to mine regarding the meaning of the names, I think that you are missing the word is from God is with us rather than God with us. I think that the early Christians and the Apostles wanted Jesus to be seen as God just as the Herodotus talked about Gebeleisis [just Google it] wanted to be seen as Bod among his people who were Getae [Dacians] from Romania or thereabouts. Anyway, it matters bot because I am here only to stop people from denying the existence of historic people when they have no real idea. On the other side, I have been attacking the Ron Wyatt type who make those damned videos chock full of Rubbish like the Noah’s Ark thing. Hope you got a look at my 40 year work on the settlement of Australia and etc. I happened across an old history mystery while writing that encyclopedia and was sidetracked a bit for 25 of those 40 years and had to complete both books at the same time. My Wildflower The Barbara Crawford Thompson Story went a bit haywire in the UK and Europe and is slowly working it’s way around Australia. Also I have a couple of other Blogs, one you may like a look at is Australian Poetry and Bush Ballads from down Under. which is mostly history based material.

      • nowayjose says:

        What changes to the basic tenets of Christianity are altered through your critique of the New Testament?

      • ray warren says:

        Atheos, it is quite cute how you lead with your left fist and sock yourself with an uppercut with your right. Please tell me more about the no vowel bowel movement you suggest, you say that there are no vowels and yet you quite comfortably show us D-V-D for David but then give us the actual way the letters are pronounced or spelt. You give us their Alpha-Beta pronunciation of Daleth-Vav-Daleth, so how if there are no Vowels, do you manage to give us these pronunciations??

    • Stephen says:

      The oldest bible ever found, a complete bible, called something like the Codex Sinaiticus has no mention of Jesus in it at all. Go figure?
      Read it here: http://www.vatileaks.com/vati-leaks/a-glaring-omission-in-world-s-oldest-bible
      Now if the largest of the 40,000 different christian belief systems, the Roman Catholic Church, agrees with what’s missing in this Codex Sianiticus is fact, not fiction, and that the current writings are from priests, not prophets, then you have to consider it the most accurate truth we have in terms of ‘physical proof’. Or, you are just fooling yourself.
      Believe in one God. He is your savior.

      • Atheos says:

        Stephen
        Codex א (Aleph) Sinaiticus does mention Jesus. It is our oldest and best Greek manuscript contianing all the books we find in our modern New Testament along with the Epistle of Barnabas and parts of The Shepherd of Hermas. The Old Testments pages that have survived includes 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.
        The majority of Codex Sinaiticus is in the British Library, with smaller parts in Leipzig and Russia.
        I therefore doubt very much that the manuscript referred to in the Vatileaks is Codex Aleph – Sinaiticus. Nor can it be Codex B Vaticanus that is held in the Vatican Libaray, for scholars have compared these codexes to establish variant readings, ommited verses and included verses. And they all mention Jesus.

  143. John Russo says:

    No matter where you stand on this debate the one argument here that really fails is the historical Washington logic. How do we know he lived, because history tells us so! Thats the bases for the counter argument, where it fails is that all historians agree and wrote that Washington existed, the Americans, who we will call the Christians here, and the opposition the Brits who will call the Romans, in the Jesus story you have a couple of Americans, at best, and no Brits, as well as no French or anyone else writing about him.

  144. Another atheist– agnostic – with trophy irises, lustfully eying the title of debunker of Christianity, for the all of nihilism. No answers, except Christianity is stupid. Paranoid and secretly trembling at the thought of a higher power, cause he’s never dealt with electricity, the police, gravity, or the deep end of the pool, which he seems to have leapt off of. Perhaps, you should do the thinking for yourself, and Fitzgerald should go back to publishing on LuLu.com – which is where the book originated. And since you’re too lazy to even formulate many of your own thoughts, preferring instead to be Fitzgerald’s sock puppet, I’ll summarize as well.

    HEY … THE PAGE YOU READ IS ONE OF 178 PAGES, MOST OF WHICH ARE MY OWN THOUGHTS. I DO DEEP ANALYSIS OF THE NONSENSE YOU BELIEVE TO BE TRUE. CHECK OUT THE ENTIRE WEBSITE. THIS PAGE ISN’T EVEN IN THE MAIN PART OF THE WEBSITE. HOW DID YOU EVEN FIND IT? YOU’RE QUITE POETIC IN YOUR PREAMBLE TO YOUR OWN DIATRIBE.

    On the matter of Josephus. In a rebuttal to a critique of his book, Fitzgerald admits “”O’Neill rightly notes that the majority of scholars accept the passage as at least partially authentic”. “How much of the passage is or isn’t authentic is entirely beside the point: if any of it is an authentic mention of Jesus by Josephus, the Mythicist goose is well and truly cooked.  And the fact remains that the consensus of scholarship by experts Jewish, Christian, atheist, agnostic or Calathumpian is that Josephus did mention Jesus here.“ Geza Vermes,a Jewish scholar states:

    The Christian passages, those that cannot be ascribed to the Jew Josephus, are easily distinguishable …. Once the Christian supplements are removed, the original notice is reduced to the description of Jesus as “wise man” and “performer of paradoxical deeds”, the epithet “Christ” attached to the name of Jesus; the crediting of the death sentence to Pilate; and the mention of the existence of the followers of Jesus at the time of the writing of the Testimonium in the 90s CE.”(Geza Vermes, “Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus”, Standpoint, Jan/Feb 2010) 

    Origen stated Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus as the Christ, he never said Josephus never believed in Jesus existence. Whether or not Josephus believed Jesus was the Christ doesn’t mean he didn’t believe Christ existed. I could go on, and on, like the energizer bunny, but you get the point.

    Pliny the younger wasn’t just a writer, he was also a magistrate. Your statement on him is akin to saying that because there are no eye witnesses of George Washington, he did not exist either. The instigation Caius Suetonius refers to may very well mean because of, not a particular person. Jesus may have been a pacifist, but the message was of his death and resurrection as well as his teachings, which caused uproars.

    It says mischievous religious belief  , not mischievous Christians, who were first surnamed in Antioch, and while there may not have been a written gospel, do you really have to read something in order to believe word of mouth testimony? No, it’s not indicated above, you just attacked your straw man you assumed was valid. The fact that Paul never referenced believers as Christians, doesn’t mean the term was non existent. Around 48 A.D Paul stood trial before Agrippa, who famously, or infamously went on to say “almost thou persuadest me to become a christian.” – But there’s no way Caius Suetonius could’ve known six years after the fact, right?

    Where did any of those people claim to be eyewitnesses? Make sure to send this entire straw man paragraph to the wizard for a brain already. The other problem is that eyewitnesses did write the gospels. None of us were born when George Washington fought for independence, which is why we have historians. Are you going to tell them, George Washington didn’t cross the Delaware cause you weren’t there to see it?

    The only thing more infuriating than a quasi-athiest steeped in rationalization, for the all of denial,
    is having to spend thirty plus minutes of my life debunking, that I won’t get back to deal with a misconstruing that never should’ve occurred in the first place. Back to cherry picking the ones that aligned with your distorted view.

    Attribution:
    much of the above taken from:
    Armarium Magnum: The Jesus Myth Theory: A Response to David Fitzgerald (Armarium Magnum: The Jesus Myth Theory: A Response to David Fitzgerald)

    • Ho Hum – show me proof; real proof that Jesus was god or the son of god or the holy spirit or whatever else the bible claims him to be. Jesus said anything you ask in prayer, you will receive.Let’s see prayer restore an amputated limb.

      • Ho Hum –You failed reading comprehension. Evidence was put forth for the EXISTENCE of Christ, not His deity. More to the point, what proof have you no amputated limb has ever been restored through the power of prayer — DENIAL OF EXISTENCE? Skepticism isn’t a smoking gun.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Jesus the Christ was a Benny Hinn of sorts, he, like many other Hebrew/Jews imitated stories that were gone before. Jesus and Gebeliesis of the Getae, Noah and Gilgamesh and etc. Jesus existed alright but not as a God, he was like all men according to him, a son of God. I wish you would cease and desist from denigration, it is becoming more and more painfully obvious that you have a need to accept the very thing you are trying to destroy.

      • rayjwarren says:

        RAY – WHO THE HECK ARE YOU? WHAT IS YOUR BACKGROUND? HOW DID YOU COME TO KNOW ALL THIS? HOW CAN YOU BE SO EDUCATED AND YET BELIEVE THAT 9/11 WAS INSTIGATED BY THE CIA? IT MAKES ONE WONDER ABOUT THE VERACITY OF YOUR [OTHER STATEMENTS]
        I am just a someone who is watching over the truth, not about fable or exaggeration. about the truth of the existence of historic persons and places, names and events [not fable or exaggeration]. My education standard was failed and dropped out at 14 years of age. At 24 years I joined Encyclopaedia Britannica as a salesman and left 27 years later when they were taken over by a Jew because I knew that a personal relationship with my work would cease to exist. My learning commenced at age 24 when I began studying Egyptology which led into the Middle East and Mesopotamia and since that time I have become a history and family researcher and my family date back to being a cousin and General of William the Conqueror. My family have been Mechanics, engineers Printers and Authors but for 140 years simply workers, My self studies have continued because at 24 I was brain empty and like a coffee mug, it needed to be filled. Now, I can compete with any professor on almost any history and my own work is being used by professors at two major Australian Universities in their lectures and has even been used and credited for use in one the the learned men’s own books. My intention on your site is not to dissuade anyone from believing what they like, it is simply to make sure that personages such as Jesus [for me he is Benny Hinn] who changed the world and whom Pope Peter died for his belief in Jesus. and also to stop religious nuts from trying to use history as a stepping stole or bolster for something that is not fact in many areas. What is correct is that Jesus, Moses and many other people so recorded did exist just as the towns or Pompey and Herculaneum existed [another of my interests]. But for Jesus, many people alive today would perhaps never have been alive for law and anarchy are just a stones throw away and without the Biblical laws, we would have been a little [or a lot] like Sodom and Gommorah. I hope that gives you some idea of my background, there is a lot more but suffice to say, not everybody needs a diploma to be able to see through the way it was and is. Try to stop confusing things by accepting that this man existed and that the things said about him are just foolish exaggerations dome by those who want all to believe. Go ahead and rubbish the said miracles and raising of the dead and being a son of God. These things are all fabrications done to enlarge his image and they have been very successful in that. Do not try to destroy their belief in the man for no matter what, his name has given us things to abide by that have helped keep the world calm until we could gain the education and maturity as a human race to make our own laws and behave in a better manner toward each other. It is not yet finished.

      • rayjwarren says:

        That is not the point of this discussion, it is whether Jesus existed or not.

        There is no way that Josephus, who remained an orthodox Jew all his life and defended Judaism vociferously against Greek critics, would have thought that the execution of a messianic claimant was “another terrible misfortune” for the Jews. This is the hand of a Christian writer who himself considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy (fitting in with his own notions of a stiff-necked race, rejected by God because they themselves had rejected the Son of God).

        Jesus also remained a Jew all of his life and I am sure that if he were crucified, that he also would have considered it a terrible misfortune. The early believers in this man had to do so with great caution because already their leader had been done in and most of the Apostles got the hell out of Israel to avoid a similar fate. Would you have stuck around to be strung up like that, I think not.

  145. J.Thinking says:

    Another atheist– agnostic – with trophy irises, lustfully eying the title of debunker of Christianity, for the all of nihilism. No answers, except Christianity is stupid. Paranoid and secretly trembling at the thought of a higher power, cause he’s never dealt with electricity, the police, gravity, or the deep end of the pool, which he seems to have leapt off of. Perhaps, you should do the thinking for yourself, and Fitzgerald should go back to publishing on LuLu.com – which is where the book originated. And since you’re too lazy to even formulate many of your own thoughts, preferring instead to be Fitzgerald’s sock puppet, I’ll summarize as well.

    On the matter of Josephus. In a rebuttal to a critique of his book, Fitzgerald admits “”O’Neill rightly notes that the majority of scholars accept the passage as at least partially authentic”. “How much of the passage is or isn’t authentic is entirely beside the point: if any of it is an authentic mention of Jesus by Josephus, the Mythicist goose is well and truly cooked.  And the fact remains that the consensus of scholarship by experts Jewish, Christian, atheist, agnostic or Calathumpian is that Josephus did mention Jesus here.“ Geza Vermes,a Jewish scholar states:

    The Christian passages, those that cannot be ascribed to the Jew Josephus, are easily distinguishable …. Once the Christian supplements are removed, the original notice is reduced to the description of Jesus as “wise man” and “performer of paradoxical deeds”, the epithet “Christ” attached to the name of Jesus; the crediting of the death sentence to Pilate; and the mention of the existence of the followers of Jesus at the time of the writing of the Testimonium in the 90s CE.”(Geza Vermes, “Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus”, Standpoint, Jan/Feb 2010) 

    Origen stated Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus as the Christ, he never said Josephus never believed in Jesus existence. Whether or not Josephus believed Jesus was the Christ doesn’t mean he didn’t believe Christ existed. I could go on, and on, like the energizer bunny, but you get the point.

  146. Andy says:

    Since you proved your argument, can you prove the opposite? Where are the writings (outside the bible) that talk about the non-existence of Jesus? That Jesus was a hoax or a fabrication by a group of pre-New Testament believers and were is their manuscript? Why would so many people believe and die for something that was false?

    • WTF are you talking about? “…prove the opposite?”, I don’t even know what you mean and why should I and what is the point. And don’t answer that. I don’t want to be bothered with this inane thinking.

      You can’t be serious re “Why would so many people believe and die…”? Who knows why but they do. Are you not aware of 9/11 when men crashed planes into buildings because they believed that it was Allah’s will and that there would be 70 virgins waiting for them in heaven? YOU would have to agree that they believed and died for something that was false.

      Why did they do it? Because they BELIEVED something false; had faith in it.

      • Andy says:

        You are right. They died for what they believed. That begs the question, why would Saul of Tarsus spread the word after he was killing believers? And he suffered a lot of trials, torture, prison, etc. I’m sure there are many writings outside the bible about Paul (i’ll have to look for them) and just because someone is 1 generation removed from Jesus doesn’t mean it’s untrue. Why would a respected historian publish something that was false or a lie? And it’s not just one, but a whole list that you provided. My suggestion was that you provided a mountain of evidence that Jesus existed in historical documents, but not one document that says “Jesus never existed”. Where are the historical skeptics that debunked the existence of Jesus in the time Jesus was purported to have lived/done ministry? Watch this… http://youtu.be/Ikxb09pyZwM

      • rayjwarren says:

        Now here is a point that sort of shows the difference between a believer and a non believer, I do not believe that Terrorists of the Muslim type drove planes into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. I believe that this was done by CIA operatives with Jewish backing. Over 6-00 Mulims were killed in the towers, all of them out of reach of rescue. The reasons for US Government involvement are manifold but at this moment we can say that entering Afghanistan was of Paramount importance and any old story would do to get them there. This destructive story is far more exaggerated than any Bible or Religious book could be. I followed MH370 and investigated passengers in my area only to find that they and their relations and neighbors did not exist at all so it appears that not only do religions make up stories but so to do governments.

      • Ray, Ray, Ray,

        After all the insightful comments you have made, how can you believe this cock-a-mane bullshit about the CIA and 9/11? That shop worn conspiracy theory is just pure rubbish. About as much truth to it as there is for the bible.

      • rayjwarren says:

        You may be the supreme truth slayer but you sure don’t like it when someone makes a statement different to your ;line of thinking! You sound very much like a tired old Jew who wants to deny Christianity. Get over the past Slayer, maybe much of it was fiction anyway As far as the 9/11 item you refer to, are you absolutely sure men crashed planes into buildings for Allah and 70 virgins? Maybe it was the CIA, a wealthy Jewish owner of the complex and those who wanted to make sure that Russia could not get a way through Afghanistan? Why did they do it? Because national interest wealth for the western nations assured it.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Now what kind of answer is that Truthslayer? Why do you slash and burn without allowing him his say, why do you deny him the same right you have? You are showing yourself off as a commanding bigot who runs this site as a “believe what I believe or bugger off” site. He is correct inj asking you to show him proof of the non-existence of Jesus. Why is it that nobody denies his existence, why is it that Tacitus and several others have talked about him at a time when it was dangerous to do so. W

      • nowayjose says:

        “You can’t be serious re “Why would so many people believe and die…”? Who knows why but they do. Are you not aware of 9/11 when men crashed planes into buildings because they believed that it was Allah’s will and that there would be 70 virgins waiting for them in heaven? YOU would have to agree that they believed and died for something that was false.

        Why did they do it? Because they BELIEVED something false; had faith in it.”

        The difference is fundamental, obvious and crucial. If the early Christians who were martyred, died for believing something that they thought was true, but wasn’t, they could be perceived as she describes. If they created the hoax originally and died willingly knowing they were dying for a bunch of garbage that they themselves produced, they were idiots. Many merely had to renounce that they followed Him and they would be spared.

    • WRT Paul: Same reason as the others – Paul was convinced by his vision of Jesus. Here are a number of reasons people believe they have seen something when they really did not:

        Dreams
        Hallucinations
        Drugs
        Epileptic seizure
        Staring at the sun
        Meditation
        Comas and Brain Damage (fell off his ass?)
        Extreme exhaustion
        Sleep Deprivation
        Lack of oxygen to the brain for whatever reason (apnea, Near Death Experience)
        Schizophrenia
        Diabetic
        Lying
        Fugue state
        Dissociative identity disorder
        Guilt
        Delusion
        Illness
        Malice
        diabolical deception
        Other – you name it.

      Do you believe all those who claim to have been abducted by aliens? Do you believe the faith healings of Benny Hinn? Surly you must be a Mormon because Joseph Smith had a vision directly from God that led to the Mormon faith. Why would you believe Paul’s vision and not Joseph Smith’s? Get the point?

      See my discourse on Paul (https://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/paul-is-wrong/) wherein we get three different versions of Paul's encounter with Jesus and nothing Paul says jibes up with what Mark, Matthew or Luke says about Jesus' teachings.

      Paul, like Jesus, predicts that the end times would occur during the lifetime of his audiences. Is Paul the "respected historian" you refer to?

      Re "Jesus Nerver Existed"… I am not claiming that he never existed. I just find it amazing that for someone to appear as God incarnated, only four "books" describe his life and teachings. If he had truly been doing all the Bible says he did, don't you think there would be a whole lot more evidence of it?

      • Jason moan says:

        There were other books, only 4 were chosen for canonical purpose. Not everyone could read and write during those times. Assuming that there would be more writing is assuming the word spread of Jesus during his life. He only ministered for three years and his ministry was confined to a few places in Judea. So would people in Rome even be aware of Jesus during his life? Probably not. It’s easy to say there should be more evidence when you get constant news updates on your iPhone but word did not travel that fast 2000 years ago. The fact that there are references about Jesus by Roman and Jewish writers shortly after his death should be evidence enough of his existence. Furthermore, the gospels and Paul’s letters would have been rejected much sooner if not for a huge number of early believers of Christ. Why would one be a believer unless they themselves witnessed one of his acts? I doubt a few letters and a couple of gospels would have been enough to inspire such a large following. It is far more likely that the following arose because there were many eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. Those eyewitnesses spreading the word would be much more effective than Paul’s letters or the gospels.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Just as I find it amazing that you have no secondary for the destruction of the twin towers or for any other subversive act done by nations and their Governments.

      • rayjwarren says:

        hooray, finally, an acceptance that he may have existed, yayyyyyy.

  147. Robert Wells says:

    There are thousands of written BOOKS. Being protected by Monks. Why the church keeps it a secret who knows . Jesus himself wrote 2 books himself. Historians “writers of the time all wrote about Jesus. Jesus is the most written about human who ever walked on this earth. It pisses me off that the info is being kept from us. Before you speak of Jesus not being real you best know what your talking about. Why do hate him. Everlasting life gee that is all no beheading or jihad. No forced to like my cult like Islam. Just be good what so wrong with that look at the world.

    • WHO is keeping this info from us? How did you find out about it? Most importantly WHY would this be kept from us?

      There is nothing wrong with “just be good”. It’s a very good idea. What does it have to do with this topic? Jesus could learn something from you. He advocates just the opposite:

      “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword”. Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51-53

      • rayjwarren says:

        Well you know that the church albeit Catholic or Protestant do keep many things from the masses. Religion is all about protecting itself from losing it’s income and petty people are quickly dispensed with if they start affecting said income.

    • Clara Listensprechen says:

      Mr. Wells clearly never heard of forgeries, which were rampant even in Paul’s day. Peter didn’t really write his Epistles–the writing style and language points an accusing finger at one of Paul’s contemporaries for that li’l deed, which, in that day, was actually quite commonplace. Even Josephus’ writings included forgeries.

  148. Rapture says:

    Hi, I’ve been researching & just want more clarity for many sites defend Christianity just as well in good debate as u did. I have read the Bible myself & notice contradictions & obviously questions even with no contradiction but just asking why God sent Israel to slaughter innocent people just to eradicate sin& when two sides are at war, which side is right. The one u on I guess lol but I’ll give an example with how did Moses write his own Death account? Yes Joshua could have finished it but just was pondering it. Also why care to live in the promise land which I know u spent your whole life as a leader & wandering the desert to get there but of u go to Heaven y care? Idk if Heaven was mentioned much in the 1st few books. If at all. The Devil didn’t even come in till much later& Lucifer was an adopted name from early Christian father’s who read Isaiah in another light where The King of Babylon would rise like the morning star & calling him Lucifer which is light bearer/bringer & it was integrated as falling angel some how. Plus as far as Christ’s return time is an illusion here so I don’t get it. If eternity is continuous outside this world then how is anyone to know& I’m tired of hearing the end is coming soon because it even states “will come like a thief in the night.” Also why Revelation of John instead of Thomas which was a debate which to include. What about the books that didn’t make it in the canon? They not considered legit because they would be more thought provoking on controversial concepts& contradictions are there if combined them. Many say they may not been considered God inspired & God had what made it happen for a reason. The Gnostic Gospels/writings can be considered competitive if people wanted to be part of any knowing collaboration at the time. Idk it’s really confusing.

    Also check this out

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=8zT2U-ziGY3LsATui4LIDw&url=http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/sinaiticus.htm&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEi1HmEpxvKm9fva9ZaG9JVaHPXGA

  149. Bell says:

    So where did these “Christians” get these new teachings that Nero spoke about? if it was before the New Testament ?

    • Bell says:

      Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief …’ (16.2) … Some way these beliefs were being taught well before the New Testament right? I am confused someone explain.

    • Jason moan says:

      The gospel was being spread by the disciples. And what else would you call followers of Christ?

    • Stephen says:

      One has to remember than Nero, only lived @ 30 years I think and this was @ 37 to 68 AD. He was a young person without exception. Civilizations all throughout time have new ideas being cooked up. We do even now.
      Sometimes it’s because of the oppression of certain persons or groups in society, sometimes it’s disparity between rich and poor and on and on.
      Unless the actual ‘new teachings’ are specifically noted in a post here it would be really hard to make a determination based solely on the term ‘new teachings’. Can anyone provide a specific list that can be verified? Or a specific statement of these with supporting text?

      Otherwise it could be as unreal as it could be a real statement of Nero’s.

      As for Constantine and his most likely success at forging a new testament in order to help the reigning church out and keep his position as ruler probably did anything he needed to achieve success.

      He was a Pagan and a sun god worshiper. Most of the attendees were Pagan as well according to the records kept from the first council of Nicaea this is according to the Catholic Encyclopedia and vatican statements. People don’t realize that the Popes hat, the Mitre, is the same hat as Tammuz had which was a huge fish mouth hat with scales running down his back. Plus the triune of gods during Tammuz rein were taken in by Constantine to create the Holy Trinity of the new church being created. The IHS of the catholic church which is used a a symbol of Jesus is merely the three gods Isis Horus and Seth, IHS. The round ring or halo behind many prophets and such is the remaining remnants of the Sun God symbol.

      There is this link: http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/book3TheGreatDesception/aTOC.htm

      Well documented will show you the many things Constantine and his Pagan priests (yes there were some chrisitan representatives as well) used or agreed upon to create the new christian church.
      If one were to peruse the website they would be quite amazed at many things including the “Easter Pig” which is now just Easter.

      It’s quite a good read.

      Lots of foot notes and or references to check.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Ah Stephen, Steevan, You are probably the reincarnation of Thomas, the doubting one. Although you certainly will not smell like a carnation, for your views stink. You are a detractor of the worst kind, one that makes a confirmed atheist come out and defend that which he denies. Here is a little something that you and those of this site will readily decry but I say this, Howard Carter found only a small scarab with a partial Kings name etched into it in the valley of the Kings, several years later, he began a regimented search for that king and now we have Tutankhamen, Here is a little writing that suggests that Jesus too, w

      • Stephen says:

        Why is it that christians always have half supporting information?
        Your statement that sounded at first as if you had found the single piece of evidence to prove christianity ended in :
        “Here is a little writing that suggests that Jesus too, w …. ”

        What ‘suggests’ does for your statement is the same thing that ‘maybe, if, possibly, etc ‘ does for the same reason.

        It is just a theory.

        Dealing in facts is much more fun.

      • rayjwarren says:

        read on McDuffer, I had a computer gliche and had to finish it in the next post.

      • rayjwarren says:

        This should revive your mind in regard to belief that Christ existed; It tells of the discovery of an ossuary, [a box used to hold the bones of one dead after the flesh had departed]. As I have said, Howard Carter only had a very small Scarab with parts of a kings name on it and several years later, we have the tomb of Tutankhamen. Just as those who derided Carter, you and your friends will also deride this until you walk away shame faced and stupid looking in the face of ridicule. Keep going my friend, keep going.

        The new artifact is an ossuary, a medium-sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed away. This practice was employed for only a brief period of time from about B.C. 20 to A.D. 70. The box is made of a soft, chalky, limestone, common to the area. The contents have long since vanished.

        Most remarkably, an inscription has been etched into the side which reads, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” in the Aramaic script of the time. Careful studies, including scrutiny under a scanning electron microscope show the inscription to be genuine. The patina, or oxidized surface equally covers both box and the interior of the etched letters. The recognized expert on such matters, Dr. Andre Lemaire, concludes: “I am pleased to report that in my judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake.”

        All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased’s brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in correct Biblical relationship certainly supports the possibility of this being the ossuary of the Biblical James.

        With or without the ossuary or other archeological evidence, we can still be confident that the events are true. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith, well grounded in the facts of history, and the Bible is an entirely accurate document. On its teachings we can base our lives and eternal destiny.

      • Clara Listensprechen says:

        rayjwarren cites an ossuary which was proven to be a forgery, a product of a shady tourism industry that sprang up in Israel for the benefit of its Christian visitors. Antique materials were used to create the forgery, in order to pass chemical dating methods, but further investigation proved the article to be a forgery, and the forger was identified and charged with fraud.

  150. Brekelenkam says:

    I’m presently reading “Nailed” right now and I paused to read the New Testament again and do some independent research of my own which is how I came across your blog. I’m no historian by any means but in the hours of reading about many of these historians I could only find the same glaring lack of evidence myself. Thank you for compiling the data here and saving me further hours of insecure research. I would love to discuss this topic further or listen a lecture on the topic, feel free to reply via email if that’s possible. Thank you.

    • youalready haveit says:

      Another dickhead for the fold, Is too hard to imagine that the Jews were trying to stamp out the Christian belief and that it was dangerous to be a follower in the open??/ Only sick radical Jews make such stupid comments as Breakfastham and Hearumspeak above.

  151. Keith Andersen says:

    You go through a lot of gyrations to skirt the real truth. His mere mention by others geographically and during a close time period is significant enough to demonstrate materiality regardless of your one-sided reasoning. Not one statement in the Bible has ever been proven inaccurate. There’s still time to dig deeper my friend. The truth will not change.

    • Most of the topics I cover are proof of errors in the Bible. Everything in Genesis 1,2 has been proven inaccurate for starters.

      Explain to me, the process by which the sun stood still for Joshua. That has to be an incorrect statement because it never happened. It is recorded nowhere other than in the bible. When you are done with that, enlighten me on how a shadow moved BACKWARDS 10 degrees. That is inaccurate too because it never happened. If it did, other cultures would have recorded it in their literature. Absence of evidence of an alleged event IS evidence that there was no event. Show me, without resorting to a bible passage, where I am wrong.

      For the new testament, it is known that there was no Roman Census at the time of Jesus birth (for which the bible gives two different dates – there! WRONG by contradiction).
      I’ll take your advice and dig deeper by calling on an expert: YOU. Where is the evidence for Jesus outside of the bible?

      • Joseph Benevidas says:

        How exactly has everything in Genesis in 1,2 been proven inaccurate for starters? Christians and Jews attribute creation to the unique/exclusive eternal God (Elohim) creating the universe ex nihilo. There’s noting that can disprove that. Would you cite a witness to these events? Would you use the scientific method – which requires an experiment be reproducible to be authenticated/verified? Your argument regarding the sun standing still… is an argument from silence, which is inherently unreliable. So because we haven’t found evidence of an event in the historical record of an event where time stood still – you automatically conclude it is false? What about the possibility that somehow an omnipotent God who is capable of creating time, space, and the entire universe from nothing could cause time to be suspended temporarily in a localized setting? I’m not saying that’s what happened (because I can’t prove it), but if it were – then what exactly would people record? Nothing – because they experienced nothing.

        You’re making tons of assumptions in all of your posts and all in “the name of truth.” Serious scholarship and serious investigation/inquiry require that you jettison your biases at the onset – or at least do your best to keep them in check and remain open to the possibility you are wrong. If you deny the possibility of the supernatural at the onset then you have a predetermined trajectory that automatically excludes a supernatural eternal miracle producing omnipotent God whose objective wasn’t to PROVE anything to you, but rather to provide a way back for a decision to be independent from Him. If you choose to continue to ignore reality under the trappings of ‘truth’ and ‘freedom from the bondage of religion,’ then God will certainly allow you the fruits of that choice.

        If you were to expend as much energy on seeking to demonstrate the validity of the Bible and the nature of it (not as a polemic against Darwinism or the Big Bang Theory, etc.), then I’m sure you would arrive at some different conclusions.

        If Proverbs 1:7 is correct, then anyone who has failed to recognize God as the exclusive Sovereign over all would lack any true understanding and any genuine knowledge since they despise instruction.

        Where does personality come from if there is no eternally personal God? Random selection from a chaotic and random universe?

        How did life begin? RNA decided to ‘get together’ in a pool of primordial soup? Any you say the Bible is fiction? How is it possible that life began in an environment that is too harsh to sustain life? If the conditions for life are present on earth now (obviously) then why hasn’t life spontaneously begun again in a pool of soup somewhere? Why can’t scientists reproduce it in a test tube or anywhere for that matter?

        If evolution is anything more than a theory (which nobody has every demonstrated beyond a baseless hypothesis) then where do we see it? Why aren’t there animals developing longer necks like giraffes to eat off the tall limbs? Why don’t we see ‘evolution’ anywhere? We don’t see any ‘progress’ we only see extinction, disease, decay… all the things the Bible states are in the system because of our rebellion against God.

        Reason from the reason-less, personality from the void, order from chaos, life from the lifeless… and all based on what evidence? “The Bible is wrong?” (says you). Or “There’s no external references to Jesus.” Why would a world interested in power and prestige ever make note of the (God)-man who did nothing ‘spectacular’ in the eyes of the world? Isn’t that the same reason why the Jews rejected Him? And no, He wasn’t an ‘orthodox’ Jew. He was a Jew to be sure, but He was anything but ‘orthodox.’ He lived a different life, He taught differently, He died because He wasn’t ‘orthodox.’

        All of the posts you’ve made on your site demonstrate a superficial knowledge at best. Alexander Pope (not a Catholic Pope, just his last name) said, “A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.” When you pass off your ignorance as expertise and cause others to follow… well, Jesus had a special word for the Pharisees and ‘orthodox’ Jews who did that… “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.”

        You don’t have to ‘travel over land and sea’ to win any converts with the convenience of social media and the internet, but the drivel you’re producing isn’t freeing anyone – it’s simply solidifying their ignorance.

      • You are an ignorant and stupid man.
        You call evolution an unproven hypothesis despite the FACT that it is the basis of all biological and botanical science, yet you believe that man was created from dust?
        You obviously don’t know what a theory is.
        You don’t believe the Big Bang theory that proves the cosmos is over 13 billion years old?
        You are an ignorant and stupid man.
        I’ll bet you believe that there was a world wide flood that covered the highest mountains (approximately 29,000 feet) where the temperature would have been 40 degrees below zero and hardly any oxygen.
        I’ll bet you believe the sun stood still so Joshua could continue his ISIS like slaughter.
        I’ll bet you believe the shadow went backwards 10 degrees (even more astounding than the sun standing still).
        You are an ignorant and stupid man.
        Take your Christian blinders off.

      • J.Thinking says:

        At this point I had to butt in. Number of sources don’t conclusively prove an event never occurred. That’s like arguing that the television had no inventor, because the first fuzzy signal was never documented. Where’s your conclusive evidence — besides skepticism — to show it did not happen? It’s not an incorrect statement because you ASSUMED it never happened.

      • Matt M says:

        @Joseph Benevidas there’s proof from the bible itself that it contains falsehoods and lies since both Genesis 1 and 2 cant be correct. If Genesis 1 is correct then Genesis 2 is incorrect.

        As for evolution people we have seen it happen see ‘Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, “Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory.” Evolution 46: 1214-1220’ and antibiotic/pesticide resistance.

      • Stephen says:

        Absence of evidence is proof on something not existing? Really? I’m not bucking your beliefs but I don’t believe this has any real developed reasoning behind it. I see what I call the moon but have never been on it. I don’t know if it exists in reality or if it’s a light shining from somewhere else making an image in the sky. I did not see the tree fall that hit my cabin but believe it did because my cabin was damaged and the tree was removed before I got there to inspect the damage. I did not see the birth of my first born but she is here. Not having ‘evidence’ is a slippery slope. If one does not believe something then so bet it, they don’t believe it. The universe being @ 14 billion years old? I don’t know if this is true or not since I can only rely on another persons statements regarding their method of calculating the age of something. No one alive today was there at the big bang which is ludicrous anyway, but since I was not there either, I don’t try to debunk it.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Concerning Quirinius, he was a major figure in Roman politics. He is mentioned by Tacitus and was a confidant of Caesar Augustus. He was chosen to train up Augustus’ son and his name is mentioned in Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) and Augustus made him as consul in 12 B.C.. Now the information about Quirinius at first seemed controversial, since the Jewish historian Josephus had him ruling Syria in A.D. 6—ten years after Christ’s birth–but now the controversy has been cleared up.

        Archaeologist Randall Price notes, “Some recent archaeological evidence has provided new insights into the time and place of the birth of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke gives the time of birth with a specific reference to a census decreed by Quirinius, the governor of Syria. While inscriptional evidence reveals that there was more than one ruler with this name, a Quirinius within the time frame of Jesus’ birth has been found on a coin placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B. C. until after 4 B.C. Quirinius’ census mentioned also by Luke in Acts 5:37, has numerous parallels in papyrus census forms dating from the first century B.C.—1st century A.D. For example, both the Oxyrhynchus papyrus 255 (A.D. 48) and British Museum papyrus 904 (A.D. 104) order compulsory returns to birthplaces for census-taking just as Luke records” So there!!!

      • rayjwarren says:

        Oh great truth-slayer, try for once in your life, to accept that primitive peoples were sometimes mentally overwhelmed at times of battle or great events. You ask for an explanation of how this could happen and how that could happen with the eyes of a 21st century person.So how could the sun stand still for Joshua? Have you never ever been caught up in a moment when time appear4ed to stand still? Like an event appeared to be taking forever but was really over in a moment? If that does not explain that point to you then just add Jewish exaggeration to it and you will have your answer. Next is your shadow going backward 10 degrees. When the Pharaoh Necho bade the Phoenicians sail around Africa, they returned after 2 years by way of the Red Sea and claimed that the sun had retreated Northward all the time that they were traveling South and the sun came back to meet them as they sailed North. Have you never lived in one house where the sun arose at a certain point and when you moved house, found that the sun appeared from a different direction even though you were living in the same area? The statement that the shadow moved backward 10 degrees could have been reference to their position on the battlefield changing or to the fact that their fight lasted from one period during the day to a time when the sun was going down and the shadows were lengthening. How easily you take the crap out of anything you personally do not understand, how easily you make statements without trying to enter the world of the understanding life living mind. Stop reading everything on face value and start reading between the lines. You are just as bad as those who are full on believers in the great myths like the parting of the waters and etc. They believe just as you do but in reverse without trying to understand anything except the written word and not what was meant. A modern day example of what a great event can do to the minds of those who believe, can be seen in the Miracle of Fatima when the crowds of people who came to witness that event watched as the sun grew bigger in the sky and dried the rain drops clinging to their faces. Now what do you suppose could have made the sun grow larger? Two items could be at work here, one, the people arrived at the meeting place on a cloudy rainy day [that much is known] and as the clouds began to scatter, the sun appeared larger and hotter. The clouds began to drift away and the rain dried on their faces while the clouds disappeared and the sun appeared to return to normal. So you have a miracle, one that is worshiped today in Portugal and Europe. So you see my friend, your understanding of the human mind and its wish to feel comfort when the dying time comes gives rise to such intentional or unintentional supernatural recordings of non-supernatural events. As you well know, I am in no way religious and fear death not at all. It is time that you forget about trying to destroy that which you simply do not understand, get rid of your hate and let people enjoy their beliefs. Nobody cares what you believe, you will have supporters who thing just as you do but personally, I would not ask the above type question withoput trying to reason why.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Truthslayer, Truthslayer, Truthslayer, You have become enmeshed in your own hate, you have only disbelief and denigration to offer yet you cannot prove that there were any persons of note who denied Christ except perhaps Peter who denied him thrice before the Cock crowed at dawn. Please understand that you will never change the course of Christianity and this Blog is truly a waste of time except for those who [in their little minds] agree with you. I note that you have attracted a few Jewish supporters and Atheists but that their numbers are few. Perhaps it would be better to rubbish the supernatural doings rather than the persons who are the fabric of a belief that is too big to even contemplate destroying.Below is a piece on the grave of the Jesus family, it may or may not be real in it’s content but every Christian on Earth will cling to it.

        The new artifact is an ossuary, a medium-sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed away. This practice was employed for only a brief period of time from about B.C. 20 to A.D. 70. The box is made of a soft, chalky, limestone, common to the area. The contents have long since vanished.

        Most remarkably, an inscription has been etched into the side which reads, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” in the Aramaic script of the time. Careful studies, including scrutiny under a scanning electron microscope show the inscription to be genuine. The patina, or oxidized surface equally covers both box and the interior of the etched letters. The recognized expert on such matters, Dr. Andre Lemaire, concludes: “I am pleased to report that in my judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake.”

        All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased’s brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in correct Biblical relationship certainly supports the possibility of this being the ossuary of the Biblical James.

      • ray warren says:

        Soothayer you still trying to defeat the undefeated? That sun movement bit is very simple to evaluate in exactly the same way you dealwith things. It was not the sun that stood still or moved bvackwards, it was the people or army that moved. Have you never noticed that when living in one house and then noving to another, that the sun appears to be coming from a different direction to that which you are used to and as for the sun standing still, this phenomena can also be attributed to the same thing, the people moved and wer confused. This is exact;y hpw you explain away anything that you do not like and so accept some of your own reasoning!!

    • Stephen says:

      Keith,
      First I don’t know if you call the bible the combined OT/NT or if you are separating them.
      I for one call the OT the same thing as the Jews call it today. Not the bible but the Tanakh/Torah.
      The NT is the christian bible. The OT is merely borrowed by the christians as the first part of religious history since the christians had nothing to do with the OT or even existed during the OT.

      You need to read the comments the vatican has made and the Catholic Encyclopedia.
      Things like stating the gospels were not actually written by the supposed authors, Matthew/Mark/Luke/John, are indeed stated by the Vatican.
      The are fraudulent documents.

      To be honest, the NT is not Gods words. It was created at the first council of Nicaea under the ruler Constantine, the catholic church has the entire records from this 320 to 325 meeting.

      The OT, yes it is indeed Gods words to his chosen peoples accounting of their life and Gods time with them on this earth.
      Gods words are indeed in the OT.

      This is not my opinion, these are the opinions of many religious scholars and especially the Catholic Church, the largest christian denomination in the world.

      • rayjwarren says:

        Yes, the Catholic church, made for the “men” who like little alter boys, they are called that because in days of old, boys were used as sacrifice to God, now they are sacrificed in a different way and that is condoned by the Catholic elite. Jesus and his group tried to start a religion based on the old but differing in several ways. If what you say is true, why do you not include examples of these comments direct from where the statements were found. Hearsay is not allowed in a court of law and certainly is not allowed in a forum like this.

  152. […] Are there any other writings besides the Bible depicting the life and miracles of Jesus? I came across a WordPress blog–The Church of Truth–with a post titled “NO Evidence for Jesus Outside Bible.” Well, that answers my question! If you have some extra time and are interested in these kinds of things, I suggest you read it here: NO Evidence for Jesus Outside Bible. […]

    • Stephen says:

      Actually you find nothing. In fact the Roman Empire was the most documented civilization from before we can conclude there were people on this earth to the end/fall of the Roman Empire. Their attention to detail and document creation is rivaled only by today’s current governments.
      So, with such a document heavy civilization as the Romans one wonders why during the 3 year sent of Jesus’ teaching/miracles/healing/feeding the many with so little, is there not one single document by the Romans detailing these miracles?
      Most likely because they did not occur or at least not in the way they are suggested.
      And with 3 years of building up the love for Jesus from the entire community he lived in and those that he visited and or followed Jesus, one is told than in a mere week they turn against him and ask for a murderous rapist (Barabas) to be freed and to crucify Jesus? Really?

      I’m thinking my understanding of people (past and present) gives me and everyone with the ability to ‘think’ enough question to look further into this man made religion of christianity as well an all other man made religions.

      There is but one savior. it is God. He says so in the book of Hosea, a book of the Jewish Word or Tanakh. The only OT known to man. What else does one need?

      • rayjwarren says:

        Tha is absolute crap Steevie Weevie, you know that the Catholicfs have stated that the material shown today was COPIED fro the Gospels of Mathhew Mark Luke and John oops sorry, Yohn! You surely are the most stupid of all wackers I have ever come across. You blow long and hard trying to prove rubbish and make yourself so so unbelievable in your posts. Here is another error, there is nothing on the Christian religion in Rome on the teachings of Jesus?> You are either senile or stark raving mad, Rome became Christianized almost before Christians did!!! You idiot.

  153. Dwayne Langley says:

    You won’t find Jesus because that wasn’t his name till the middle ages. His original name was Yashua. And Paul was a creation of the catholic church as a control tool.

    • Chaz says:

      Then where is the evidence which uses the name(s) Y’shua, Ye’shua or Yah’shua?

      • Stephen says:

        There is none except through the ‘translations-extrapolations-inferences and such’ of the christian churches.

        People are still lacking in terms of understanding what is/was in the ancient text.

        Let me give you a simple example.
        This example is very rough and only 1% as difficult as is the translations verbatim from ancient texts.

        Sentence:

        The dog ran a mile to see me at the corner store.

        Take out the vowels, capital letters, spaces between words and punctuation and write it from right to left and you get:

        rtsrnrchttmstlmnrgdht

        Now if you believe this would be difficult for someone that does not know where this line of text came from to translate it into the original sentence I started with then believe how hard it would be to do it with a foreign language that you must first understand how to read it and all of its intricacies that is thousands of years old.

        This is where all man made religions come up short.
        None of the ‘preachers or priests’ can read this old ancient text but tell their parishioners that this passage means this and that one means that and I can tell you gods words but you cannot know gods words unless you hear me and send me money for some sacred oil.

        It’s just not right, honest or fair.

    • Doc says:

      The catholic church did not exist in Pauls times. But lets remain friendly here. This is a learning site. A place where questions and supposed answers can be posted and discussed, I hope.

      Fact: Paul and Peter had a knock down drag out fist fight over Pauls not accepting all of what Jesus was teaching.
      You can find this in many if not all christian depositories of factual information.

      So even Paul did not agree with Jesus’ teachings in whole. And yet some believe he created the catholic church???????????????????

      Regarding the name Jesus and Yahshua:
      Jesus did not exist in word until 1500, this is a historical FACT.
      Yahshua is a transliteration of the original Hebrew or Aramaic name of Jesus commonly used by individuals in the Sacred Name Movement. The English spelling Yahshua originates at least as early as 1950 with Angelo Traina’s The New Testament of our Messiah and Saviour Yahshua.
      So this dates back only to the 1950’s or so. Therefore Yahshua did not exist as is being said here in this blog.

      Now I’m certain someone is going to go ballistic here but before you do, do me one favor. If you want to prove me wrong, and I’m always up for learning something new then:
      Look up an ancient text, a text predating the death of Jesus and show me the actual text verbatim so that my friends (Jewish) can translate it via the interlinear they use along with something else they call ‘concorse’ ??? spelling? A many century old collection of letters, symbols, etc that the Hebrew/Sumerian, ancient Aramaic’s used with definitions for each. These people interpret ‘verbatim’ the ancient text. None of us can. And I’d suspect that no one here has an ancient text that makes reference to the word Yahshua.

      This false statement regarding Yahshua came about by textual criticism and nothing else. Man did this to serve his own needs in creating a church.

      Now, remember I said an ancient text, and I’ll allow anything before 35 AD. Anything else is just bunk.

      These things have been argued so much it’s ridiculous.

      If you really want to read something that you’ve most likely never read, then this excerpt from the catholic church in its records regarding popes and their letters, statements, etc; read this:

      Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo X toasted:

      “How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors.”

      Go figure?!

      • rayjwarren says:

        The Pope Leo thing was a fiction, a book written as a satire against the church. There was no such statement made by any Pope and to quote fiction as being fact is the worst kind of attempt to attack the church. Look it up before making erroneous statements.

      • Clara Listensprechen says:

        Lots of stuff was written by a lot of people, nearly all of whom are questionable in any given period of time. What isn’t questionable is that the one Big Deal crucifixion that occurred was that of Simon, a Zealot. Go figure why there was a Simon the Zealot who was an Apostle, if the reason wasn’t political. As for Paul, he’s a saint among Gnostics and Gnostics say that the Christian Paul was a fabrication, so there ya go. Ancient text my foot–try the Arch of Titus for Roman record of a celebrated crucifixion in the Levant.

New Evidence? Comments?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s