Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
I don't think many historians would agree with you there.
Follow Christ but not Christian
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
I don't think many historians would agree with you there.
'Amir Alzzalam
Šayṭānist
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 350
- Points
- 83
Almost ALL secular historians (which are most men of science) agree with me that there exists not one iota of evidence that Yeshua ever existed and that not one word has ever been discovered that was written by this supposed messiah (just another Jewish false messiah).
Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
What? It's a long accepted secular historical consensus that Jesus existed. No, we do not have any writings from him.
'Amir Alzzalam
Šayṭānist
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 350
- Points
- 83
I disagree, without any real evidence of His existence and not one written word or even a documented crucifixion by the Roman Empire (and the Romans kept excellent records), no historian, or anthropologist. etc. worth a damn would suggest Yeshua objectively existed.
Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
Okay, but you're disagreeing with the historical consensus of secular experts
that's your right, just don't claim that "almost ALL secular historians" agree with you, because they do not.
'Amir Alzzalam
Šayṭānist
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 350
- Points
- 83
I just did a search regarding this and I admit there are plenty of articles sighting claims by scientists that they believe Yeshua existed. However, in each article, I glanced through, they ALL give a 'disclaimer' type statement . . . that there is NO objective evidence available.Okay, but you're disagreeing with the historical consensus of secular experts
Then there are just as many of these articles siding with my claim.
A Growing Number of Scholars Are Questioning the Historical Existence of Jesus
One radical notion is that the story of Jesus was a type of psychological warfare to pacify the Jews.
bigthink.com
'Amir Alzzalam
Šayṭānist
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 350
- Points
- 83
Allow me to put forth this fact and add to the idea that Yeshua never objectively existed.
By the first century A.D., the Jews were looking for strong, magnetic leaders who could deliver them from the wrath of the Roman Empire. The Essenes developed the idea of a messiah figure that would provide this. Several Jewish leaders were set to take over after the death of the Jewish King Herod, who primarily worked for the Romans. To qualify as a messiah, someone needed to be from the bloodline of King David. None of the descendants of King David and their misled disciples succeeded, and most were killed.
While these messiah figures drew support from the claim they descended from King David, wherein Judaic tradition did this claim that Davidic pedigree was necessary to become a Messiah come from? When King David ruled Israel (circa 10th century B.C.E.), the conviction arose that his progeny would “rule forever, not only over Israel but also over all the nations”.
One that stands out is a former slave of King Herod by the name of Simon of Perea. Simon was the first heretical Jew who managed to convince a large portion of the Jews that he was the King of Jews and Jehova's Messiah. When the Roman Empire caught wind of this they dispatched military units to put an end to this claim. They would eventually corner and behead Simon in 4 B.C.
Anthronges was another deified Messiah who waged a serious war against the Roman Empire and also lost. Next came Yeshua the Nazarene. Proclaiming himself king of the Jews, Yeshua was eventually hunted down and crucified. Oddly enough, Yeshua was far from a warrior, would never be able to lead men in battle or control the logistics of a military campaign. Had King David met Yeshua, he would have been greatly disappointed with the gentle ideas of this self-proclaimed messiah.
New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, eloquently stated:
"To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”
After Yeshua there came a dozen other Messianic campaigns, none of which are publicized by the Abrahamic faith, and all of which ultimately failed. Theudas in 58 C.E., Menachem ben Judah ben Hezekiah, Simon ben Kosevah, Moses of Crete, Abu Isa, Al-Ra'i" ("the shepherd of the flock of his people"), Saüra the Syrian, to name a few.
Ultimately, there has never been a true Jewish messiah because they all failed in their missions and were killed by the Romans. Yeshua (Jesus) failed as a messiah and stood in a long line of failed messiahs.
By the first century A.D., the Jews were looking for strong, magnetic leaders who could deliver them from the wrath of the Roman Empire. The Essenes developed the idea of a messiah figure that would provide this. Several Jewish leaders were set to take over after the death of the Jewish King Herod, who primarily worked for the Romans. To qualify as a messiah, someone needed to be from the bloodline of King David. None of the descendants of King David and their misled disciples succeeded, and most were killed.
While these messiah figures drew support from the claim they descended from King David, wherein Judaic tradition did this claim that Davidic pedigree was necessary to become a Messiah come from? When King David ruled Israel (circa 10th century B.C.E.), the conviction arose that his progeny would “rule forever, not only over Israel but also over all the nations”.
One that stands out is a former slave of King Herod by the name of Simon of Perea. Simon was the first heretical Jew who managed to convince a large portion of the Jews that he was the King of Jews and Jehova's Messiah. When the Roman Empire caught wind of this they dispatched military units to put an end to this claim. They would eventually corner and behead Simon in 4 B.C.
Anthronges was another deified Messiah who waged a serious war against the Roman Empire and also lost. Next came Yeshua the Nazarene. Proclaiming himself king of the Jews, Yeshua was eventually hunted down and crucified. Oddly enough, Yeshua was far from a warrior, would never be able to lead men in battle or control the logistics of a military campaign. Had King David met Yeshua, he would have been greatly disappointed with the gentle ideas of this self-proclaimed messiah.
New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, eloquently stated:
"To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”
After Yeshua there came a dozen other Messianic campaigns, none of which are publicized by the Abrahamic faith, and all of which ultimately failed. Theudas in 58 C.E., Menachem ben Judah ben Hezekiah, Simon ben Kosevah, Moses of Crete, Abu Isa, Al-Ra'i" ("the shepherd of the flock of his people"), Saüra the Syrian, to name a few.
Ultimately, there has never been a true Jewish messiah because they all failed in their missions and were killed by the Romans. Yeshua (Jesus) failed as a messiah and stood in a long line of failed messiahs.
Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
Bart Ehrman believes Jesus existed.
I am not Christian and don't believe Jesus was a messiah. There may be 'just as many' articles you found online that support your view, but it is not the accepted scholarly consensus. You stated otherwise, and all I was doing was pointing out your error.
'Amir Alzzalam
Šayṭānist
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 350
- Points
- 83
I highly doubt he does . . .
Ehrman was raised as an Anglican in the Episcopal Church; as a teenager, he became a born-again evangelical.[1][4][5] In Misquoting Jesus, he recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[1][4] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to study ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and textual criticism. During such studies at Princeton, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:[1]
He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist
Bart Ehrman (who himself rejects the Christ myth theory) summarises Earl Doherty's view as being "that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition"
Despite your claim that the majority of 'scholars' agree that Yeshua objectively existed, let me ask you for 'any' objective proof of his existence.
Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
From the article: "So many independent attestations of Jesus' existence, Ehrman says, are actually "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind".[2]
Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were primarily influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones,[1][2] and repeatedly underlining that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered by historians or experts in the field at all.[1]"
'Amir Alzzalam
Šayṭānist
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 350
- Points
- 83
I suggest you read the entire Wiki article like I didDid Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) - Wikipedia
And where is your unrefutable objective proof of His actual existence?
Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
I'm literally only posting it to demonstrate what this clearly states:
"In this book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus of Nazareth at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that "whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist."[1][2]".
I said Ehrman believes Jesus existed, you said you highly doubted he does. He also backs up my assertion that experts agree that Jesus existed. Nobody can have a fruitful discussion unless the facts are stated: most experts agree Jesus existed, and Ehrman does too. You can feel free to say Jesus didn't exist, but don't distort the views of others. That's YOUR view, not Ehrman's.
Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
It's like stating that most scientists believe the Earth is flat and in particular Neil DeGrasse Tyson does, when both statements are clearly false. Go ahead and state YOU believe the Earth is flat, but don't bring others falsely into the equation.
'Amir Alzzalam
Šayṭānist
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 350
- Points
- 83
I wish you had read the Wiki article, which you clearly didn't.
Ehrman is now an atheist and thoroughly refutes the existence of Yeshua
That aside . . . where is your proof of His existence or that He wrote one letter of what is presented as His teachings?
Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
Oh my gooooosh. He believes Jesus EXISTED. Not that he was the messiah, which I never stated. I did read the Wikipedia article. He doesn't "thoroughly refute the existence" of Jesus. He argues for Jesus' existence.
Last edited:
'Amir Alzzalam
Šayṭānist
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 350
- Points
- 83
Isn't that what we're debating? Yeah sure, some guy, at some time was called Yeshua and probably existed. What's your point now? Yeshua the Son of God, the Messiah, the guy crucified, blah blah blah . . . he never existed.
Isn't this like stating that someone named John actually existed?
Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
I....what? Bart Ehrman believes Jesus the man Christianity is founded on, existed. He is not a Christian. He doesn't believe what Christians SAY about Jesus, but he believes Jesus existed, and he believes he was crucified. Stop misrepresenting what people believe.
Modesty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 88
Like, are you ignoring that Ehrman actually said: "So many independent attestations of Jesus' existence, Ehrman says, are actually "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind" (from the Wikipedia article I previously posted). The same article reads "To the objection that there are no contemporary Roman records of Jesus' existence, Ehrman points out that such records exist for almost no one and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman and Jewish works of history from only decades after the Crucifixion of Jesus, such as Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews and Tacitus's Annals."