If Jesus of Nazareth was a "myth" then please explain where Christianity came from

[HaShev]

We never said that we just said that if you loose your Jesus you have nothing to fall back on we do however...

Yes, it's true. If Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person, who was crucified, died, and buried, and rose on the third day, then the entire Christian religion is false.

Which is why I gave you the answer to your OP, where the resurrection death scene came from ....I can show you, but you have to be willing to take the hands away from your eyes to see the painful
UNPOPULAR TRUTH.

note:I also gave you this same info in response to your post #13397128
but you were too lazy to research.
Jesus came from The Marduk's Ordeal tablet as the mythology of Bel (Baal).
It sits in The British Museum it's a 700bc tablet found in Assyria. It's in regard to the
Babylonian myth of Bel (Baal in
Hebrew) is described in a passion play in which:
(1) Bel is taken prisoner;
(2) Bel is tried in a great hall;
(3) Bel is smitten;
(4) Bel is led away to the Mount (a sacred grove on a
hilltop);
(5) with Bel are taken two malefactors, one of whom is
released;
(6) After Bel has gone to the Mount and is executed,
the city breaks into tumult;
(7) Bel's clothes are carried away;
(8.) Bel goes down into the Mount and disappears from
life;
(9) weeping women seek Bel at the Tomb;
(10) Bel is brought back to life.

It would be nice if you provided a link to all this.

It's in the Museum, it's a tablet not a web site not a book and not online.
Do your own research least you admit I was right about laziness.
Another 2 for one... ..

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The same place Satan came from. An active imagination.

You're evading the question.

The fact is, we have an entire city called Jerusalem full of buildings, gardens, gates and streets that are mentioned in the Gospels, and people still walk the same streets that Jesus walked on the way to crucifixion. If this was all a made up fairy tale, how did all those buildings get built?

Not only that, but a historical account from Tacitus confirms that Jesus as an individual existed and was crucified, and his passages are accepted as fact by scholars. Considering Tacitus' historical accounts as a whole, detailing life in Rome, and his access to historical documents, AND the fact that he always noted when using hearsay, the man was, and is, a reliable source. His historical accounts regarding Pilate also line up with the passages in the Bible.

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”

The Annals (Tacitus)/Book 15 - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[HaShev]

So Tacitus proves the NT is false and teaching another Christ? Because it says Jesus was slew (stoned) and hanged not crucified.
Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree" 1 Peter 2:24 "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" Galatians 3:13 "Christ... being made a curse upon us... Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"
Under Rabbinic Law, criminals are to be stoned (John 8:3-11.) The 'Jesus' mythos was stoned (slew) and then hung on a tree -- which is what the Christanic mythologies say.

So now the burden on you is to humor us with which Christ is Tacitus referring to?
What era is Tacitus from?
Did he say the name Jesus or use the term Christ? Show sources.
*plays the Jeopardy theme song in the background waiting for a reply*

 

[HaShev]

I'm not gonna wait for the run and hide non answer so I'll give you some resources and research to put this claim in proper perspective.
TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just CLAIMED evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about a Christ of many Christs.
Hint: the only christ figure in the Pilate era was Theudas by the Jordan and yes he was crucified 45ad, but the son of Mary figure was hanged on passover 130 aprox years earlier around 85bc and the Galilean tax revolter Yehuda crucified in 6bc 51 years earlier.
So much for your historians and seminary schools.

 

[Penelope]

There is evidence of Moses exsistance we have posted it before but regardless there is very little evidence outside of the gospels for the exsistance of Jesus... Moses to us is a mere man he is not attributed the concepts that Christianity attributes to Jesus ..The problem is if Jesus is removed you have nothing if Moses is removed then we have less for sure but we still have the Gd of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and really that is all we ever needed...

What evidence for Moses is that? There is none and none of the mass exodus.

 

[Penelope]

The important thing to note here is the lack of an alternative explanation for how Christianity, a religion that has lasted 2000 years and now has two billion adherents, ever got here if Jesus of Nazareth never founded it.

The Flavian dynasty created it , all religions are created, Judaism and Islam as well.

 

[sealybobo]

The Apostles were portrayed as very simple men who made many mistakes, pissed off Jesus many times, and ultimately ran and hid like cowards when he was arrested, put on trial and crucified.

If the story is false, why wouldn't the Apostles have made themselves into heroic figures who stood by Jesus to the bitter end?

It's not a story I would write about myself.

George Carlin said it is the greatest story ever written

 

[sealybobo]

You would have to explain where the entire Christian religion came from if Jesus of Nazareth wasn't an actual person who actually lived in Israel at about the time 30 A.D.

Normally, we don't expect a small band of fishermen and a tax collector to invent an entire religion out of whole cloth.

Also, Paul was a Pharisee, and he seemed mighty convinced that Jesus was a real person who actually appeared to him and stopped him from persecuting Christians.

Unless you're going to say Paul wasn't real either, and everything he wrote was written by a fiction author.

Also, they actually found Peter's bones under the Vatican, so you'd have to explain whose bones those were if Peter wasn't a real person.

So please tell, me what was real and what wasn't?

I'm dying to hear your theory.

If ad means after death how did he live 30 years after he died? So right there alone should tell you this is almost a fairytale. Only difference is a fairytale happened a long time ago in a land far far away and your story happened somewhere in the middle East 2017 years ago. In the most remote uncivilized part of the world. Thousands supposedly met him but the writings weren't put together until hundreds of years.

You see how corrupt churches can be. Can't imagine the entire story is made up? So is the Moses story. Same as Mohammad and Joseph Smith.

Nothing survives Jesus. Get that shroud crap out of here. That's it?

Scholars admit the book of John or Paul or whoever weren't actually penned by those men themselves. If so where are these original books?

The people who met Jesus weren't the founders of the church. Paul went to Greece and the bought the stories he told. I can see how they did look at you. And even my parents tried to brainwash me to believe. If you want to believe it's a lot easier to swallow the story

 

[Meriweather]

If ad means after death how did he live 30 years after he died? So right there alone should tell you this is almost a fairytale. Only difference is a fairytale happened a long time ago in a land far far away and your story happened somewhere in the middle East 2017 years ago. In the most remote uncivilized part of the world. Thousands supposedly met him but the writings weren't put together until hundreds of years.

You see how corrupt churches can be. Can't imagine the entire story is made up? So is the Moses story. Same as Mohammad and Joseph Smith.

Nothing survives Jesus. Get that shroud crap out of here. That's it?

Scholars admit the book of John or Paul or whoever weren't actually penned by those men themselves. If so where are these original books?

The people who met Jesus weren't the founders of the church. Paul went to Greece and the bought the stories he told. I can see how they did look at you. And even my parents tried to brainwash me to believe. If you want to believe it's a lot easier to swallow the story

A.D. stands for Anno Domini, which is Latin for "year of our Lord," and it means the number of years since the birth of Jesus Christ. It is thought Christ was born around the year 4 B.C. and died around the year 30 A.D., give or take.

 

[sealybobo]

If ad means after death how did he live 30 years after he died? So right there alone should tell you this is almost a fairytale. Only difference is a fairytale happened a long time ago in a land far far away and your story happened somewhere in the middle East 2017 years ago. In the most remote uncivilized part of the world. Thousands supposedly met him but the writings weren't put together until hundreds of years.

You see how corrupt churches can be. Can't imagine the entire story is made up? So is the Moses story. Same as Mohammad and Joseph Smith.

Nothing survives Jesus. Get that shroud crap out of here. That's it?

Scholars admit the book of John or Paul or whoever weren't actually penned by those men themselves. If so where are these original books?

The people who met Jesus weren't the founders of the church. Paul went to Greece and the bought the stories he told. I can see how they did look at you. And even my parents tried to brainwash me to believe. If you want to believe it's a lot easier to swallow the story

A.D. stands for Anno Domini, which is Latin for "year of our Lord," and it means the number of years since the birth of Jesus Christ. It is thought Christ was born around the year 4 B.C. and died around the year 30 A.D., give or take.

Fucking public school teachers

 

[Meriweather]

If ad means after death how did he live 30 years after he died? So right there alone should tell you this is almost a fairytale. Only difference is a fairytale happened a long time ago in a land far far away and your story happened somewhere in the middle East 2017 years ago. In the most remote uncivilized part of the world. Thousands supposedly met him but the writings weren't put together until hundreds of years.

You see how corrupt churches can be. Can't imagine the entire story is made up? So is the Moses story. Same as Mohammad and Joseph Smith.

Nothing survives Jesus. Get that shroud crap out of here. That's it?

Scholars admit the book of John or Paul or whoever weren't actually penned by those men themselves. If so where are these original books?

The people who met Jesus weren't the founders of the church. Paul went to Greece and the bought the stories he told. I can see how they did look at you. And even my parents tried to brainwash me to believe. If you want to believe it's a lot easier to swallow the story

A.D. stands for Anno Domini, which is Latin for "year of our Lord," and it means the number of years since the birth of Jesus Christ. It is thought Christ was born around the year 4 B.C. and died around the year 30 A.D., give or take.

Fucking public school teachers

Why yes, I am. How nice of you to remember what I do in real life.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So Tacitus proves the NT is false and teaching another Christ? Because it says Jesus was slew (stoned) and hanged not crucified.
Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree" 1 Peter 2:24 "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" Galatians 3:13 "Christ... being made a curse upon us... Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"
Under Rabbinic Law, criminals are to be stoned (John 8:3-11.) The 'Jesus' mythos was stoned (slew) and then hung on a tree -- which is what the Christanic mythologies say.

So now the burden on you is to humor us with which Christ is Tacitus referring to?
What era is Tacitus from?
Did he say the name Jesus or use the term Christ? Show sources.
*plays the Jeopardy theme song in the background waiting for a reply*

No, it proves you do zero research and should feel bad. Your post also proves you apparently don't know how to properly quote, so good job with that.

Being crucified was also referred to as being hanged. The meaning of the word "hanged" is to fasten something to an object without supporting it from below. Hanging with a rope wasn't referred to that way until medieval times, needless to say that method is quite obviously not what Tacitus was referring to.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I'm not gonna wait for the run and hide non answer so I'll give you some resources and research to put this claim in proper perspective.
TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just CLAIMED evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about a Christ of many Christs.
Hint: the only christ figure in the Pilate era was Theudas by the Jordan and yes he was crucified 45ad, but the son of Mary figure was hanged on passover 130 aprox years earlier around 85bc and the Galilean tax revolter Yehuda crucified in 6bc 51 years earlier.
So much for your historians and seminary schools.

I went to bed because it was 5AM. You're just in such a rush to proclaim your victory because you know you're wrong. Hence your use of replying instead of quoting, hoping I won't notice.

Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible - Biblical Archaeology Society

Tacitus used the word as that's what practically EVERYONE called him. He didn't have to have gotten it from the Roman records, as during his time, Jesus was famous.

Tacitus was one of the greatest Roman historians, I don't see why people WOULDN'T reference his work. Not only that, but most classical historical writers don't cite their sources in the first place.

There's no evidence speaking against it being based on Roman records, as he has no reason to copy them word for word in the first place, it was probably easier to write it as a historical account anyway, due to the fact that they couldn't just copy and paste.

How about a source for that?

 

[Meriweather]

Tacitus used the word as that's what practically EVERYONE called him. He didn't have to have gotten it from the Roman records, as during his time, Jesus was famous.

A very slight nitpick here. Tacitus referenced Jesus as "Christus" as though "Christus" was Jesus' given name, not an appellation given him. Jesus was not all that famous, but the Christians during this time were beginning to make themselves known to a government suspicious (and somewhat paranoid) of any group that gathered. Tacitus knew a little about Christians, but it appears he was not at all familiar with Jesus as he didn't appear to know that "Jesus", not "Christus" was Christ's given name.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Tacitus used the word as that's what practically EVERYONE called him. He didn't have to have gotten it from the Roman records, as during his time, Jesus was famous.

A very slight nitpick here. Tacitus referenced Jesus as "Christus" as though "Christus" was Jesus' given name, not an appellation given him. Jesus was not all that famous, but the Christians during this time were beginning to make themselves known to a government suspicious (and somewhat paranoid) of any group that gathered. Tacitus knew a little about Christians, but it appears he was not at all familiar with Jesus as he didn't appear to know that "Jesus", not "Christus" was Christ's given name.

That's something that's noted by historians. The Jews, which was the group most familiar with Jesus, constantly referred to him as "The Christ", Tacitus likely assumed it was his given name because of how he was referred to. If you check my link, it's mentioned in the article as well. Considering people didn't carry IDs at all, and could go by a different name simply by referring to themselves as a different name, it's likely wasn't a difficult error to make.

 

[HaShev]

So Tacitus proves the NT is false and teaching another Christ? Because it says Jesus was slew (stoned) and hanged not crucified.
Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree" 1 Peter 2:24 "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" Galatians 3:13 "Christ... being made a curse upon us... Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"
Under Rabbinic Law, criminals are to be stoned (John 8:3-11.) The 'Jesus' mythos was stoned (slew) and then hung on a tree -- which is what the Christanic mythologies say.

So now the burden on you is to humor us with which Christ is Tacitus referring to?
What era is Tacitus from?
Did he say the name Jesus or use the term Christ? Show sources.
*plays the Jeopardy theme song in the background waiting for a reply*

No, it proves you do zero research and should feel bad. Your post also proves you apparently don't know how to properly quote, so good job with that.

Being crucified was also referred to as being hanged. The meaning of the word "hanged" is to fasten something to an object without supporting it from below. Hanging with a rope wasn't referred to that way until medieval times, needless to say that method is quite obviously not what Tacitus was referring to.

Not true, the crucified christs where termed Crucified, the hanged on a tree Christ in
2 sources is deemed stoned and hanging as was the type of punishment in that era and as I posted such.
According to your argument you'd have to admit Jesus was the serpent(false prophet) of Genesis when saying believe in his tree you'd live forever, because in the NT Jesus says believe in his cross (you say=tree) and be eternal.
That being said:
You do not know my research abilities, nor know who uses my research, because I'm guessing you never went to Harvard, Oxford, or Yale.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So Tacitus proves the NT is false and teaching another Christ? Because it says Jesus was slew (stoned) and hanged not crucified.
Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree" 1 Peter 2:24 "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" Galatians 3:13 "Christ... being made a curse upon us... Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"
Under Rabbinic Law, criminals are to be stoned (John 8:3-11.) The 'Jesus' mythos was stoned (slew) and then hung on a tree -- which is what the Christanic mythologies say.

So now the burden on you is to humor us with which Christ is Tacitus referring to?
What era is Tacitus from?
Did he say the name Jesus or use the term Christ? Show sources.
*plays the Jeopardy theme song in the background waiting for a reply*

No, it proves you do zero research and should feel bad. Your post also proves you apparently don't know how to properly quote, so good job with that.

Being crucified was also referred to as being hanged. The meaning of the word "hanged" is to fasten something to an object without supporting it from below. Hanging with a rope wasn't referred to that way until medieval times, needless to say that method is quite obviously not what Tacitus was referring to.

Not true, the crucified christs where termed Crucified, the hanged on a tree Christ in
2 sources is deemed stoned and hanging as was the type of punishment in that era and as I posted such.
According to your argument you'd have to admit Jesus was the serpent(false prophet) of Genesis when saying believe in his tree you'd live forever, because in the NT Jesus says believe in his cross (you say=tree) and be eternal.
That being said:
You do not know my research abilities, nor know who uses my research, because I'm guessing you never went to Harvard, Oxford, or Yale.

Oh, you figured out how to quote this time, good job. I'm so proud of you. All you had to do was believe in yourself.

You didn't post a source, you quoted Tacitus' writings, which were from the time period in which being crucified was referred to as hanging.

I'm not arguing over religious text, I'm telling you that Jesus existed as a historical figure.

 

[Iceweasel]

The fact is, the doubters have no alternative theories.

There is no althernative "theory". Rational minds go by what we call history. There is no evidence of the Christian miracles. None, or it wouldn't be called a faith. It's a faith because you must suspend reason, history and facts and the more of those you possess the more faith is required.

It makes no sense all the dead rose after the crucifixion and no historian bothered to write about it. Or the temple drapes being torn, day to night, earthquake, etc. A fable is true if it includes a real place? I don't get it.

 

[HaShev]

I'm not gonna wait for the run and hide non answer so I'll give you some resources and research to put this claim in proper perspective.
TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just CLAIMED evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about a Christ of many Christs.
Hint: the only christ figure in the Pilate era was Theudas by the Jordan and yes he was crucified 45ad, but the son of Mary figure was hanged on passover 130 aprox years earlier around 85bc and the Galilean tax revolter Yehuda crucified in 6bc 51 years earlier.
So much for your historians and seminary schools.

I went to bed because it was 5AM. You're just in such a rush to proclaim your victory because you know you're wrong. Hence your use of replying instead of quoting, hoping I won't notice.

Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible - Biblical Archaeology Society

Tacitus used the word as that's what practically EVERYONE called him. He didn't have to have gotten it from the Roman records, as during his time, Jesus was famous.

Tacitus was one of the greatest Roman historians, I don't see why people WOULDN'T reference his work. Not only that, but most classical historical writers don't cite their sources in the first place.

There's no evidence speaking against it being based on Roman records, as he has no reason to copy them word for word in the first place, it was probably easier to write it as a historical account anyway, due to the fact that they couldn't just copy and paste.

How about a source for that?

You do realize no Jews were ever called Jesus, right? And what did this after the era historian who never met the icon call him?
Once again generically called im Christ which was a term "anointed" for many figures and groups.
You did not answer my questions nor refute that post.
In fact you proved my points, because Lucifer in Ezekiel 28:14-15 is called anointed (christ)
cherub(guardian in Hebrew=Nazarene) deemed perfect(sinless).
So by you claiming Jesus this Christ Tacitus is talking about means you are arguing over the historical existance of the
son of perdition(lucifer).

 

[Iceweasel]

The Apostles were portrayed as very simple men who made many mistakes, pissed off Jesus many times, and ultimately ran and hid like cowards when he was arrested, put on trial and crucified.

If the story is false, why wouldn't the Apostles have made themselves into heroic figures who stood by Jesus to the bitter end?

It's not a story I would write about myself.

That makes no sense either. First off, you have no clue who wrote the books and if the religion is about the mangod then human weakness just makes him look better. Human weakness is the entire purpose for the story.