Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-10-2014, 03:30 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 03:33 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Re Pilate....
Romans were made to look as if they were really sympathetic towards Jesus. Pilate, the Roman governor, allegedly read a letter from his wife about a dream she had that Jesus was innocent. He supposedly said,
“I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:4 KJV.) He’s depicted as trying to talk the angry Jews out of having Jesus crucified, but gave in to the public clamor, because
“in fact a riot was imminent” (Matt. 27:24 KJV.) So the crowd that was going to riot if Jesus was arrested (see Matt. 26:3–6) was now about to riot if he wasn’t crucified, a scenario that makes no sense. It’s obvious that Jesus’ Jewish compatriots wouldn’t have wanted him crucified, and this passage is a pro Roman fabrication.

Pilate, Rome’s representative, allegedly washed his hands of any responsibility for the decision to kill Jesus. This didn’t happen; it was theatrical propaganda, not real history. To pronounce a man innocent, then command your troops to kill him anyway, is preposterous and unhistorical. Pilate’s job was to keep the peace and make sure Jews paid tax. Jesus was a dangerous subversive threatening a rebellion, so Pilate couldn’t have found him innocent. There was probably no public trial. To have one at that time of year would be just asking for trouble.

Pilate was the Roman prefect of Judaea from AD 26–36. He’s described by contemporary secular historians as being notorious for his cruelty toward the Jews. Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, writing in 41 CE, stated that Pilate’s tenure in power was notable for its
“briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty” (Legatio ad Gaium, 301–302.) Josephus too reported several instances of Pilate flagrantly inciting an insurrection, only to ruthlessly suppress it with his soldiers.

In 36 CE, Vitellius, the Roman Syrian governor, removed Pilate from his office after a violent attack on the Samaritans (Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.85.) He was ordered to Rome to face complaints of excessive cruelty against the Jews, found culpable, and exiled to Vienne, France. His true colors come across in secular history, not in the Gospels. The real Pilate clearly wasn’t a character wracked with ambivalence about whether to crucify Yeshua.

The Gospel authors couldn’t have Romans responsible for killing the son of God, because the Catholic Church became the Church of Rome. The solution was simple; they made the Romans look like unwilling participants in the proceedings, and then they accused the anonymous Jewish rabble of wanting Jesus dead. One of the authors of Matthew had Jews say,
“His blood be on us and our children” (Matt. 27:24–25, NJB.) Jews publically cursed themselves for being Christ-killers, which is highly improbable. The Jewish passersby allegedly mocked Jesus:
“The passersby jeered at him; they shook their heads and said ‘if you are God’s son, come down from the cross!’” (Matt. 27:39–40, NJB.) The Jewish crowd wouldn’t have been that callous to one of their own. They would have been appalled that Jesus was dying such a despicable death.

What’s more, if his fellow Jews had wanted to kill Jesus, he would have been stoned to death, which could only have happened if the Romans gave them permission.

Crucifixion was an agonizing, demeaning, public death, one reserved for insurgents. It was used by Romans to intimidate anyone who might undermine their authority. The Roman soldiers nailed zealots up naked on a cross; it was part of the humiliation. The degrading death was designed to discourage other charismatic leaders from having their own dangerous dreams.

The sign or “titulus” (Latin for “inscription” or “label”) was the Roman way of exhibiting the explanation for the execution. It was written by Pilate, and read “King of the Jews,” a reflection of Jesus’ real crime.

Luke had a dying Jesus say
“Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing,” (Luke 23:34, NJB) referring to the Roman soldiers who had just scourged, mocked and nailed him naked to a cross. I think he never said anything of the sort. He’s more likely to have damned these soldiers with his dying breaths!

A Roman centurion supposedly said,
“In truth this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27:54, NJB.) Yet Christianity, which claimed Jesus was the son of God, had yet to be invented!

The two men Yeshua was crucified with were labeled as “lestai,” incorrectly translated in some bibles as “robbers.” In fact “lestai” was a derogatory term for insurrectionists, who, by armed action, opposed Roman rule (http://www.drabruzzi.com/jesus_movement.htm, http://haqol.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/th...i-rebel/). So Jesus was crucified by the Romans between two zealots, we’re told he thought he was king of the Jews, and the reader is expected to believe he wasn’t a zealot!

Roman law allowed no burial rights to those killed by crucifixion. Yeshua’s emaciated body would have been left on display for the birds and dogs as a deterrent to others who might disobey Rome, although it’s possible Pilate made an exception and gave permission for the body to be buried.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
27-10-2014, 03:41 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 03:46 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
On whether there ever was a genuine historical character Jesus...

The Gospels’ writers and editors were mythmakers. Many historians suspect they didn’t base their writings on a genuine historical character, and they may be right. No definitive contemporary archaeological evidence has ever been found for Yeshua’s existence, despite many wordy claims, lacking in facts, to the contrary (such as here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-dhelsPbY). Do contemporary historians mention him?

Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html) although not all scholars accept this (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157). So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image.

Justus of Tiberias (35–100 CE) was a first-century Jewish author born in Galilee. Although he wrote extensively about contemporary Jewish history, he never mentioned Jesus. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...505.html).

Philo-Judaeus, (15-10 BCE - 45-50 CE) a prolific writer and historian, was an Alexandrian Jew who visited Jerusalem in the years Jesus was allegedly teaching and working miracles. He too failed to mention Jesus. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...letter=P).

We might expect Jewish religious officials to have said a significant amount about him, but they didn’t. The earliest references to him in Judaic rabbinical literature didn’t occur before the third century CE and bear little relation to the Jesus of the Gospels.

What about the Roman writers of the first century? There are no Roman records of Pilate’s or Herod’s dealings with Jesus. The Roman world left behind senate records and volumes of other writings, which provide historians with a large amount of data, yet, it seems, nothing about Jesus. Edward Gibbon, (http://kirjasto.sci.fi/egibbon.htm) writing in the latter half of the eighteenth century in his classic work Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, stated:
“How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.” Gibbon devoted twenty or so years of his life to his seventeen-volume work. It’s the result of exhaustive research, so we can trust that his comments are authoritative.

Saint Paul, who probably appeared on the historical scene only fifteen years after Yeshua’s death, does repeatedly commend his Christ, but some scholars suspect he refers to a different character to Yeshua. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm). If this is so, his references to “Jesus” may be interpolations. Whether or not Paul’s Christ was Yeshua, his writings are remarkably deficient in facts about Jesus.

Pliny the younger did mention the existence of Christians in Asia Minor in 112 CE, but wrote nothing about Jesus the person (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html).

It’s said that in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus made the first mention of Jesus. However, this reference isn’t mentioned by any of the church Fathers, (eminent priests and theologians of early Christianity) and is considered by many historians to be a forgery. This reference is frequently referred to in pro-Christian literature.

The surprising truth is that no contemporary literate official, scribe, merchant, soldier or priest documented details about Jesus that have survived. If he’d preached to thousands, cured cripples, expelled demons, and risen from the dead, surely someone would have jotted down some notes about him, but it appears they didn’t.

Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
27-10-2014, 04:02 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 08:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 07:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Post #33.

The lying bitch, who *calls* herself a Christian, who never even read the entire thread, who picked and chose what she would answer, as she is incompetent to even begin disusing any of this, as she proved by her quoting, MIS-CHARACTERIZED my position as a "myther". I said I think we will never know.

Was this directed at me? I wasn't too sure, since you were refering to a female? Or were you using female as an insult?

If it was directed at me, you should probably step away from the computer for bit, make yourself a nice warm cup of tea, with a nice buttery biscuit, unless of course you have high cholesterol, because then I wouldn't suggest the butter, and find someone that will give you a hug, because you're clearly going through some fucked up shit that has nothing to do with anything here.

I apologize if I mislabeled you a mythicist, but your tantrum was totally uncalled for.

RE..."make yourself a nice warm cup of tea, with a nice buttery biscuit, unless of course you have high cholesterol, because then I wouldn't suggest the butter, and find someone that will give you a hug,"

Actually.... butter is very good for you, even if you do have high cholesterol. It is the biscuit, which is full of trans fatty acids, that is likely to block your arteries.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
27-10-2014, 04:40 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Thanks for the posts Mark. Once again, your insight is much appreciated.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-10-2014, 05:34 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
I just watched this again

● A RABBI CROSS-EXAMINES CHRISTIANITY

on you-tube and it really is very very good.

I came to many of the same conclusions myself (or maybe he's just been reading the same books as I have lol)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 06:38 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 01:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If one hundred years from now there is a religion that worships Harry Potter, and claims him as a real historical figure, anything that would attempt to place Harry Potter in reality would be a lie from the perspective of historicity.


Writing fiction, and attempting to pass it off as non-fiction, is disingenuous.

Ah, now I get it. The writers were attempting to pass off their gospels as non-fiction!

They were in fact attempting to actively deceive their readers, into believing Jesus was a historical person. Now the accusations of lying make sense. The writers were attempting to cover up the fact that he didn’t exist. I get it.

This little nugget makes sense of a lot of things. It explains why the writers wrote in the style of biographies, to make this elaborate ruse appear more authentic.

This is the view you’re suggesting right?

It also explains why the Gospels are written differently than the narrative of other pagan deities. The writers of the pagan Gods, like the Dionysus narrative were writing fictions along the lines of nursery rhymes, in which they weren’t actually attempting to deceive their readers into thinking these god-men were actual historical persons.

This just may be our first real mark of progress.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 06:41 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 01:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If one hundred years from now there is a religion that worships Harry Potter, and claims him as a real historical figure, anything that would attempt to place Harry Potter in reality would be a lie from the perspective of historicity.


Writing fiction, and attempting to pass it off as non-fiction, is disingenuous.

Ah, now I get it. The writers were attempting to pass off their gospels as non-fiction!

They were in fact attempting to actively deceive their readers, into believing Jesus was a historical person. Now the accusations of lying make sense. The writers were attempting to cover up the fact that he didn’t exist. I get it.

This little nugget makes sense of a lot of things. It explains why the writers wrote in the style of biographies, to make this elaborate ruse appear more authentic.

This is the view you’re suggesting right?

It also explains why the Gospels are written differently than the narrative of other pagan deities. The writers of the pagan Gods, like the Dionysus narrative were writing fictions along the lines of nursery rhymes, in which they weren’t actually attempting to deceive their readers into thinking these god-men were actual historical persons.

This just may be our first real mark of progress.

You must not have watched the Carrier video.
How EXACTLY are the gospels "different" ?
You claimed they were "biographies" written in the style of biographies of the day.
We're waiting for examples and scholarly references for that claim.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 06:53 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 03:21 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'll start with "Nazareth"...
Yeshua was a Nazarene, as stated in the bible: Acts referred to
“Jesus Christ the Nazarene” (Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9, NJB.) Most Christians assume the term “Nazarene” referred to the fact that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth. This was, after all, what Matthew claimed, (Matt. 2:23)

Actually all four of the Gospels just like Mathew refer to Nazareth as a place:

“When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read,” Luke 4:16

"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” Mark 1:9

"Nathanael said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ John 1:46.

So either all these writers meant that he was from Nazareth, when referring to Jesus, as Jesus of Nazareth, or that Jesus was oddly a Nazarene from Nazareth of Galilee.

But either way, clearly it wasn't just Matthew who spoke of Nazareth as an actual place, where Jesus was from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 06:57 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 03:21 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'll start with "Nazareth"...
Yeshua was a Nazarene, as stated in the bible: Acts referred to
“Jesus Christ the Nazarene” (Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9, NJB.) Most Christians assume the term “Nazarene” referred to the fact that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth. This was, after all, what Matthew claimed, (Matt. 2:23)

Actually all four of the Gospels just like Mathew refer to Nazareth as a place:

“When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read,” Luke 4:16

"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” Mark 1:9

"Nathanael said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ John 1:46.

So either all these writers meant that he was from Nazareth, when referring to Jesus, as Jesus of Nazareth, or that Jesus was oddly a Nazarene from Nazareth of Galilee.

But either way, clearly it wasn't just Matthew who spoke of Nazareth as an actual place, where Jesus was from.

You seem to be forgetting the timeline. These were not written contemporaneously; they are derivative and copy some of the original errors.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-10-2014, 06:58 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 07:04 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 03:21 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'll start with "Nazareth"...
Yeshua was a Nazarene, as stated in the bible: Acts referred to
“Jesus Christ the Nazarene” (Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9, NJB.) Most Christians assume the term “Nazarene” referred to the fact that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth. This was, after all, what Matthew claimed, (Matt. 2:23)

Actually all Four of the Gospels just like Mathew refer to Nazareth as a place:

“When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read,” Luke 4:16

"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” Mark 1:9

"Nathanael said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ John 1:46.

So either all these writers meant that he was from Nazareth, when referring to Jesus, as Jesus of Nazareth, or that Jesus was oddly a Nazarene from Nazareth of Galilee.

But either way, clearly it wasn't just Matthew who spoke of Nazareth as an actual place, where Jesus was from.

Actually you have *maybe* two. 3 Synoptics (patterned after "Q") + John.
In any case they were not "4 independent sources" by any stretch.

From "Jesusneverexisted.com" :
Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.
• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.
• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.
• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
In his histories, Josephus (a Galilean), has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. -

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: