Richirich713:


Obviously they will make up stories against jesus, jesus was the most significant influence in the 1st century, Jews and gentiles were converting, so obviously jews who didn't believe in him will make up stories against him.

U clearly don't believe this story about Pantheras based on historical evidence or any evidence, you just believe it cuz it's against jesus.

Isa, Yisa, Jisha, Joshua, Yashua are not thesame name as Jesus and Christ was never the surname of any Jew ever. That alone speaks volumes. We all know the doctrines of Christianity. Christ died for all past, present and future sins, this directly rends the moral fabric of the society since its a natural attraction for incorrigible criminals. The slogan is 'Nobody is perfect'. This is a dangerous culture to adopt for any society. Then Christians are terrorists, they say if you don't believe, submit to and follow their heresy, God will burn you in hell. Many people believe this, seeing unbelievers as hell bound and lost. This is dangerous. Such terrorism needs to stop and adults need to be told they have to be perfect, they have to be able to rationalise all their actions. I hope you see this. The doctrines of Christianity are evil.

Also the writers of the Bible made many things up that never happened like Herod killing all baby boys. So the Jewish account is more believable. They have no reason to lie.

lawani:

Isa, Yisa, Jisha, Joshua, Yashua are not thesame name as Jesus and Christ was never the surname of any Jew ever. That alone speaks volumes.

Yeshua Is his original name, Jesus is a translation.

No one said Jesus surname was Christ, all it means is "jesus the messiah". It's nothing to do with surnames.

If u don't know this basic stuff, u shouldn't be criticizing him.

lawani:

We all know the doctrines of Christianity. Christ died for all past, present and future sins, this directly rends the moral fabric of the society since its a natural attraction for incorrigible criminals. The slogan is 'Nobody is perfect'. This is a dangerous culture to adopt for any society. Then Christians are terrorists, they say if you don't believe, submit to and follow their heresy, God will burn you in hell. Many people believe this, seeing unbelievers as hell bound and lost. This is dangerous. Such terrorism needs to stop and adults need to be told they have to be perfect, they have to be able to rationalise all their actions. I hope you see this. The doctrines of Christianity are evil.

Plz don't change the topic now, but I will still respond.

1st jesus didn't say if u accept him u should continue to sin, if anyone accepts him as their savior they must live according to his teachings.

2ndly do u really think God is going to allow stubborn evil people to always hurt the righteous?

Definitely not, he gives evil people so much time, he allows the righteous to suffer for the sake of the evil. He evens offers the unrighteous a new heart, but they refuse, he warns them that a time is coming when he will judge and separate them from the righteous, but they mock not understanding how much mercy he shows them.

lawani:

Also the writers of the Bible made many things up that never happened like Herod killing all baby boys. So the Jewish account is more believable. They have no reason to lie.

U see wat I mean, how u will pick and use anything against jesus. 1st the Jews are reliable when it comes to Panthera evens tho its only them who believe that but when it comes to Matthew and the Jews who believe in jesus suddenly u question the events as fake and made up.

Yes they have many reasons, the person they were most against was jesus, that's enough reasons to lie against him like they did to get him crucified.

Speaking about having no reasons to lie, the disciples of jesus who died violently for claiming he raise from the dead definitely had no reason to lie.

But since it's comes to Jesus u probably rejected all his followers as unreliable and liars.

Why are you insisting people lied sir? Jesus broke the law by saying he was God and above others, the creator of us all. So the Jews arrested him because of that. Isn't that in the Bible? So where is the lie in that?

Some people during the 2nd century AD started claiming his mother was a virgin but accounts of eye witnesses called them out on that, offering the name of the man who impregnated Mary. So you would rather believe a virgin gave birth against a sensible eye witness account? Jews remain the highest authourity on the matter and Jesus was not the first nor the last heretic they executed. People are still executed for heresy even in today's world. How is Jesus different? It is demonic to be saying someone died for your past, present and future sins. If you did something wrong, please correct it by restitution because no one died for anyone's sins. We all need to be rational adults and stop dancing to the tune of demons. Egotistic claims should not be encouraged. Thank you.

lawani:
Why are you insisting people lied sir? Jesus broke the law by saying he was God and above others, the creator of us all. So the Jews arrested him because of that. Isn't that in the Bible? So where is the lie in that?

"The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
(Mark 14:56-59)

lawani:

Some people during the 2nd century AD started claiming his mother was a virgin but accounts of eye witnesses called them out on that, offering the name of the man who impregnated Mary. So you would rather believe a virgin gave birth against a sensible eye witness account? Jews remain the highest authourity on the matter and Jesus was not the first nor the last heretic they executed. People are still executed for heresy even in today's world. How is Jesus different? It is demonic to be saying someone died for your past, present and future sins. If you did something wrong, please correct it by restitution because no one died for anyone's sins. We all need to be rational adults and stop dancing to the tune of demons. Egotistic claims should not be encouraged. Thank you.

Actually I wud rather not trust Jews who seek and used false witnesses against him. Also people didn't start to claim he was born of a virgin during the second century, it was already going on during his life.

U keep saying Jews remain the highest authority but u rejected the most reliable historical sources for jesus namely the New Testament documents which were written by Jews.

Richirich713:



"The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
(Mark 14:56-59)




Actually I wud rather not trust Jews who seek and used false witnesses against him. Also people didn't start to claim he was born of a virgin during the second century, it was already going on during his life.

U keep saying Jews remain the highest authority but u rejected the most reliable historical sources for jesus namely the New Testament documents which were written by Jews.

Excellent response

Richirich713:



"The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
(Mark 14:56-59)




Actually I wud rather not trust Jews who seek and used false witnesses against him. Also people didn't start to claim he was born of a virgin during the second century, it was already going on during his life.

U keep saying Jews remain the highest authority but u rejected the most reliable historical sources for jesus namely the New Testament documents which were written by Jews.

When I say Jews I mean credible Jews who got their accounts from families and friends of Jesus, not Bible accounts whose authours are unknown. I beg you to try and understand. The only new testament writer whose identity is certain is Paul the Apostle who never met Jesus, and Paul, though educated appears to be impressionable and fickle minded. Try and understand.

I still don't get where you say the Jews lied. Is it that Jesus never blasphemed by calling himself God or they used a retroactive decree to execute him or what? Please explain. Do you believe Jesus was posturing as God? If so, why blame Jews for charging him.

As a relative or friend of Mary who new Mr Pantheras, you would have relayed your account to counter the virgin story which is how the Jewish accounts came about. Thanks.

lawani:


When I say Jews I mean credible Jews who got their accounts from families and friends of Jesus, not Bible accounts whose authours are unknown. I beg you to try and understand. The only new testament writer whose identity is certain is Paul the Apostle who never met Jesus, and Paul, though educated appears to be impressionable and fickle minded. Try and understand.

Bible authors unknown, that's only to those who apply different standards to the bible regarding its historical evidence. This is ancient writings not modern, ancient biographies almost never had the author name himself.

"In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written "this is my version" instead of "this is what Jesus said and did".
(The Historical Figure Of Jesus, E.P Sanders)

Furthermore we have enough evidence and tradition to support that mark, luke, matthew and John wrote the gospels. We can't just brush off the evidence aside just be cuz the author doesn't name himself.

Interesting u believe in the story Pantheras evens tho every historical scholar I hear of rejects the story as unreliable. Also where did u get this idea they were eye witnesses, this was hundreds of years after jesus. Evens Bart Ehrman considers the story made up to insult christians.

And I'm saying hundreds of years cuz u probably don't consider late 2nd century church father Origen reliable.

lawani:

I still don't get where you say the Jews lied. Is it that Jesus never blasphemed by calling himself God or they used a retroactive decree to execute him or what? Please explain. Do you believe Jesus was posturing as God? If so, why blame Jews for charging him.

As a relative or friend of Mary who new Mr Pantheras, you would have relayed your account to counter the virgin story which is how the Jewish accounts came about. Thanks.

It's not about jesus claiming to be God, it's about the Jewish Leaders who used many false witnesses against him. They using lies against him cuz they couldn't find any evidence.

What? As a relative or friend of Mary?

Guy the friends of jesus wasn't even around, why would his mother's be. Her friends wud had been hundreds of years old if they were there.

Again this is basic knowledge, if u don't no these things u definitely shouldn't be speaking against Jesus and Mary.

U will reject the earliest stuff we have on Jesus but accept writings hundreds of years after him as more reliable.

Richirich713:


Bible authors unknown, that's only to those who apply different standards to the bible regarding its historical evidence. This is ancient writings not modern, ancient biographies almost never had the author name himself.

"In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written "this is my version" instead of "this is what Jesus said and did".
(The Historical Figure Of Jesus, E.P Sanders)

Furthermore we have enough evidence and tradition to support that mark, luke, matthew and John wrote the gospels. We can't just brush off the evidence aside just be cuz the author doesn't name himself.

Interesting u believe in the story Pantheras evens tho every historical scholar I hear of rejects the story as unreliable. Also where did u get this idea they were eye witnesses, this was hundreds of years after jesus. Evens Bart Ehrman considers the story made up to insult christians.

And I'm saying hundreds of years cuz u probably don't consider late 2nd century church father Origen reliable.



It's not about jesus claiming to be God, it's about the Jewish Leaders who used many false witnesses against him. They using lies against him cuz they couldn't find any evidence.

What? As a relative or friend of Mary?

Guy the friends of jesus wasn't even around, why would his mother's be. Her friends wud had been hundreds of years old if they were there.

Again this is basic knowledge, if u don't no these things u definitely shouldn't be speaking against Jesus and Mary.

U will reject the earliest stuff we have on Jesus but accept writings hundreds of years after him as more reliable.

Don't trivialise the debate sir, when I say eye witness accounts, I mean as passed down. For example the Ijesa account that Owa Obokun procured brine to cure Oduduwa's old age blindness is an eye witness account. That Oranmiyan left Owomika as an infant King in Benin is an eye witness account, that Oranyan mobilized an army to go and expel the Mohammedans from Mecca but turned back at the River Niger to establish Oyo ile is an eye witness account. Not fantasies, cooked or made up stories to manipulate the masses. I hope you get it.

Why I will not accuse anyone of writing the new testament account is because those accounts were written by fraudsters. Take the Herod killing babies story for instance, putting something in the Bible that never happened. What do you call that?

lawani:


Don't trivialise the debate sir, when I say eye witness accounts, I mean as passed down. For example the Ijesa account that Owa Obokun procured brine to cure Oduduwa's old age blindness is an eye witness account. That Oranmiyan left Owomika as an infant King in Benin is an eye witness account, that Oranyan mobilized an army to go and expel the Mohammedans from Mecca but turned back at the River Niger to establish Oyo ile is an eye witness account. Not fantasies, cooked or made up stories to manipulate the masses. I hope you get it.

Why I will not accuse anyone of writing the new testament account is because those accounts were written by fraudsters. Take the Herod killing babies story for instance, putting something in the Bible that never happened. What do you call that?

U again apply extreme double standards, the bible is unreliable cuz we don't have external evidence of this massacre but when it comes to the Talmud or Origen quotes, it's the most reliable thing on jesus evens if it comes hundreds of years after him.

I think of it logically, that we don't no all Herod deeds, but we know he was paranoid about competition to his throne.

Just like skeptics used to think Daniel made up a king or that the bible made up Pilate or that Luke got it wrong on Lysanias or that the bible made up the occurrence of an eclipse in the 1st century.

Or that the bible made up towns like Bethlehem or Nazareth and Capernaum and the list just goes on and on.

U can't claim a event like the massacre of infants didn't occur just because one historical source mentions it, especially if that same source mentions numerous other names and events that were rejected in the past for the same reason u believe Herod massacre was made up but were later verified to be true.

We can't prove everything in the bible thru archeological evidence or historical evidence. It's simply impossible, especially if u living 2000 years after the time the NT was written.

The NT has more than enough evidence to stand as a historical source. If skeptics want to raise the bar to the point where everything in the NT must be proven beyond a doubt then they should reject the existence of practically everyone in the 1st century and about every event they are believed to participated in. All we will have is dead bodies and tombs.

Also u spoke about eyewitnesses :


"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke 1:1-4

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain." 2 Peter 1:16-18

As I said before u only believe this story of a Roman soldier cuz it's against jesus, whom u urself is against.

Richirich713:


U again apply extreme double standards, the bible is unreliable cuz we don't have external evidence of this massacre but when it comes to the Talmud or Origen quotes, it's the most reliable thing on jesus evens if it comes hundreds of years after him.

I think of it logically, that we don't no all Herod deeds, but we know he was paranoid about competition to his throne.

Just like skeptics used to think Daniel made up a king or that the bible made up Pilate or that Luke got it wrong on Lysanias or that the bible made up the occurrence of an eclipse in the 1st century.

Or that the bible made up towns like Bethlehem or Nazareth and Capernaum and the list just goes on and on.

U can't claim a event like the massacre of infants didn't occur just because one historical source mentions it, especially if that same source mentions numerous other names and events that were rejected in the past for the same reason u believe Herod massacre was made up but were later verified to be true.

We can't prove everything in the bible thru archeological evidence or historical evidence. It's simply impossible, especially if u living 2000 years after the time the NT was written.

The NT has more than enough evidence to stand as a historical source. If skeptics want to raise the bar to the point where everything in the NT must be proven beyond a doubt then they should reject the existence of practically everyone in the 1st century and about every event they are believed to participated in. All we will have is dead bodies and tombs.

Also u spoke about eyewitnesses :


"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke 1:1-4

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain." 2 Peter 1:16-18

As I said before u only believe this story of a Roman soldier cuz it's against jesus, whom u urself is against.

Jesus in the new testament is a concept derived from a Jew executed for blasphemy by the Jews not a real person. The concept is based on several Gentile heros purportedly born of virgins impregnated by God, those heroes were monarchs like Appollo, Osiris and many others all born on 25 December. The person executed was a heretic named Isa bin Pantheras. After his exit his followers continued claiming he is son of God who has ascended to heaven after rising from the dead on the third day. He was seen as God incarnate by his followers. When Romans became Christians they changed the name of the heretic to Jesus Christ then started converting people by force. They embellished the story with Hellenistic and Egyptian myths which was also the basis of Jesus teaching originally having trained in Egypt. For example, he appointed 12 disciples just like Osiris.

Why the Herod story of infant genocide is false should be clear. Roman history is well recorded and Herod was a colonial officer who reported to Rome, he was not an absolute monarch. He once executed two of his sons for some minor offenses and the Roman emperor passed a commentary that was recorded 'It is safer to be one of Herod's pigs than to be one of his sons'. So if such a genocide of infants had occurred, it would surely have been recorded. Jewish accounts also claim Nimrod ordered all baby boys in Sumer to be murdered because his diviners told him Abraham, a new King was born. Such stories are most likely embellishments. We do not have so much record of Nimrod's rule in Sumer of over 5 thousand years ago but we have extensive record of the Roman empire of less than 2000 years ago and such an incidence could never have escaped mention. Anyone saying in 4050 AD or even 2150 AD that the US, Nigeria or even ISIS ordered a genocide of all infant boys in a country will be a liar unless the account is in the works of reputable, established and well known scholars of our era. Authours, newspapers, published works and etc. The Roman empire had many of such whose works are still in circulation today. Let us extricate ourselves from demonic manipulations sir. Let's break free. The Bible account is clearly not reliable. You believe Jesus postured as God, so you can't blame the Jews for charging him. He confessed in court, so I don't see the reason for your fixation on witnesses. Please let us be objective so as to be able to return humanity to God.