PointB:


This God matter self is very critical for understand. When someone mentions 'God' it's important to place it in context. Which 'God' - Yahweh, Allah, Amun Ra, Baal? By the way, these 'Gods' here have their origin in Sumeria. They were collectively called Elohim (the powerful ones or assembly of Gods). Until the Hebrews replaced Elohim with Yahweh, and then later God Almighty to transistion from polytheism to monotheism

PointB:
This God matter self is very critical for understand. When someone mentions 'God' it's important to place it in context. Which 'God' - Yahweh, Allah, Amun Ra, Baal? By the way, these 'Gods' here have their origin in Sumeria. They were collectively called Elohim (the powerful ones or assembly of Gods). Until the Hebrews replaced Elohim with Yahweh, and then later God Almighty to transistion from polytheism to monotheism

PointB:


Let's narrow down to the depiction of the name in the English bible which were are familiar with. Is Jesus easier to pronounce compare to Yeshua? The original name of Jesus is Yeshua, same as Joshua. So why did they leave one Joshua in the bible and created a Jesus? An argument put forward was that they were trying to distinguish Joshua the one who led Israel into Canaan from the Joshua the messiah, the question is what were they calling him until 1524? When did they realize there was confusion with the two Joshua? I'm only asking question cos many of you just accept things the way you see them.

You can keep holding on to straw as religion demands, but that does not stop non-religious people from seeking answers to academic question.

Jesus was dark toned man; depict your messiah correctly let the people decide how they feel. What's the need for packaging? Is Christianity ashamed of the color of the messiah as suggested by the Roman authority?

PointB:


Let's narrow down to the depiction of the name in the English bible which were are familiar with. Is Jesus easier to pronounce compare to Yeshua? The original name of Jesus is Yeshua, same as Joshua. So why did they leave one Joshua in the bible and created a Jesus? An argument put forward was that they were trying to distinguish Joshua the one who led Israel into Canaan from the Joshua the messiah, the question is what were they calling him until 1524? When did they realize there was confusion with the two Joshua? I'm only asking question cos many of you just accept things the way you see them.

You can keep holding on to straw as religion demands, but that does not stop non-religious people from seeking answers to academic question.

Jesus was dark toned man; depict your messiah correctly let the people decide how they feel. What's the need for packaging? Is Christianity ashamed of the color of the messiah as suggested by the Roman authority?

SHIVA001:

Oga go sit down, have you seen Jesus before. Or you only read it in book, or the bible.? I'm a realist and you are a believer. I'm not here to argue weather Jesus existed or not with you. If Jesus Christ existed or not it did not makes any meaning. It's Jesus qualities which is love and compassion. That is what matters.

PointB:


It's completely possible to make up fictional characters, and introduce them into the society. Okonkwo and Amalinze did not exists, but Things Fall Apart gave them a larger than live appearance, with their stories situated in real life environment of the Igbo people with the coming of the missionary, A few truth garnished with a lot of lies is what propagandist mostly use. As we speak a bible has been written with Kanye West as the creator, as God. Given time and enough propaganda, as no one will remember the story of the deity God of Israel and his supposed creation of heaven and earth.

But I would not argue against the existence of Yeshua as, clearly, alot of evidence suggests he existed. But the issue here is was Jesus same as Yeshua? That's the question one need to answer especially with all the evidence to show that the bible has been several edited to infuse Roman culture to make the bible more acceptable to the roman empire. Secondly a lot of efforts were made after the fact to promote the idea of Jesus' divinity, whereas the Yeshua that came was just a man like you and I.


When some religious group sponsored and expedition to Mesopotamia to confirm the truth of several bible account, what they found is mindboggling. I believe that's something you need to research yourself.

Maynman:


Which secular historian?
Hope it’s not Josephus?
Josephus was talking about judas of Galilee.

Maynman:


Which secular historian?
Hope it’s not Josephus?
Josephus was talking about judas of Galilee.

Maynman:


Which secular historian?
Hope it’s not Josephus?
Josephus was talking about judas of Galilee.

MaxInDHouse:
You looks really young on Instagram but with this ọmọ you're older in wisdom walahi talahi!

Aemmyjah:

Aemmyjah:


Blind, ignorant MAYNMENT

Aemmyjah:


MAYNMENT will DELIBERATELY pretend that no secular historian of the first century wrote anything about Jesus or his disciples to FOOL his fellow blind men

Maynman:


Animaljah will deliberately pretend that his savior ever existed in history.
This unfortunate animal doesn’t know that Josephus book have been interpolated by early Christians.
Not to forget that all the sources of these books come from Eusebius, a master forger

Maynman:


Foolish, ignorant Animaljah.
Josephus mentions over 20 other men by the name of Jesus in his works.

All your sources of your savior are from dubious sources

Maynman:


Christian interpolation.

Aemmyjah:


Mented individual
Is this shot you shared trying to discredit the EXISTENCE of Jesus? Ment indeed
Remember that Josephus was not a believer in Jesus Christ

Aemmyjah:

Whether the people acknowledge Jesus as the christ or not is not my problem
Even when he was on earth, people did not accept him, so I'm not surprised

Is the nonsense you just posting an evidence that Jesus NEVER EXISTED?

Aemmyjah:


Pained person

MAYNMENT in pains
Blind fool that attacks Bible as myth and still use historical records to bash other groups
He brought up his biased shot of Josephus, I brought up mine and he's so sad, he can't refute it than to discredit the historian as a whole.
What about the Historian, Tacitus?
Bible has now turned from myth to a forged document
Ment indeed

Maynman:


Animal individual.
The shot I shared is talking about Josephus work, and Josephus was talking about judas of Galilee.
Not to forget that all the copy of Josephus work that mentions “jesus” is gotten from Eusebius, A Master FORGER.

Maynman:


How does this statement sense Animaljah, “ Blind fool that attacks Bible as myth and still use historical records to bash other groups”

Why are christians interpolating?
What’s the aim?

Tacitus was talking about Chrestians, the christian monks were the one that interpolated it, it’s glaring everywhere.

Aemmyjah:


Pained ment has shifted the goalposts from the existence of Jesus to one intwrpolations or the other. Is Jesus a historical figure or not?

Aemmyjah:


MAYNMENT is running from the light as he wants to seek darkness but he thinks he's playing with premium churchgoers that listen to what daddy GO says

Maynman:

Animal Jah.
Your argument is based on interpolation, if you had knowledge you’ll know?

Which jesus is a historical figure?

You are the sounding pained here

Maynman:


All your sources of your saviour are from dubious places, the illiterate even mentioned tacitus, let’s talk about it na

Maynman:


All your sources of your saviour are from dubious places, the illiterate even mentioned tacitus, let’s talk about it na

Aemmyjah:


Where's Tacitus here na?

I hope you know that
Josephus
Tacitus
Soeticus
Pliny the Younger

None of them were Christians. The Roman historians were even very hateful of Christians
Now you mention about the activity Christians but their founder, Christ, never existed?
And you want us to believe say u no ment?
Original MENTor

Aemmyjah:


Note that I'm not going to force you or anyone other blind person to believe in Jesus Christ. Trying to lead the blind who don't want to see light will frustrate you.

You want us to believe the historian records OF Pilate, Caesar, Christians, etc but when they mentioned Jesus, you want us to believe it was a scammer that added it? Shame
Why not dispute the existence of Confucius who existed long before Jesus came to earth?
We don't really have secular records of him but no one says anything but we already have for Jesus, dem say na scam

Aemmyjah:


Shameless ment is looking to the internet to discredit what he has seen.
I laugh you in Swahili
Nobody disputed Jesus existence in the first millennium
Na una wan start, continue.
Lick your pains
Even people in Jesus time has problems as to who he really was
You have not given us any proof that Jesus NEVER existed.

They will say the name is different (Yeshua n Joshua)
They will say the Gospel writers copied one another
They will say he had 12 disciples but only 4 accounts were written
They will say that nothing is known about his life from when he was 12 till 29 cos he spent his childhood tormenting people according to one yeye book, The Gospel of Thomas
Go n eat poop

PointB:
First you have to die before you can resurrect, right?

Here is documentary from BBC Archive claiming that Jesus perhaps did not die on the cross. And the that the bible had been edited several times to adjust for resurrection.

What more? It suggested that Jesus lived into old age, and left several evidence for people who seek the truth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5rn5ZL9eWQ

Aemmyjah:


Where's Tacitus here na?

I hope you know that
Josephus
Tacitus
Soeticus
Pliny the Younger

None of them were Christians. The Roman historians were even very hateful of Christians
Now you mention about the activity Christians but their founder, Christ, never existed?
And you want us to believe say u no ment?
Original MENTor