[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[WinterHold]

There are 2 versions of Jesus.
The first is Jesus the prophet. He lived and died.
The second is "Roman Jesus"; the figure we see drawn in "Roman" based Churches.

The first Jesus called for God; Roman slaves believed in his message and believed in the salvation that came with him.

The second Jesus can't talk; poor thing is a mere drawing on some Roman-Christian Church; collecting dust.

The first Jesus was famous for doing many miracles, and especially for a book that was revealed to him called "the bible".

The second Jesus was famous for authoring a porn book, focusing on Jewish erotica mixed with Roman porn that was infamous for its brutality, when executed you get the Conquest of America, Vlad the Impaler, the Crusades,...

The first Jesus is my master.

The second Jesus is...a gladiator with mental problems. They even called him "Mental Messiah" in ancient Rome. He got defeated by Muslims, Mongols, Romans..and eventually the outnumbered atheists and illumination period knights..Poor thing is a drawing on a wall; he can't fight.

I suppose you are fucked up out of your mind. I think everyone here is withness of that.

Who lost his mind; truly?
Me, or the person who says "the universe had no starting point" or the person who takes erotic Jewish literature as their holy book?

[The Grand Nudger]

Jewish myths were good enough for the romans and Mighty Mo..but not good enough for you, huh?

[WinterHold]

No jesus wrote or had any of magic book "revealed to them"...regardless of what you believe about the existence of either of the two fictional characters you're comparing above.  That's simply not how any of that happened, and if we're going down that route....then we can abandon all pretense of historicity from the outset.

There were numerous stories about Jesus, it's a shame that we believe in Spartacus -for example- and forget other figures in Roman history that caused revolts among the slaves of the empire.

The message of the first Jesus -the authentic Jesus- shattered the gigantic empire into two, and ironically the one that survived and thrived was the empire that advocated Jesus -i.e the Eastern Roman empire-.

---

Two men say they’re Jesus,
One of them must be wrong!

No.
The first is a man, a mere prophet of God.
The second is a whole Roman council of horny men:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

---

◄ Ezekiel 23:20 ►

New International Version
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

[The Valkyrie]

No jesus wrote or had any of magic book "revealed to them"...regardless of what you believe about the existence of either of the two fictional characters you're comparing above.  That's simply not how any of that happened, and if we're going down that route....then we can abandon all pretense of historicity from the outset.

There were numerous stories about Jesus, it's a shame that we believe in Spartacus -for example- and forget other figures in Roman history that caused revolts among the slaves of the empire.

The message of the first Jesus -the authentic Jesus- shattered the gigantic empire into two, and ironically the one that survived and thrived was the empire that advocated Jesus -i.e the Eastern Roman empire-.

---

Two men say they’re Jesus,
One of them must be wrong!

No.
The first is a man, a mere prophet of God.
The second is a whole Roman council of horny men:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

---

◄ Ezekiel 23:20 ►

New International Version
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Meanwhile the first Jesus says,
“I’ll cure it soon. Abolish monday morning,
And Friday afternoon.”

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not why the roman empire split, at all. Nor was there any lack of "jesus" in the western empire for that to be a disparity between them.

Like I said - we can dispense with any pretense of historicity. You're not interested in it, you're not discussing it. You are recounting your own novel mythology.

[maxolla]

This is where the discussion gets interesting.  You’ve just made five unsupported claims.  Actually six with “please don’t bother to list those that you think qualify.  They don’t”.  I’m perfectly willing to talk specifics with regards to evidence but wouldn’t a starting point be a willingness to at least weigh the evidence on the merits?

I’m curious how the "Jesus myth" was perpetrated.  This claim seems to be the most outrageous.  One of the, arguably, most written about figures in human history has been made up?  The idea that Jesus never existed is as much a fantastic claim as to say Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist.  The story of Jesus of Nazareth is one that has been corroborated many times over and repeated for over two thousand years.  If Jesus did not exist then we have one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated?  Perpetrated by generations of individuals with a oneness of purpose in the perpetration.  I wonder what the purpose would be for a conspiracy spanning over two thousand years of a phantom named Jesus.

There are certainly contemporaneous mentions of Jesus but you have deemed them unqualified by your standards I assume.

Max

If my claims are unsupported, you'll need to show contemporaneous accounts (meaning accounts written during his purported lifetime) of a figure who corresponds to the Jesus of the Gospel narrative.

You can, of course, list whatever accounts you think would support an historic Jesus.  I only asked that you not do so because these (Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, etc) have been refuted so often that it becomes tiresome.

If being frequently written about is a basis for historicity, then King Arthur and Robin Hood are historic figures.  But perpetuation of the Jesus myth isn't all that hard to explain.  It perpetuated in the same way that any other religion does.  Are you claiming that the figures in Greek mythology and Hinduism are historic?

But I don't think the Jesus myth is a conspiracy in the sense you seem to be using the word.  I suspect that the great majority of Christians sincerely believe in an historic Jesus and aren't trying to fool anybody about it, which would seem to be required for this to be a conspiracy.

Boru

The historical Jesus is pretty well documented.  I have not heard of any serious historians that refute the existence of Jesus but I’m sure they exist.  Along with the historical writings of the individuals you mentioned are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  The writings of these men have been verified by those contemporary historians.  No where have I found controversy over his existence by historians of the period.  That being said, historical data can always be called into question no matter the reputation of the historian.

As for conflating the story of Jesus with King Arthur and Robin Hood...These are stories written hundreds of years after the events depicted and were known at the time as fictional characters.  Far less writings exist on, say king Arthur and it is widely known that he was a fictional character.  In short, your argument is based on a blatant false equivalence.  

Thanks

Max

[The Grand Nudger]

To be blunt, all "serious historians" of jesus refute the existence of every jesus..except for their own.

The historical writings mentioned were not contemporaneous accounts, or accounts of any jesus, but accounts of people who believed in a jesus, and what they believed. Just as I could recount for you the existence and beliefs of a group of pagans in central florida. There is no "in addition to" here, because these are categorically not what was asked of you. Nor are the gospels in any sense, at all..such accounts as were requested - and no "serious nt scholar" will ever tell you otherwise.

There's this amusing thing where believers hang their hats on lines like "all scholars agree that" - without looking into exactly what they agree on. Turns out, they all agree that everyone is wrong about a historical jesus. The second bit, about the gospels being contemporaneous historical accounts..that wasn't a misunderstanding, you just made it up. We've known they were no such thing since before we chose what those gospels would be. They were selected for their theological content, narrative continuity, and constituent popularity - not their historical value.

This is perfectly understandable, they were creating a demi-god..not writing news reports from the front.

[LastPoet]

But what is the second Jesus doing here?
I thought this was a topic about Islam !

You don't get a say on witch fantasy fan walks in any thread, actually, he didn't even engaged any of you allah worshippers, just us unbelievers.

[The Grand Nudger]

Islam is attached at the hip to christianity just as christianity hobbled itself with judaism a few centuries beforehand.

Not one...but three sets of lies have to be true for Big Mo's story to hold water, historically speaking. That's the risk of using a borrowed ladder.

[WinterHold]

But what is the second Jesus doing here?
I thought this was a topic about Islam !

You don't get a say on witch fantasy fan walks in any thread, actually, he didn't even engaged any of you allah worshippers, just us unbelievers.

Of course he engaged me. Islam is the last message in a series of messages that started from the dawn of time; among its prophets are Jesus peace be upon him, then Mohammed peace be upon him.

Allah, God, Yahweh, in every tongue his message was recited, and anybody trying to cut down his message into distinct names must be ignored. The last of the messages is the Quran.

So me and you don't quite see with the same lenses. You can convince yourself that the piece of cake you picked is the truth; but I take the full cake, and keep the rotten pieces outside. You know; rotten pieces that speak about Donkey penises and horse cum.

In other words; he doesn't get to bring Roman porn and throw it on Jesus peace be upon him without a discussion.