Did Jesus ever even exist?

Well, without the divinity, isn't "Jesus" just a guy with a fairly common name? What exactly is it they agree upon?

 

Again where's your evidence that Mohammed initiated "open armed rebellion" produce your source or accept being ridiculed as a .......... (wotever) LOL

NOW lets see : (this is from wiki - not something I've fabricated )

The only crime that Jesus committed was to question the authority of the Pharisees . The position they bestowed upon themselves was not in accord with God's ways of bestowing authority upon a person, such as was given to Peter, James and John.
They knew that if the people were made aware of their self proclaimed authority they would be out of a job. Jesus had to go, he was therefore accused of proclaiming himself the son of God. This was, in short, considered to be the crime of "blasphemy".
According to Roman law as stated by Pilate, Jesus was innocent of any crime. Pilate said 'I find no fault in Him.'

Jesus was sentenced to death because Pilate gave in to the pressure exerted on him by the Jews, not because he believed Jesus to be guilty of any crime worthy of death.

Jesus was accused of being king of the Jews and as such undermining the authority of the Jewish elders who organized the Jewish faith.

The Jewish elders were the one's responsible for sending their accusations to the Roman government in Judea. The governor in charge of Judea, Pontius Pilate, was uneasy about condemning a man who did not do anything wrong under Roman law but needed quell the rioting mob of Jews that the Jewish elders assembled. Pilate had the elders seek the governor of Nazareth, Herod, because Jesus was from Nazareth and should be condemned by his own leader. But Herod did not do as the elders wished so they went back to Pilate to seek the execution that they had wished for from the beginning. Pilate had his hands tied and ordered for Jesus to be punished by whip and torture hoping that the Jewish elders would be happy. But he was wrong, they still kept up on the crucifiction of Jesus because of his blasphemy and Pilate had just one more trick up his sleeve. Because it was a certain holiday he was to let one prisoner go and had the mob of people rioting choose if they wanted Barberas a rapist, murdering heathen or Jesus who claims to the King of the Jews. The rioters picked Barberas and the sentencing for Jesus' death commenced.



SO , AS YOU CAN SEE THE TWO CASES ARE VERY DIFFERENT , yet has similarity in h that both Jesus and Mohamed challenged injustices/ and preached monotheism. One against corrupted/perverted Pharisees the other against idolatry - gendercide , tribal warfare / rivalries - etc,etc.


....

 

Better start ridiculing yourself then, because it would seem you have very little knowledge of the history of Islam, Mohammed, Byzantine Empire and the Middle East. I can produce sources for you, but I would prefer to give you the opportunity to source it out your self with today's internet access these information are readily and easily available if not your internet is limited or censored, try the library. I notice you have access to Wiki, well, Wiki will be a good place to start.

I guess you must have missed what I have said, that Pilate found no crime in Jesus and that the only reason he have Jesus crucified was to appease the Pharisees that is why Pilate allowed Jesus body to be taken down from the cross and be buried as a none criminal. And I agree with you too, Jesus was crucified because the Pharisees accuse him of blasphemy.

Unlike Jesus, Mohammed advocated full open warfare and destruction of certain group of people the Christians, Jews and all who refuse to submit to his Islam. Under the Roman law, Jesus is not a criminal because Jesus teachings were all none violence, on the other Mohammed is a criminal not because he was against idolatry but Mohammed lead an open armed rebellion, overthrow and invasion of the Byzantine Empire. In the end, Mohammed in spite of being guarded by arm body guards he would be assassinated by a Jewish woman whom Mohammed had her tribe massacred.

 

if he lived, his name was never Jesus while he was alive... people named him that after the he made a deal with god, my life for all their sins... god said deal... so legend goes

 

That's where the disputes lie. The discussion, part of it anyway, seems to be about the way to interpret the Gospels on the issue of his divinity. I think the agreement is on the fact that Yeshua lived and was a preacher and was executed by the authorities. Other than that it seems it's all up for debate.

 

Do not underestimate the native American history, Europeans have been very meticulous in recording every event that include the Spaniards consisting of not more than 1000 men under Cortez were able to defeat a superior Aztec forces numbering 10,000+, the success of Cortez was due to the fact that local tribes join him to fight the Aztecs the fire power of the Spaniards + the man power of other local tribes even up the odds against the Aztecs.

European authors would also later discover through archaeological research that the natives have a form of writing system especially the Aztecs and it was the combination of understanding those writings + archaeological discoveries + eye witness from the locals that allowed European historians to piece together native history that include their war policies against enemy tribes that would indicate that American tribes wage savage, brutal and genocidal wars against each other. The sudden disappearance of the once powerful Mayan nation is still being studied and theorised that it was wiped out by another native tribe.

http://www.ancientmexico.biz/ancien...the-mysterious-disappearance-of-their-empire/
One of the current theories states that the Lowlands Maya basically wiped one another out. Centuries of continous fighting between the city-states greatly depleted the population. In time, the combination of falling population from warfare and inadequate food from constant battles contributed to the condition where the cities could not be maintained and so were abandoned. In effect the jungle soil would no longer produce the food necessary to support a continuous state of war.

It is very evident that pre Europe America, the local tribes do practice genocide that is why many tribes join the Spaniards to fight against the Aztecs for survival. The same can be said in North America several native tribes have been waging genocidal wars against each other, the arrival of Europeans change the aspect of their wars and yes their way of life to become less savage.

The genocide of the holocaust of WWII was pure evil that was aim to eradicate an entire human race the Jews, no integration or submission but eradication all Jews regardless if they are Germans or not, regardless if they surrender, regardless if they submit to Nazi rule, regardless of they convert to Nazism all Jews are to be eradicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Aztecs

The natives of America were being integrated, educated or civilized not eradicated or genocidal, Europe succeeded in changing their way of life no longer do they practice human sacrifice, no longer do they collect human heads, and must of all they have been modernize. That is why up to this day you will still see native tribes that existed pre arrival of the Europeans.

The reigns of Axayacatl 1469–1481 and Tizoc 1481–1486
Moctezuma I's son, Axayacatl, ascended to the throne in 1469. During his reign, Tenochtitlan absorbed the kingdom of Tlatelolco. Axayacatl's sister was married to the tlatoani of Tlatelolco, and, as a pretext for war, Axayacatl declared that she was mistreated.

He went on to conquer the Matlatzinca and Mazahua cities of Tollocan, Ocuillan, and Malinalco west of the Valley of Mexico.
At this point Tenochtitlan experienced a brief "civil war" when the small city of Tlatelolco, considered a part of Tenochtitlan by the Aztecs, rebelled under their Tlatoani Moquihuix, who sought to ally himself with the longstanding enemies of the Tenochca, the Chalca, Tlaxcalteca, Chololteca and Huexotzinca. The Tlatelolca were defeated and Axayacatl then ordered the execution of all the rulers who had aided him, including the ruler of Xochimilco.

Continuing campaigns in the west in 1479, he suffered an unprecedented defeat by the Tarascans at Tzintzuntzan. This was the Aztecs' first great defeat; once recovered he had to consolidate control of the Huasteca my region which had already been conquered by his predecessor.

In 1481 Axayacatl's brother Tizoc ruled briefly, but his rule was marred by the humiliation he received in his coronation war: fighting the Otomies at Metztitlan he brought home only 40 prisoners for sacrifice at his coronation ceremony.[7] After this defeat Tizoc had to fight principally to maintain control of the already conquered territories, and failing to subdue new towns he was replaced, possibly poisoned, by his younger brother Ahuitzotl.

The Aztecs were conquered by Spain in 1521 after a long siege of the capital, Tenochtitlan, where much of the population died from hunger and smallpox. Cortés, with 508 Spaniards, did not fight alone but with as many as 150,000 or 200,000 allies from Tlaxcala, and eventually other Aztec tributary states. It was not difficult for Cortes to find allies to fight with him, the Aztecs were not generally liked by the neighbouring city-states. Cuauhtémoc, the last Hueyi Tlatoani surrendered to Cortés on August 13, 1521.

It took nearly another 60 years of war before the Spaniards completed the conquest of Mesoamerica (the Chichimeca wars), a process that could have taken longer were it not for three separate epidemics that took a heavy toll on the Native American population. The Spanish conquest of Yucatán took almost 170 years.

After the fall of Tenochtitlan, most of the other Mesoamerican cultures remained intact. In fact, the conquest of the Aztec empire did not have an immediate impact on other Mesoamerican cultures. If anything, the freedom from Aztec domination was probably considered a positive development by most of the other cultures.

As allies of the Spaniards, the Tlaxcalans gained the most. The Spaniards would eventually break the alliance, but not until decades later.

 

Ah selective quoting. Did you not think that I would read your own link? Well I did and surprise surprise there is nothing in it about genocide at all. It actually says and this is the bit that you forgot(on purpose I believe). Here you are:

In effect the jungle soil would no longer produce the food necessary to support a continuous state of war.

Disease may have also contributed to the acceleration of the collapse. Maya pottery from surviving cities depicts diseases in greater numbers being present. As the population began to fall, fear of hunger and future shortages fuelled ever-more fierce exchanges for the dwindling resources available. The end was apparent; people chose to flee for safety and away from cities that offered no safety.

The jungle soil would no longer produce food? Disease may have also contributed to the acceleration of the collapse,there is actually more evidence for that than your so called genocide claims. Your whole article never even mentions genocide. Fear of hunger? So now I have put that piece to bed lets move on to your next piece.

Well I will just ignore that pile of BS as not one piece of it is sourced.When adding stuff to wikipedia you have to after every piece of info put a source with a number that goes to a piece at the bottom of the page,that is the reference. The person who did this article failed to do that and has just put a list of books. So no checkable sources. Also I have already proven that Columbus committed genocide and my piece came from an academic source not wikianyone can edit pedia. Really bad argument from you because basically you could not be bothered to do any real research and just pasted wikipedia. You are still a genocide denier though.

 

Of course you will ignore that genocide did not existed pre European days in America in spite of the fact that records have shown it did and that the native tribes did practice genocide at the same time majority of modern scholars do not accept that the European actions fall under the definition of genocide. And of course also you will ignore that the holocaust of WWII committed against the Jews is what genocide is all about, the systematic extermination of a human race not integration but extermination.

Your bias towards the West is very clear, the Mayans disappeared because of tribal genocide and decease and this was before the arrival of the Europeans. The Spaniards with less than 1000 man could not have defeated the 100,000 army of the Aztecs without local help and history has been very clear on that, the Spaniards were seen as liberators from the Aztecs that is what make anti West people so bitterly angry and mad that is why they are hard in pressing for the world to treat the arrival of the Europeans in America as genocide, sorry to disappoint you but it has not been accepted.

In fact, this topic has nothing to do with "Did Jesus ever existed?"

 

His name was Jesus of Nazareth the same Jesus Christ that Christian worship as God and Muslims claim is not God and atheist claim does not exist....uhm, three Jesus and yet One....TRINITY.

 

Jesus did exist and is a powerful force in spirituality even today. Confucius also existed and so did Siddhartha. Look inside yourself and you will see the beauty of this.

 

You have failed to prove anything. I could prove that the Aztecs killed many people but it was not a genocide,it was not in the same ballpark as Columbus wiping out millions of the Americas Indians(which you deny happened). You are just not a very good researcher. You just cut and paste and selectively quote as I have already pointed out. The Europeans caused a genocide in the Americas and you deny that. Therefore you are a genocide denier and that same as a Holocaust denier. You have no real argument here,when you get one give me a call.

 

if you do some research you will find his name was not really Jesus, some Christians say he did not even die on a cross but rather a stake, the cross came later too

 

Copy paste just like you but unlike you I understand that genocide was being practice by native tribes before the arrival of Europeans. Which of course you chose to deny that thousands of tribes allied with Spain who have less than 1000 men against to defeat the Aztecs, this native allies number 100,000+ if the 1000 Spaniards are guilty of genocide then this would mean their allied tribes were guilty as well. 1000 Spaniards can only kill less than 10,000 compare to 100,000 allied native warriors can kill and wiped out the Aztecs of 200,000.

Well if you say I am a genocide denier I can say the same with you. The difference between you and me is that you have single out the Europeans, I have not. If you are going to proof that you are not a genocide denier then you should recognize that genocide was being practice by the natives before the arrival of the Europeans. You say no proof is available, when there is. The bottom line is, your reason for singling out the Spaniards or Europeans because you are anti Europe, remember the death of many natives were both attributed with wars with other tribes, with the Spaniards and deceases from Europe that the natives were not immune and European missionaries will exert great efforts to help. But of course you will focus only on the bad Europeans and intentionally ignore the many good and charitable Europeans.

Genocide was invented after WWII before that every nation are guilty of genocide one form or the other. Policing of genocide will be carry out by Europeans the same Europeans that you accuse of committing genocide.

As I said, the world do not recognize what happen during the colonial years in the American continent was genocide therefore your claim have no merits at all.

So you deny Jewish holocaust? Shame on you! How about Armenian genocide you deny also, shame on you?

 

I did read about those but they are all conspiracy lack any substantial proof.

 

Muhammad and the muslims could have stayed away from Mecca and let the Kairesh tribe live in peace. The reconquest of Mecca was unnecessary except as revenge which is supposed to be beneath prophets.

 

If Jesus never existed then one would need to ask, how Christians knew that Jerusalem would be plundered by the Romans and the Chiristians fled to the hills, while those who did not know the sign stayed and suffered the consequences?

 

http://www.thenazareneway.com/yeshua_jesus_real_name.htm

it would be like someone calling me a name in Spanish and claiming that was my name, if I go to Mexico, my name is pronounced exactly the same as it is here, I would not respond to someone that tried to rename me

 

There's one problem with that argument......Jesus/God knows your thoughts……He sees our thoughts and knows who we are addressing.

 

I copied and pasted an article from a scholarly source while you cut and pasted from a totally unsourced wikipedia page and that is the height of your argument. You have failed to prove that the indigenous tribes of the Americas were committing genocide on each other. You could not prove it because it is not written history for starters.

You are confusing the piece I put up about Columbus with something about the Aztecs. Columbus did not meet the Azrecs for starters,that was Cortez. You are just repeating your unsourced wikipedia page here. This seems to be the only argument you have got and I have already pointed out its failings but you continue to repeat it as if it is gospel.

Thing is you have not proven any genocide between the Americas tribes. You supplied on wikipedia page that was unsourced and you supplied one other website which you selectively quoted from and that did not say anything about a genocide on it either. What it did say was that there were wars and there was not enough food and there was a lot of disease,you ignored all of that. You are the genocide denier here,you have denied that the Europeans systematically murdered millions of the indigenous peoples of the Americas but I have already proven they have.

Being as we have not talked about the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide I really cannot think what you are talking about. Seems to be some attempt at resurrecting a failed argument by trying to brand me a Holocaust denier without any evidence to back that up. I am not the one here who is denying a genocide in the Americas by the Europeans,that is you.

 

Not "revenge " , my dear . Prophets , are people with conviction, they believe they are serving god.
There was never peace + a great deal of injustice which must have upset Muhammed . One which I've heard of was female gendercide - killing infant girls , as females was of less use in harsh desert living. Most scholars agree that Muhammed's reformation brought about substantial improvements in the moral standards of tribal arabia. No , I do not think that if Muhammed stayed away the Qureish would have "lived in peace" . They were the dominent tribe and dealt savagely with all who refused to submit to their rule.

btw - After he fled from his home in Mecca to Yathrib(Medina) his enemies - Qureish pursued him , thus it appears he had no other choice than to raise a fighting force against his pursuers who would have undoubtly have killed him.

" Survival of the fittest" - WOT ?


(wink)

 

I think you are making unsubstantiated claims. Mohammed was allowed to leave Mecca for Medina there was no reason for the Meccans to pursue Mohammed, it was Mohammed after he become the leader in Medina that he started harassing Meccan caravans, the Meccans are only interested in business that is why they allowed all faith to worship inside the Kabaa it makes good business both domestically and for out of town business Meccan caravan will always carry good delivering them to other villages and cities and return with good profit that was also how Mohammed use to do.

Mecca was the most prosperous city in that region. After Mohammed left Mecca his character and attitude change he become a polygamous person, his revelation become more militant he begun to call for the destruction of Jews and Christian and ban them from worshipping inside the Kabaa, he accuse the Jews of idolatry and for being like the Christians when in fact the Jews do not worship Jesus, they are not idolaters the same with the Christians in that region.

Mohammed had a choice be like all the other true prophets and messenger of God that preaches peace and none violence instead Mohammed chose the militant path.