Is Jesus actually Ra of Egypt?
|
by
alex
Published on September 26th, 2008, 4:42 pm Rift: X |
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=z ... mb=0&aq=f#
|
by
alex
Published on September 26th, 2008, 4:42 pm Rift: X |
A false insertion since it refer to Jesus as teh son of God, something no Roman historian would ever do since the Emperor was the son of God and to claim otherwise would mean execution. Lets get something straight - there are no verifiable references to Jesus except the Bible itself, hence there is NO evidence that he ever existed. And even if the word Jesus was found in a parchment somewhere it would not mean anything since Jesus was a very common name. In fact history records up to 40 Jesuses who lived in Judea all claiming to be the MessiahJean Lafitte wrote:I do know, however, that the Roman/Judean historian Flavius Josephus reported on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth;
Lets get something else corrected while I am here. The writers of the 4 Gospels were not the disciples themselves, these books were given these names to give them authority just likes the Gnostic gospels. So claiming that Paul's gospels omits most of the prophecies cause he was not there etc is just stupid. Paul did not write Paul's gospel! And since Paul's gospel refers to the sacking of the Temple, the earliest it could have been written was 71AD. The latter gospels being effectively 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions of the original gospel and they sought to fill in gaps and fulfill all the prophecies that the first edition never bothered to cover.Was God sitting at the elbow of the writers of the Gospels and the other books of the Bible and nudging them to get the story just right?
Jovick wrote:So sayeth the people who wrote about him up to a century after his death, knowing that the people who read their tales would have no way of checking, and having a list of the "prophecies" on their desks. Yeah, that's really believable, man.
Most of the books of the new testament were written before 65AD. Using that as a point to deflect that many people wrote the same things is obvious.Tell me... Paul was the one who wrote about Jesus earlier than anyone else in the New Testament. What details did he mention about the man's life?
Paul never saw Jesus before he was crucified so he did not have any first hand information to give. Paul met Jesus after his resurrection. In fact Paul was probably the biggest atheist the world has ever seen before he converted. That's good news for people like you.
Paul was a Jew retardVirgin birth? Nope
The "flight to Egypt"? Nope
Born in Bethlehem? Nope
Grew up in Nazareth? Nope
Baptism by John? Nope
Miracles? Few if any
Triumphal entry to Jerusalem? Nope
Betrayal by a disciple? Nope
Trial before Pilate? One mention, with no details
Appearances before people after resurrection? Yes, but far different than any record in a Gospel or Acts.
Uh... Paul wasn't there dude.Yeah, it looks like an awful lot of the NT was cobbled together from stuff that was made up, not in response to anything that actually happened in reality.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Especially using the warped reasoning you just posted.
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:The other major problem with Josephus as a recorder of events surrounding Jesus' life is the complete lack of any mention of a slaughter of babies in Livlehem.
