The "historical" jesus that never existed

[guno]

It is important to note that we have one, and only one, source of information about the life of this Jesus and that is the Christian Gospels (nowhere else in recorded history or rome or Jewish writings o the time). The Gospels are the sole source of information about this figure; everything that we "know" about "him" depends on these sources.

as to the christian laimes of Josephus to "prove" the historical Jesus

Here’s a neat little paragraph succinctly summarizing one of the many problems with the passage in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus used to “prove” the historicity of Jesus Christ, called the “Testimonium Flavianum”:

“Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises 20 books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed in a dozen lines.”

John Remsburg, The Christ (29)


although one would think this argument alone would suffice to prove this passage is fake in toto. Yet, because it often contended that the TF is the “best evidence” for Christ’s historicity, it is fought for tooth and nail. Hence, the existence of the world’s most famous man essentially rests on a brief and palpably bogus forgery.


Josephus on Jesus Forgery and Fraud Flavius Testimonium

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

 

[amrchaos]

You just want to start a sh## storm with the Christians.......

bad guno
bad bad Guno...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The OP can neither prove or disprove the existence of Jesus. He's just trolling

 

[Avatar4321]

The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ as well. So we have the testimony of two nations verifying that He is the Son of God and that the resurrection is real.

 

[peach174]

It is important to note that we have one, and only one, source of information about the life of this Jesus and that is the Christian Gospels (nowhere else in recorded history or rome or Jewish writings o the time). The Gospels are the sole source of information about this figure; everything that we "know" about "him" depends on these sources.

as to the christian laimes of Josephus to "prove" the historical Jesus

Here’s a neat little paragraph succinctly summarizing one of the many problems with the passage in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus used to “prove” the historicity of Jesus Christ, called the “Testimonium Flavianum”:

“Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises 20 books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed in a dozen lines.”

John Remsburg, The Christ (29)


although one would think this argument alone would suffice to prove this passage is fake in toto. Yet, because it often contended that the TF is the “best evidence” for Christ’s historicity, it is fought for tooth and nail. Hence, the existence of the world’s most famous man essentially rests on a brief and palpably bogus forgery.


Josephus on Jesus Forgery and Fraud Flavius Testimonium

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

Nope
We also have Senator Tacitus of Rome who wrote about Jesus.

 

[HaShev]

But even you don't believe in Jesus, because when he admited being Lucifer in Rev 22:16 you ignored him.
When he said you'd come in his name calling him christ and deceiving many, you ignored his words and did it anyway. When you were warned about the first messiah, aka the fallen one you ignored the fact that he was the son of perdition who fell to the pit-acts 2:27 , 1peter 3:19,
and apostles creed.

 

[hortysir]

As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist. Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”

Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: “… f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity … [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person … [T]he rabbis … used the real events of Jesus’ life against him” (Van Voorst).

Thus his birth, ministry and death occasioned claims that his birth was illegitimate and that he performed miracles by evil magic, encouraged apostasy and was justly executed for his own sins. But they do not deny his existence.
Did Jesus Exist Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible Biblical Archaeology Society

 

[amrchaos]

excluding peach reference to a sentor, the argument for Jesus existence/non-existence appears to be based on hearsay by individuals with an agenda.

Also hortysir,
Because Jews used christians claims to argue against Jesus does not mean they knew he existed or not. What it does suggest is that they found enough fault with the claims in which they felt they can make a sound argument against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah.

 

[hortysir]

excluding peach reference to a sentor, the argument for Jesus existence/non-existence appears to be based on hearsay by individuals with an agenda.

Also hortysir,
Because Jews used christians claims to argue against Jesus does not mean they knew he existed or not. What it does suggest is that they found enough fault with the claims in which they felt they can make a sound argument against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah.

Can't very well claim someone who doesn't exist isn't the Messiah

 

[Hollie]

The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ as well. So we have the testimony of two nations verifying that He is the Son of God and that the resurrection is real.

There are books testifying of magical golden plates (which don't exist).

So what?

 

[Avatar4321]

The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ as well. So we have the testimony of two nations verifying that He is the Son of God and that the resurrection is real.

There are books testifying of magical golden plates (which don't exist).

So what?

Who , other than you, is talking about magic?

 

[amrchaos]

excluding peach reference to a sentor, the argument for Jesus existence/non-existence appears to be based on hearsay by individuals with an agenda.

Also hortysir,
Because Jews used christians claims to argue against Jesus does not mean they knew he existed or not. What it does suggest is that they found enough fault with the claims in which they felt they can make a sound argument against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah.

Can't very well claim someone who doesn't exist isn't the Messiah

I don't think the issue of Jesus existing or not is the problem. However, a simple trap exists if you claim Jesus did not exist despite if Jesus existed or not.

Better is to concede the idea that there is someone that can be construed as Jesus and argue from OT scriptures that the Jesus is not the messiah.

 

[hortysir]

excluding peach reference to a sentor, the argument for Jesus existence/non-existence appears to be based on hearsay by individuals with an agenda.

Also hortysir,
Because Jews used christians claims to argue against Jesus does not mean they knew he existed or not. What it does suggest is that they found enough fault with the claims in which they felt they can make a sound argument against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah.

Can't very well claim someone who doesn't exist isn't the Messiah

I don't think the issue of Jesus existing or not is the problem. However, a simple trap exists if you claim Jesus did not exist despite if Jesus existed or not.

Better is to concede the idea that there is someone that can be construed as Jesus and argue from OT scriptures that the Jesus is not the messiah.

Then take it up with the OP
It is the title's claim that He didn't exist

 

[sealybobo]

It is important to note that we have one, and only one, source of information about the life of this Jesus and that is the Christian Gospels (nowhere else in recorded history or rome or Jewish writings o the time). The Gospels are the sole source of information about this figure; everything that we "know" about "him" depends on these sources.

as to the christian laimes of Josephus to "prove" the historical Jesus

Here’s a neat little paragraph succinctly summarizing one of the many problems with the passage in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus used to “prove” the historicity of Jesus Christ, called the “Testimonium Flavianum”:

“Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises 20 books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed in a dozen lines.”

John Remsburg, The Christ (29)


although one would think this argument alone would suffice to prove this passage is fake in toto. Yet, because it often contended that the TF is the “best evidence” for Christ’s historicity, it is fought for tooth and nail. Hence, the existence of the world’s most famous man essentially rests on a brief and palpably bogus forgery.


Josephus on Jesus Forgery and Fraud Flavius Testimonium

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

Even if he did write about the rumors he heard about this prophet or messiah he didn't meet Jesus. That's hearsay.

 

[amrchaos]

excluding peach reference to a sentor, the argument for Jesus existence/non-existence appears to be based on hearsay by individuals with an agenda.

Also hortysir,
Because Jews used christians claims to argue against Jesus does not mean they knew he existed or not. What it does suggest is that they found enough fault with the claims in which they felt they can make a sound argument against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah.

Can't very well claim someone who doesn't exist isn't the Messiah

I don't think the issue of Jesus existing or not is the problem. However, a simple trap exists if you claim Jesus did not exist despite if Jesus existed or not.

Better is to concede the idea that there is someone that can be construed as Jesus and argue from OT scriptures that the Jesus is not the messiah.

Then take it up with the OP
It is the title's claim that He didn't exist

All speculation and opinion.....

What is that saying about a lack of evidence is not evidence for a lack of? Applies greatly here. especially with a plethora of hearsay and the possibility of several individuals that can fit some description of Jesus existing around/near the time frame in question.

 

[sealybobo]

excluding peach reference to a sentor, the argument for Jesus existence/non-existence appears to be based on hearsay by individuals with an agenda.

Also hortysir,
Because Jews used christians claims to argue against Jesus does not mean they knew he existed or not. What it does suggest is that they found enough fault with the claims in which they felt they can make a sound argument against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah.

Can't very well claim someone who doesn't exist isn't the Messiah

I don't think the issue of Jesus existing or not is the problem. However, a simple trap exists if you claim Jesus did not exist despite if Jesus existed or not.

Better is to concede the idea that there is someone that can be construed as Jesus and argue from OT scriptures that the Jesus is not the messiah.

We want the truth! You can't handle the truth! Did you order the code red? I mean do you buy the old testament? Its even more obviously written by uneducated primitive men not a god.

 

[hortysir]

It is important to note that we have one, and only one, source of information about the life of this Jesus and that is the Christian Gospels (nowhere else in recorded history or rome or Jewish writings o the time). The Gospels are the sole source of information about this figure; everything that we "know" about "him" depends on these sources.

as to the christian laimes of Josephus to "prove" the historical Jesus

Here’s a neat little paragraph succinctly summarizing one of the many problems with the passage in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus used to “prove” the historicity of Jesus Christ, called the “Testimonium Flavianum”:

“Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises 20 books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed in a dozen lines.”

John Remsburg, The Christ (29)


although one would think this argument alone would suffice to prove this passage is fake in toto. Yet, because it often contended that the TF is the “best evidence” for Christ’s historicity, it is fought for tooth and nail. Hence, the existence of the world’s most famous man essentially rests on a brief and palpably bogus forgery.


Josephus on Jesus Forgery and Fraud Flavius Testimonium

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

Even if he did write about the rumors he heard about this prophet or messiah he didn't meet Jesus. That's hearsay.

By that same logic you don't exist

 

[sealybobo]

excluding peach reference to a sentor, the argument for Jesus existence/non-existence appears to be based on hearsay by individuals with an agenda.

Also hortysir,
Because Jews used christians claims to argue against Jesus does not mean they knew he existed or not. What it does suggest is that they found enough fault with the claims in which they felt they can make a sound argument against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah.

Can't very well claim someone who doesn't exist isn't the Messiah

I don't think the issue of Jesus existing or not is the problem. However, a simple trap exists if you claim Jesus did not exist despite if Jesus existed or not.

Better is to concede the idea that there is someone that can be construed as Jesus and argue from OT scriptures that the Jesus is not the messiah.

Then take it up with the OP
It is the title's claim that He didn't exist

All speculation and opinion.....

What is that saying about a lack of evidence is not evidence for a lack of? Applies greatly here. especially with a plethora of hearsay and the possibility of several individuals that can fit some description of Jesus existing around/near the time frame in question.

This story was literally spread by 11 people. Judah didn't get to spread the word.

 

[Hollie]

The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ as well. So we have the testimony of two nations verifying that He is the Son of God and that the resurrection is real.

There are books testifying of magical golden plates (which don't exist).

So what?

Who , other than you, is talking about magic?

There's a great deal of belief in magic associated with golden plates, underwear, and unknown planets.

 

[sealybobo]

It is important to note that we have one, and only one, source of information about the life of this Jesus and that is the Christian Gospels (nowhere else in recorded history or rome or Jewish writings o the time). The Gospels are the sole source of information about this figure; everything that we "know" about "him" depends on these sources.

as to the christian laimes of Josephus to "prove" the historical Jesus

Here’s a neat little paragraph succinctly summarizing one of the many problems with the passage in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus used to “prove” the historicity of Jesus Christ, called the “Testimonium Flavianum”:

“Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises 20 books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed in a dozen lines.”

John Remsburg, The Christ (29)


although one would think this argument alone would suffice to prove this passage is fake in toto. Yet, because it often contended that the TF is the “best evidence” for Christ’s historicity, it is fought for tooth and nail. Hence, the existence of the world’s most famous man essentially rests on a brief and palpably bogus forgery.


Josephus on Jesus Forgery and Fraud Flavius Testimonium

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

Even if he did write about the rumors he heard about this prophet or messiah he didn't meet Jesus. That's hearsay.

By that same logic you don't exist

I know a guy who met god. Now please go write about my experience.