Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus?
January 14, 2013 at 8:23 am
(This post was last modified: January 14, 2013 at 8:35 am by Sciworks.)
I think this is worth putting in as a new thread, sometimes trolls spam threads with abuse instead of commenting on content.
There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus is nothing but a story corrupted from previous stories. 'Christ' actually comes from two supposed Roman documents which were actually written (copied?) by Christian monks in the Medieval period. One of those shows a clear forging of the the name Chrestianos to Christianos. There are no original documents around the time in existence that mention Jesus or Christ.
So.... if you are going to believe anything those biased monks wrote, then you also have to believe that Chrestus led a rebellion against Claudius. Jewish temples were not just places of worship then, they were banks and held gold and money for lending. That is why, around that time, Roman emperors and governors, like Agrippa II (Herod 2) had trouble with the priests, who were in effect the bankers of their time.
It is written that Chrestus led an uprising, it was probably about money, interest rates or something else that Claudius wanted to impose on the bank.
Then, 20 years later, Nero blamed the Chrestians for burning part of Rome. We have all been told how bad Nero was, but in fact he wanted a better deal for the poor and this probably enraged the Jewish bankers (he called them Chrestians, as named from the Chrestus uprising 20 years before) who set fire to some of the city.
Chrestus and his followers were persecuted and put to death in the arena, they were probably Jewish bankers and certainly had nothing to do with mythical 'Christians' which is just a corruption of Chrestionos, followers of Chrestus.
If you think I am being anti-Semite, the fact that Jewish temples were used as banks is written online in Jewish wikkis on Jewish sites.
What do you think?
There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus is nothing but a story corrupted from previous stories. 'Christ' actually comes from two supposed Roman documents which were actually written (copied?) by Christian monks in the Medieval period. One of those shows a clear forging of the the name Chrestianos to Christianos. There are no original documents around the time in existence that mention Jesus or Christ.
So.... if you are going to believe anything those biased monks wrote, then you also have to believe that Chrestus led a rebellion against Claudius. Jewish temples were not just places of worship then, they were banks and held gold and money for lending. That is why, around that time, Roman emperors and governors, like Agrippa II (Herod 2) had trouble with the priests, who were in effect the bankers of their time.
It is written that Chrestus led an uprising, it was probably about money, interest rates or something else that Claudius wanted to impose on the bank.
Then, 20 years later, Nero blamed the Chrestians for burning part of Rome. We have all been told how bad Nero was, but in fact he wanted a better deal for the poor and this probably enraged the Jewish bankers (he called them Chrestians, as named from the Chrestus uprising 20 years before) who set fire to some of the city.
Chrestus and his followers were persecuted and put to death in the arena, they were probably Jewish bankers and certainly had nothing to do with mythical 'Christians' which is just a corruption of Chrestionos, followers of Chrestus.
If you think I am being anti-Semite, the fact that Jewish temples were used as banks is written online in Jewish wikkis on Jewish sites.
What do you think?
