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

[Blackrook]

I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character made up by some fiction author, like Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins. We have billions of Christians spanning thousands of years, and that religion didn't just pop up out of nowhere.

And I have seen nothing to convince me of virgin births, walking on water or rising from the Dead and yet you believe those things. Interesting. That's wishful thinking.

I've also had personal experiences.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It was going to, "take a lot of faith", to keep going, after Jesus and His Crew found out we are on Nexus Six with Zardoz and the incorrigibles.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

Then bring him to the forum if he's historical.


1st Kings 18:25,27 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal
"Call on the name of your god..."And it came to pass at noon,that Elijah mocked them, and said,"Cry aloud! For surely he is 'God'.Or, perhaps he is deep in thought,Or, perhaps he is busy,Or, perhaps he is on a journey,Or, perhaps he is sleeping, and must be woken."

I see you've now given up proving any of your points and are instead poking fun at Christians for holding beliefs different from your own. Militants are truly sickening people.

So now you call Elijah a militant for mocking Baal worshipers?
Because you can't bring forth your historical idol you lash out?
Tell us who you think the mystery father was that they conveniently never name or tell you? It's Baal. Jesus is one in the same mythology thus at the end of the Roman joke they tell you he's the
morning star(baal's son).-Rev 22:16

Actually, I'm calling you a militant, because you are one. That's completely fine, though, as I find most people completely unbearable.
I specified that I was pointing out a man named Jesus lived and was crucified. I've said nothing about believing in a God, or that God. You're assuming I do, and acting as such, hoping to get me annoyed so that you no longer have to pretend you know how to debate, or care to debate, As a matter of fact, this entire time, you've failed to cite any sources, you've just been making point blank statements hoping people will take your words at face value, or will focus on your childish mocking instead. My guess is that you're not even here to debate, just to mock those who believe differently from yourself because you can't stand people being different.

 

[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?

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).

You have no evidence of that.
Generically called him "The Christus" from which the word "Christian" originated from, specifically.
I refuted your post, and I don't see a question I missed.
I don't see the relevance of that statement.
I'm arguing about a historical figure's existence, I don't particularly care of you think he's the "son of lucifer" or not.
You have yet to cite any sources for any of your claims.

You did not answer the questions, you've yet to give us a HISTORICAL HEBREW name for your christ and I wasn't the one who brought up Christus (easy mistake in this format that I myself do time to time), but to note about that: it's Krishna who was named Christos.

I've answered all of your questions, that's why you're throwing a tantrum instead of debating. I'm going to guess that you're a liberal.

 

[Mudda]

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.

How do they know they're Peter's bones?

Christianity comes from Hellenistic theology and philosophy.
Origins of Christianity - Wikipedia