Jesus?

[Bernard]

[reasonvemotion]

WHY DONT JEWS BELIEVE IN JESUS

"Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures. He is seen as a "false messiah".

[ForgedinHell]

WHY DONT JEWS BELIEVE IN JESUS

"Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures. He is seen as a "false messiah".

Jesus never existed, so how could he have been a false anything? Furthermore, the Jews never believed that their messiah was going to be a god, that idea is pure paganism. But, the important point is that the Christian butchering of Jews throughout the centuries for being "Christ killers" was based on a lie, because an historical Jesus never existed.

[SpheresOfBalance]

WHY DONT JEWS BELIEVE IN JESUS

"Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures. He is seen as a "false messiah".

Jesus never existed, so how could he have been a false anything? Furthermore, the Jews never believed that their messiah was going to be a god, that idea is pure paganism. But, the important point is that the Christian butchering of Jews throughout the centuries for being "Christ killers" was based on a lie, because an historical Jesus never existed.

You're such an idiot with your assertions. It's extremely easy to spot the little spoiled boy brats. They always either select some dark, would be scary avatar and/or nym. You know, like satan, lucifer, hellsfire or forgedinhell. They're always little boys trying to fill their daddies underpants, by trying to portray themselves as bad asses, how pathetic you all really are. Do you have a small penis or just a small brain?

YOU DON'T EXIST!!! At least not as an intellectual man, you're just a little spoiled brat of a boy, that spouts ludicrous notions!

[ForgedinHell]

WHY DONT JEWS BELIEVE IN JESUS

"Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures. He is seen as a "false messiah".

Jesus never existed, so how could he have been a false anything? Furthermore, the Jews never believed that their messiah was going to be a god, that idea is pure paganism. But, the important point is that the Christian butchering of Jews throughout the centuries for being "Christ killers" was based on a lie, because an historical Jesus never existed.

You're such an idiot with your assertions. It's extremely easy to spot the little spoiled boy brats. They always either select some dark, would be scary avatar and/or nym. You know, like satan, lucifer, hellsfire or forgedinhell. They're always little boys trying to fill their daddies underpants, by trying to portray themselves as bad asses, how pathetic you all really are. Do you have a small penis or just a small brain?

YOU DON'T EXIST!!! At least not as an intellectual man, you're just a little spoiled brat of a boy, that spouts ludicrous notions!

Unlike you, who makes irrational assertions, I have given factual arguments showing that there was no historical Jesus. The last such comment was addressed to Comrade Chaz and mentioned a contemporary writer who was in the area, whose relative is mentioned in Acts, and who was considered the leading authority on ethics in Rome. He made no mention of Jesus. When a person would have known of Jesus, would have been interested in him, and would have written about him, had he actually existed, then it is quite significant evidence that the person failed to mention anything about him. I am neither spoiled, nor uneducated, nor bitter. However, I will not allow others to make false claims without challenging them with facts. So far, your side has called me names and made irrational arguments, but no one on your side has been able to refute the facts I have mentioned, nor the logical arguments I have used.

[chaz wyman]

Just because the idea of a god is facile, and the claims of Christians about miracles is bonkers, this is no reason to reject the assertion that someone called Jesus had some sense nailed into him 2000 years ago.
The main reason is because the degree of collusion required for such a hoax would be far beyond the capacities of the early Christians.
Although laced with idiotic stories and banal claims about divinity (which were common to most prophets of the time btw), there is no single person born around that time for whom there is more evidence for his existence.
You might as well challenge the existence of Emperor Augustus as Jesus. Augustus, like Jesus was also divine - the living embodiment of a God, as were many of his successors.
Divinity amongst morals was a pretty common coin in those times, and we should no more believe Jesus' divinity any more than we should accept the same of Alexander the Great or Herod who after claiming his divinity was torn apart by angry crowds.
The problem is not the existence of a man, but the moronic claims, ordinary and common at the time, but ridiculous nonetheless.
Downright assertion of the negative in this regard is the act of the brain dead.

Let's take a look at the actual evidence, which is something you avoid doing. Calling people who disagree with you "brain dead" does not mean the evidence is on your side. It isn't. Here is an example:
There was a contemporary Roman named Seneca the Younger, (C.3-B.C.E. 65), whose real name was Lucius Annaeus Seneca. He was a Roman leader, as well as a writer and Stoic philosopher. His books survive to this day. He made no mention of Jesus ever having lived, and there are a number of reasons why he most definitely should have.

There is no reason he should have. Jesus was nothing more that a peasant that for a brief few days inspired a few people and got himself crucified, amongst thousands of others. The man that avoided the cross want on to die at Masada.
Seneca did not mention millions of other people either. He had nothing to say about Caractucus who was a king of the Britons, yet he lived. What you have here is negative evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Your problem remains - You are asking every one to believe in a complete hoax of major proportions.
You are mad.



The first reason why Seneca should have written about Jesus was because he is recognized as the greatest Roman writer on ethics. So, his failure to mention anything about a Jesus living during his time, who allegedly made a great contribution to ethics that was sweeping the Roman countryside makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. There are many other of the numerous rabbis of the time he did not mention - no reason he should have. He did not live in Judea, nor did he comment on its politics. This was a time in which there was no International media. You do realise that there were no newspapers or tv- don't you?
You are simply ignorant of history. "sweeping the countryside" - you fucking moron!!!

Seneca's book titled Quaestiones Naturales, is still available today, and it contains no mention of the darkness that fell over the earth, or at least the region where Jesus was killed, that lasted for hours. In this book, Seneca writes about such things as eclipses and other natural phenomenon, so it's extremely interesting that he failed to write about an eclipse that he would have witnessed, had it happened. As well as the alleged earthquakes that supposedly happened when Jesus died. No mention of any of this in his book.

No one is claiming that a darkness fell over the earth. The claim is that there was an historical Jesus you fuck with.

Another book written by Seneca, still available, is On Superstition. Being a Stoic, he hated superstition, and in this book, he wrote about every known religion and blated them. However, he makes no mention of Christianity, or Jesus, despite the claims of Christians that Christianity was spreading like wildfire throughout the Roman empire. This is no small matter, as even Augustine, in his treaties, City of God, tried to explain why Senenca made no mention of Christianity. Augustine flubbed it. There is no explanation.

You are shooting yourself in the foot you fucking idiot. He had no interest in a crazy new religious movement, nor its messiah. There is no reason Jesus should have crossed his attention. There is just no case to answer.



.

[ForgedinHell]

Just because the idea of a god is facile, and the claims of Christians about miracles is bonkers, this is no reason to reject the assertion that someone called Jesus had some sense nailed into him 2000 years ago.
The main reason is because the degree of collusion required for such a hoax would be far beyond the capacities of the early Christians.
Although laced with idiotic stories and banal claims about divinity (which were common to most prophets of the time btw), there is no single person born around that time for whom there is more evidence for his existence.
You might as well challenge the existence of Emperor Augustus as Jesus. Augustus, like Jesus was also divine - the living embodiment of a God, as were many of his successors.
Divinity amongst morals was a pretty common coin in those times, and we should no more believe Jesus' divinity any more than we should accept the same of Alexander the Great or Herod who after claiming his divinity was torn apart by angry crowds.
The problem is not the existence of a man, but the moronic claims, ordinary and common at the time, but ridiculous nonetheless.
Downright assertion of the negative in this regard is the act of the brain dead.

Let's take a look at the actual evidence, which is something you avoid doing. Calling people who disagree with you "brain dead" does not mean the evidence is on your side. It isn't. Here is an example:
There was a contemporary Roman named Seneca the Younger, (C.3-B.C.E. 65), whose real name was Lucius Annaeus Seneca. He was a Roman leader, as well as a writer and Stoic philosopher. His books survive to this day. He made no mention of Jesus ever having lived, and there are a number of reasons why he most definitely should have.

There is no reason he should have. Jesus was nothing more that a peasant that for a brief few days inspired a few people and got himself crucified, amongst thousands of others. The man that avoided the cross want on to die at Masada.
Seneca did not mention millions of other people either. He had nothing to say about Caractucus who was a king of the Britons, yet he lived. What you have here is negative evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Your problem remains - You are asking every one to believe in a complete hoax of major proportions.
You are mad.



The first reason why Seneca should have written about Jesus was because he is recognized as the greatest Roman writer on ethics. So, his failure to mention anything about a Jesus living during his time, who allegedly made a great contribution to ethics that was sweeping the Roman countryside makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. There are many other of the numerous rabbis of the time he did not mention - no reason he should have. He did not live in Judea, nor did he comment on its politics. This was a time in which there was no International media. You do realise that there were no newspapers or tv- don't you?
You are simply ignorant of history. "sweeping the countryside" - you fucking moron!!!

Seneca's book titled Quaestiones Naturales, is still available today, and it contains no mention of the darkness that fell over the earth, or at least the region where Jesus was killed, that lasted for hours. In this book, Seneca writes about such things as eclipses and other natural phenomenon, so it's extremely interesting that he failed to write about an eclipse that he would have witnessed, had it happened. As well as the alleged earthquakes that supposedly happened when Jesus died. No mention of any of this in his book.

No one is claiming that a darkness fell over the earth. The claim is that there was an historical Jesus you fuck with.

Another book written by Seneca, still available, is On Superstition. Being a Stoic, he hated superstition, and in this book, he wrote about every known religion and blated them. However, he makes no mention of Christianity, or Jesus, despite the claims of Christians that Christianity was spreading like wildfire throughout the Roman empire. This is no small matter, as even Augustine, in his treaties, City of God, tried to explain why Senenca made no mention of Christianity. Augustine flubbed it. There is no explanation.

You are shooting yourself in the foot you fucking idiot. He had no interest in a crazy new religious movement, nor its messiah. There is no reason Jesus should have crossed his attention. There is just no case to answer.



.

Calling me a "fucking idiot" after claiming to Lewis you were above such conduct? LOL. Showing your true colors are we? Crying like a baby who has no argument to make?
Let's expose yuou for the complete and utter intellectual failure you are. You made the claim that Jesus was hardly known, just for a few days, so no one would have written about him. Prove it. Prove that Jesus was only known for a few days? According to the Gospels, he was quite famous, and had a huge following. How is it that just days ago you claimed the Gospels were the best evidence for an historical Jesus, but now you discount completely what the Gospels state on the issue? What writings do you have that Jesus only made an impression for a few days when the Gospels you rely on stated otherwise?

"Fucking idiot" right back at you.

[reasonvemotion]

"Jesus denounced the jews as being hypocrites.

Matt 23:25-26 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. "

A Holocaust survivor writes: “The quintessential element that distinguishes this event (the Holocaust) was the search for God. Every Jew who remained in the ghettos and the camps remembers “the God Syndrome” that shrouded everything else. From morning till night we cried out for a sign that God was still with us… We sought Him, but we did not find Him. We were always accompanied by the crushing and unsettling feeling that God had disappeared from our midst.” (Machshavot Magazine, Vol. 46, p. 4)

Throughout the rest of Jewish history, Jews in even the worst circumstances have viewed external problems, even the worst problems like being slaughtered en masse in the Crusades, as divine retribution for their mistakes. You will rarely find Jews, until the 20th century, saying “Where is God?” They are almost always saying, “It’s because of wrongdoing that God has done this to us.”

[reasonvemotion]

It appears from the extract below that Seneca was indeed, extremely interested in Jesus and portrayed him as a hero. Seneca was a crafty fellow and knew how to survive court politics. He must have been fearful for his very survival when he portrayed Jesus as the tragic hero when Paul received the death sentence. Read on.

"The Gospel according to Seneca

Instead of winning official recognition for the Christian faith, Paul lost his appeal and received the death sentence, with the result that not only he, but Christians throughout the Empire were branded as members of a proscribed religion. Persecution of Christians remained official Roman policy for the next 250 years.

It may not be a coincidence that the year that Paul lost his life the of turn of events posed a threat to Seneca as well, since in his latest play he had extolled Jesus as a Stoic hero. Decisive action was called for. Seneca had learned to orient himself quickly in the treacherous currents of court politics: to save himself, he had to take the initiative in getting rid of Paul. Seneca’s choice of Jesus as a tragic hero may at first seem surprising; but we must remember that there was a whole gendre of Roman tragedy that dealt with historical events from the recent past (the so-called fabulae praetextae). Moreover, Seneca had a lifelong interest in oriental religions and wrote several books on the subject.[7] That Seneca had received some information about the founder of Christianity may be inferred from the allusion in one of his works to an unnamed individual who had aspired to royalty, but instead was condemned to suffer a cruel death upon the cross.[8] Seneca encountered, in the trial of Jesus, a subject worthy of his aspirations as a philosopher and dramatist. His treatment of it was strictly within the conventions of the ancient theater, since it corresponded point by point with the original cultic tragedy of Dionysus, which every subsequent tragedy tried to emulate:

The hero is defeated in a struggle.
He is killed in a sacrificial ritual.
A messenger arrives, announcing his fate, and the chorus responds with its lamentations.
The body is brought onto the stage and is buried.
There follows a recognition that the hero is not truly dead, but has gained immortality. He appears to men as a god, and mourning turns into a joyful celebration.[9] "

[ForgedinHell]

It appears from the extract below that Seneca was indeed, extremely interested in Jesus and portrayed him as a hero. Seneca was a crafty fellow and knew how to survive court politics. He must have been fearful for his very survival when he portrayed Jesus as the tragic hero when Paul received the death sentence. Read on.

"The Gospel according to Seneca

Instead of winning official recognition for the Christian faith, Paul lost his appeal and received the death sentence, with the result that not only he, but Christians throughout the Empire were branded as members of a proscribed religion. Persecution of Christians remained official Roman policy for the next 250 years.

It may not be a coincidence that the year that Paul lost his life the of turn of events posed a threat to Seneca as well, since in his latest play he had extolled Jesus as a Stoic hero. Decisive action was called for. Seneca had learned to orient himself quickly in the treacherous currents of court politics: to save himself, he had to take the initiative in getting rid of Paul. Seneca’s choice of Jesus as a tragic hero may at first seem surprising; but we must remember that there was a whole gendre of Roman tragedy that dealt with historical events from the recent past (the so-called fabulae praetextae). Moreover, Seneca had a lifelong interest in oriental religions and wrote several books on the subject.[7] That Seneca had received some information about the founder of Christianity may be inferred from the allusion in one of his works to an unnamed individual who had aspired to royalty, but instead was condemned to suffer a cruel death upon the cross.[8] Seneca encountered, in the trial of Jesus, a subject worthy of his aspirations as a philosopher and dramatist. His treatment of it was strictly within the conventions of the ancient theater, since it corresponded point by point with the original cultic tragedy of Dionysus, which every subsequent tragedy tried to emulate:

The hero is defeated in a struggle.
He is killed in a sacrificial ritual.
A messenger arrives, announcing his fate, and the chorus responds with its lamentations.
The body is brought onto the stage and is buried.
There follows a recognition that the hero is not truly dead, but has gained immortality. He appears to men as a god, and mourning turns into a joyful celebration.[9] "

Strange, because if Seneca could write about 250 years of Christian persecution, then he could not have been alive when Jesus allegedly lived. There is not a single historian who allegedly lived when Jesus did who wrote anything about him. And contrary to Chaz's statement, the area where Jesus allegedly lived was filled with literate people who wrote. This was a region of strategic interest to Rome and not some backwater. But, because there are no writings from any historians mentioning Jesus, who lived when Jesus supposedly lived, the fallback position of the apologists for the made-up-Jesus story is to falsely claim that this was a back woods area filled with nothing but illiterates.

[Notvacka]

...(a whole lot)...

Why bother with the historical Jesus? I mean, you don't even believe in God, do you? You don't believe in walking on water or raising the dead. You don't believe in heaven or hell, salvation or damnation. You don't even believe in life after death. So, why bother with a simple carpenter who preached and gathered disciples for a few years before getting crucified?

[ForgedinHell]

...(a whole lot)...

Why bother with the historical Jesus? I mean, you don't even believe in God, do you? You don't believe in walking on water or raising the dead. You don't believe in heaven or hell, salvation or damnation. You don't even believe in life after death. So, why bother with a simple carpenter who preached and gathered disciples for a few years before getting crucified?

Because I am interested in the truth.

[Bernard]

Truths and facts are very different things.

Anyway, from Wiki on the Nag Hammadi library:

The contents of the codices were written in the Coptic language, though the works were probably all translations from Greek.[4] The best-known of these works is probably the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete text. After the discovery it was recognized that fragments of these sayings attributed to Jesus appeared in manuscripts discovered at Oxyrhynchus in 1898 (P. Oxy. 1), and matching quotations were recognized in other early Christian sources. Subsequently, a 1st or 2nd century date of composition circa 80 AD has been proposed for the lost Greek originals of the Gospel of Thomas. The buried manuscripts themselves date from the third and forth centuries.

Jesus wasn't fashionable in his own time, though he did gather quite a large reputation. The world was a fair size back then. Lots of things were happening. Some atheists and Jesus-deniers side with the Christian Juggernaught by making Jesus more important than he was; whether as myth or man in their eyes he is not human somehow. But Jesus was of the heart of man, and therein lies the secret in his quiet success and revolution. The real story of Jesus will remain a quiet revolution that bypasses the churches and the history books.

[ForgedinHell]

Truths and facts are very different things.

Anyway, from Wiki on the Nag Hammadi library:

The contents of the codices were written in the Coptic language, though the works were probably all translations from Greek.[4] The best-known of these works is probably the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete text. After the discovery it was recognized that fragments of these sayings attributed to Jesus appeared in manuscripts discovered at Oxyrhynchus in 1898 (P. Oxy. 1), and matching quotations were recognized in other early Christian sources. Subsequently, a 1st or 2nd century date of composition circa 80 AD has been proposed for the lost Greek originals of the Gospel of Thomas. The buried manuscripts themselves date from the third and forth centuries.

Jesus wasn't fashionable in his own time, though he did gather quite a large reputation. The world was a fair size back then. Lots of things were happening. Some atheists and Jesus-deniers side with the Christian Juggernaught by making Jesus more important than he was; whether as myth or man in their eyes he is not human somehow. But Jesus was of the heart of man, and therein lies the secret in his quiet success and revolution. The real story of Jesus will remain a quiet revolution that bypasses the churches and the history books.

First, even the earliest writings of 80 a.d., is problematic for the claim jesus was a real person. Secondly, what you are overlooking is that the first writings about Jesus, were like all other pagan religions -- Jesus acted in the supernatural realm, not on earth. Therefore, when one reads a story about a so-called Jesus, one has to be very careful whether the story relates to an actual man, or a supernatural act in another realm, or just a general comment on Christianity.

[Bernard]

Yeh, things are not so cut and defined in the levantine mind of those days, and the Arabic mind is still a very poetic one. I'm pointing out that there are several early sources on Jesus within a generation or two from quite distant geographic locales.

No scholar worth his salt discounts legend as being of historical interest and perhaps validity, much as we give a more or less believing ear to anecdotes that somehow ring true to us.

http://www.gnostic.info/rose_Mary%20Magdalene.html

On the shores of the Mediterranean Sea outside Marseilles at Les Saintes Marie de la Mere there is a small chapel dedicated to Mary Magdalene and consecrated by Archbishop Roncalli (who later became Pope John XXIII). Given a place of prominence within this chapel are paintings of her arrival from Palestine in a small rudderless boat.

According to legend, soon after the crucifixion and Resurrection, Mary Magdalene and her family were expelled from the Holy Land, set adrift on the Mediterranean Sea and made their way to this region, particularly the area around Southern France and Northern Spain. At this time in history, aside from the already established Celts, many Greeks, Arabs, Jews and others lived and travelled in this area. There was even a Jewish city known as Glanum Levi whose ruins can be found today in Provence.