Did Jesus really exist?

[BillyP]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

All the so called eye witness accounts were written generations after the supposed facts. Got anything else?

 

[JoeB131]

So Nero persecuted people who didn't exist.

Amazing

Progs is smaarrt

And what's the evidence that Nero persecuted Chrstians?

OH, the Christians said he did. Hundreds of years after the fact.

 

[JoeB131]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

Including the Nag Hammadi Library there were many first hand, eye witness accounts

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

The Apostles never met Jesus?

LOLz

Sounds like an Obama excuse

 

[BillyP]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

Including the Nag Hammadi Library there were many first hand, eye witness accounts

These date to around the 3rd or 4th century AD.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Nero persecuted people who didn't exist.

Amazing

Progs is smaarrt

And what's the evidence that Nero persecuted Chrstians?

OH, the Christians said he did. Hundreds of years after the fact.

Tacitus...a Christian???

There are about a dozen Roman 1st and 2nd century writers on Nero.

The absurd lengths you have to go through to deny the truth is well, Liberal in its pathology

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

Including the Nag Hammadi Library there were many first hand, eye witness accounts

These date to around the 3rd or 4th century AD.

Uh huh. Because without a Xerox machine they were copied from earlier sources.

 

[JoeB131]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

Including the Nag Hammadi Library there were many first hand, eye witness accounts

Um, no, there weren't.

The Nag Hammadi LIbrary are Gnostic texts written in the Coptic Language that were probably translated from earlier Greek texts. They probably date from the 4th century and there is no evidence that any of these were written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.

You see, before Constantine the Great (at sticking western civilization with a stupid religion) made Christianity the official religion, you had a whole lot of supposed Gospels and texts that supported Gnostic and other versions of Christianity that were outlawed when you got the official version.

But none of these "prove" Jesus. In fact, if anything, they re-inforcce the mythological nature of Jesus. A Jesus for every philosophical bent.

 

[JoeB131]

So Nero persecuted people who didn't exist.

Amazing

Progs is smaarrt

And what's the evidence that Nero persecuted Chrstians?

OH, the Christians said he did. Hundreds of years after the fact.

Tacitus...a Christian???

There are about a dozen Roman 1st and 2nd century writers on Nero.

The absurd lengths you have to go through to deny the truth is well, Liberal in its pathology

Tacitus didn't write that passage. It was inserted by later Christian writers.

Again, I realize that you are a bit slow. But in the Second Century, Pliny the Younger and Emperor Hadrian were pretty unsure who these Christians were.

Now how could this possibly be if they had been accused of burning down Rome under Nero?

It's like saying in 2070, some Future American President is going to have no idea who Al Qaeda is.

Furthermore, there were not dozens of writers about Nero.

The two main ones are Dio Cassius and Suetonius.

Suetonius makes one reference to "Christians" being punished by Nero, but really doesn't go into specifics about what those punishments were. He makes no connection between Christians and the fire. It makes no reference to Jesus.

Dio Cassius makes no reference to Christians at all concerning Nero.

Again, Hadrian less than a century later seems to think that followers of Jesus and Serapis are both called "Christians". Pliny is unsure of how to punish Christians. And these are the guys who supposedly burned down Rome 50-70 years earlier?

 

[JoeB131]

Here's a very interesting source that discusses Nero and Christians and the Great Fire.

Nero s Fire and the Christian Persecution


According to Tacitus, alone, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome. Annals, XV. This passage is not referred to in any other pagan, nor Christian writings until 400 CE. The Fantastic details of the sufferings of the Christians - dressed in animal hides and torn apart by dogs, crucified, and used as human torches - fits the pornographic masochistic obsession of the early Church. The sordid details of flesh torn and blood copiously shed is repulsive to the modern mind. For some reason the early Church wallowed in graphic descriptions of virgins violated and gored to death by bulls, old men crucified suffering horrific tortures and not to mention the over-fed lions of the Colosseum. By the way, the Romans did not feed their lions exclusively on Christians, any old mal-content would do; and more often did.


Eusebius, when the Church was triumphant in the 4th century, after the ‘persecutions’ could only find 146 martyrs in the history. As we shall see, in Lactantius, between Domitian in the nineties and Decius in the late 3rd century there was a long peace where the Church was not persecuted. There was then a brief period of political persecution, especially under Diocletian, before his successor formed an alliance with them in the beginning of the 4th century. Constantine defeated his political opponents with the assistance of the Christians and recognized the fact when he held power. This period, of the Ante & Post-Nicene Fathers, knows nothing of Nero’s fire and its Christian victims.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

Including the Nag Hammadi Library there were many first hand, eye witness accounts

Um, no, there weren't.

The Nag Hammadi LIbrary are Gnostic texts written in the Coptic Language that were probably translated from earlier Greek texts. They probably date from the 4th century and there is no evidence that any of these were written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.

You see, before Constantine the Great (at sticking western civilization with a stupid religion) made Christianity the official religion, you had a whole lot of supposed Gospels and texts that supported Gnostic and other versions of Christianity that were outlawed when you got the official version.

But none of these "prove" Jesus. In fact, if anything, they re-inforcce the mythological nature of Jesus. A Jesus for every philosophical bent.

LOLz

Again, you might want to have at least glanced at Nag Hammadi before posting your "Thoughts" from Wiki.

There are Gospels by James and Thomas that are worth reading and very much similar to the NT

Your sense of importance is simply absurd and laughable

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Nero persecuted people who didn't exist.

Amazing

Progs is smaarrt

And what's the evidence that Nero persecuted Chrstians?

OH, the Christians said he did. Hundreds of years after the fact.

Tacitus...a Christian???

There are about a dozen Roman 1st and 2nd century writers on Nero.

The absurd lengths you have to go through to deny the truth is well, Liberal in its pathology

Tacitus didn't write that passage. It was inserted by later Christian writers.

Again, I realize that you are a bit slow. But in the Second Century, Pliny the Younger and Emperor Hadrian were pretty unsure who these Christians were.

Now how could this possibly be if they had been accused of burning down Rome under Nero?

It's like saying in 2070, some Future American President is going to have no idea who Al Qaeda is.

Furthermore, there were not dozens of writers about Nero.

The two main ones are Dio Cassius and Suetonius.

Suetonius makes one reference to "Christians" being punished by Nero, but really doesn't go into specifics about what those punishments were. He makes no connection between Christians and the fire. It makes no reference to Jesus.

Dio Cassius makes no reference to Christians at all concerning Nero.

Again, Hadrian less than a century later seems to think that followers of Jesus and Serapis are both called "Christians". Pliny is unsure of how to punish Christians. And these are the guys who supposedly burned down Rome 50-70 years earlier?

Pliny the Elder

 

[JoeB131]

[

LOLz

Again, you might want to have at least glanced at Nag Hammadi before posting your "Thoughts" from Wiki.

There are Gospels by James and Thomas that are worth reading and very much similar to the NT

Your sense of importance is simply absurd and laughable

Um, okay, guy,t hat's fine and all. I wasn't making a literary criticism.

I'm pointing out the obvious. These texts were NOT written by people who knew Jesus personally or met Jesus.

They were coptic translations of greek manuscripts written three centuries after Jesus that had the names of supposed apostles attached to them.

You offered them as evidence.

Yeah. Okay. Hey you know what, that's like saying that Dan Rather had documents that proved George W. Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. Oh, they were only COPIES of documents, that had the name of someone who Bush knew on them.

Here's what would constitute evidence. A verifiable document written by a non-believer in Jesus to Jesus existence in real time.

In Aramaic.

That would be real evidence.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Pliny the Elder

Pliny the Elder, who was killed in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, made no mention of Christians.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Josephus writes that the favorable reviews of Nero were bought and paid for by the Emperor

 

[JoeB131]

Josephus writes that the favorable reviews of Nero were bought and paid for by the Emperor

Um, no, not really.

Here was kind of the thing. Nero's reputation in his own day and age wasn't nearly as bad as it became later. Yes, he was brought down in a civil war, but on a personal level, he was quite popular and the generals who toppled him had a very hard time holding on to power. (the notorious "Year of the Four Emperors") Galba who overthrew him was overthrown, and the guys who followed him, Otho and Vitellius, actually paid homage to him.

Actually, it was almost a class warfare thing. The rich hated Nero because he taxed the shit out of them to pay for public works and entertainments. (Bread and Circuses). The poor loved him because he gave them free shit.

OMFG, Nero was like the Obama of his age!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

I've done extensive research on this. The Jesus that Paul popularized appears to be a composite of 12 figures. One of them was the High Priest of the Sanhedrin, a Jesus ben David, who was crucified by the Romans. This was some 300 years prior to the events of the New Testament, but it appears the basis of the crucifixion story, though the Sanhedrin were the "good guys" standing up to the invading Romans in the historical account, where Paul made them the villains.

Probably the most telling thing is that the Romans have VOLUMES of data on Paul - they REALLY didn't like him, but not a single word about Jesus. Think about this, the most litigious society up to that point, that recorded and cataloged EVERYTHING, somehow failed to mention a rabble rouser in Judea? The reality is simply, the Jesus of the New Testament is a creation of Paul, the first of the great cult masters. Paul created a formula that EVERY successful cult since has followed, it is not I that is god, I am but his chosen messenger. Note that Muhammad, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Ti and Do ALL used the same formula - because it works.

Paul gathered the myths and tales, from Gnostic, mystical, and traditional sources, and created a god that he could point to as he built his empire.

Wow, Paul sure had me fooled.

He was born a Jew, a Pharisee, thus a leader of the Jews, and now you are telling me that Saul threw that all away, so that he could make tons of money.

Nevermind the fact, that Paul was martyred, spent years locked up in jail, was beaten, battered and bruised for his Ministry.

Looks to me like, he gave up the good life, for a horrible existence, much like a millionaire giving up his fortune, to live life as a homeless man.

But, you keep on trying to fool yourself, deep down, you really know the truth, you just can't handle the truth, huh?

How come the Jews haven't converted if it's the truth or obvious?

Do you think you'd be a Christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia?

 

[BillyP]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

The Apostles never met Jesus?

LOLz

Sounds like an Obama excuse

Have any proof they did?

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

Including the Nag Hammadi Library there were many first hand, eye witness accounts

These date to around the 3rd or 4th century AD.

Uh huh. Because without a Xerox machine they were copied from earlier sources.

You got proof of that? Or is this just more fartsmoke?

 

[sealybobo]

Wow! Out of 20 people and not one person voted that Jesus was the Lord? OMG it is only a matter of a couple hundred years and all the current religions are going to be reduced to cults and the bible belt in the deep ignorant south. I love it that not 1 in those 20 said they believed Jesus was lord. I think the gig is up on this bogus religion.

I know it hurts Christians feelings but they need our help. They are brainwashed and they are the ones that need to hear the truth.