For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Craig B]

As expected you cannot and will never present any historical evidence for your Jesus but waste time posting incoherent nonsense and open fiction.

In addition, you persist in mis-representing Hardouin--he did not claim "nobody existed except the forgers".

Agreed.

... with the exception of the works of Homer, Herodotus and Cicero, the Natural History of Pliny, the Georgics of Virgil, and the Satires and Epistles of Horace, all the ancient classics of Greece and Rome were spurious, having been manufactured by monks of the 13th century, under the direction of a certain Severus Archontius with whom he might have meant Frederick II. He denied the genuineness of most ancient works of art, coins and inscriptions​

So he may have admitted the existence of Homer (who most scholars now think was a monstrous fiction character) Herodotus, Cicero, Pliny (the Elder), Virgil and Horace. The rest he attributed to "Severus Archontius" but in fact there's no evidence for him, and personally I think he is a monstrous fiction character concocted in the deranged brain of Hardouin himself.

 

[aleCcowaN]

In addition, you persist in mis-representing Hardouin--he did not claim "nobody existed except the forgers".

And how an accurate representation/misrepresentation of Hardouin help any side of this case? Isn't him just the proverbial fly in the soup?

 

[dejudge]

In addition, you persist in mis-representing Hardouin--he did not claim "nobody existed except the forgers".

And how an accurate representation/misrepresentation of Hardouin help any side of this case? Isn't him just the proverbial fly in the soup?

It should be obvious that Craig B invents fiction about Hardouin so perhaps he thinks mis-representation helps his case.

Whether or not the writings of Hardouin helps any case it is completely unacceptable for anyone to mis-represent them.

It is most fascinating that Hardouin argued in the "Prolegomena" that the Gospel of the four evangelists and the Epistles in the Church Canon are authentic and true when claiming that most supposed writings of the Church Fathers and others outside are forgeries, false attribution and fiction.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015015383212;view=1up;seq=73

 

[Craig B]

It should be obvious that Craig B invents fiction about Hardouin so perhaps he thinks mis-representation helps his case.

Whether or not the writings of Hardouin helps any case it is completely unacceptable for anyone to mis-represent them.

It is most fascinating that Hardouin argued in the "Prolegomena" that the Gospel of the four evangelists and the Epistles in the Church Canon are authentic and true when claiming that most supposed writings of the Church Fathers and others outside are forgeries, false attribution and fiction.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015015383212;view=1up;seq=73

He seems to have had similar ideas about the original Greek texts of the NT. He

declared that the New Testament was originally written in Latin, as he underlined with good reasoning in his short work Prolegomena which appeared in the year he died, 1729.​

 

[aleCcowaN]

It should be obvious that Craig B invents fiction about Hardouin so perhaps he thinks mis-representation helps his case.

Whether or not the writings of Hardouin helps any case it is completely unacceptable for anyone to mis-represent them.

It is most fascinating that Hardouin argued in the "Prolegomena" that the Gospel of the four evangelists and the Epistles in the Church Canon are authentic and true when claiming that most supposed writings of the Church Fathers and others outside are forgeries, false attribution and fiction.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015015383212;view=1up;seq=73

Though I share your abhorrence for deliberate misrepresentations in discussion, my concern is that there's not "historical Jesus" to find there.

My main reason for being sure a "historical Jesus" existed -or two, or three people acting together during the same years- are the scriptures themselves: it seems they took a lot of work to hide these people deeds and paint a fairy tail to the purpose of some rogue acolytes. The selection of what is gospel worthy and what not and mainly what is absent are a big clue, to me, at least.

 

[dejudge]

Though I share your abhorrence for deliberate misrepresentations in discussion, my concern is that there's not "historical Jesus" to find there.

Please share your abhorrence for deliberate mis-representation with Craig B]

My main reason for being sure a "historical Jesus" existed -or two, or three people acting together during the same years- are the scriptures themselves: it seems they took a lot of work to hide these people deeds and paint a fairy tail to the purpose of some rogue acolytes. The selection of what is gospel worthy and what not and mainly what is absent are a big clue, to me, at least.

It appears that your main flaw is that you have assumed the authors of the so-called scriptures were contemporary with the events.

There is no historical evidence anywhere that the authors of the NT books actually lived in the time of Pilate, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius or Nero.

There is no contemporary historical evidence anywhere that the authors of the Jesus stories were writing historical accounts

It is a fact that all manuscripts with the stories of Jesus and Paul are dated no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

By the way, missing unknown evidence is useless to argue for an HJ.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It appears that your main flaw is that you have assumed the authors of the so-called scriptures were contemporary with the events.

There is no historical evidence anywhere that the authors of the NT books actually lived in the time of Pilate, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius or Nero.

There is no contemporary historical evidence anywhere that the authors of the Jesus stories were writing historical accounts

It is a fact that all manuscripts with the stories of Jesus and Paul are dated no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

By the way, missing unknown evidence is useless to argue for an HJ.

It looks to me you'd like me to play some role in your position about this whole topic. I won't.

The whole **** of not having a contemporary affidavit from Jesus himself, duly notarized and legalized does not make me discard the historical Jesus at all. That sort of "structural begging the question" doesn't work for me.

 

[Craig B]

Please share your abhorrence for deliberate mis-representation with Craig B

I already possess that abhorrence in the highest degree. That is why I was overcome with dismay as I was writing this post.

... you are fabricating false statements and attributing them to me. I did not state that belief is an indispensable historical procedure. Our exchange was this

You: Telling me what people believe is useless.
Me: Indeed, it seems to be. But it is an indispensable historical procedure, so I must persist in it.​

That is, telling people what other people believe ...

But I am willing to accept that your misrepresentation was not deliberate; it perhaps resulted from stress, or indigestion; or it was one of the occasional lapses to which even the most powerful minds fall victim from time to time.

 

[dejudge]

It looks to me you'd like me to play some role in your position about this whole topic. I won't.

The whole **** of not having a contemporary affidavit from Jesus himself, duly notarized and legalized does not make me discard the historical Jesus at all. That sort of "structural begging the question" doesn't work for me.

You will never ever present any historical evidence for your imaginary one, two or three HJ.


Your belief [without historical evidence] that an historical Jesus [or two or three] existed has zero negative effect on the argument that Jesus was a fiction character as described [a water walking transfiguring son of a Ghost--the Logos--God Creator--the firstborn of the dead].

Your recent imaginary HJ [two or three] are as fictitious as Jesus in the NT.

Your recent imaginary HJ [two or three] are without historical evidence in all writings of antiquity.

Your imaginary HJ [two or three] never ever existed.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You will never ever present any historical evidence for your imaginary one, two or three HJ.


Your belief [without historical evidence] that an historical Jesus [or two or three] existed has zero negative effect on the argument that Jesus was a fiction character as described [a water walking transfiguring son of a Ghost--the Logos--God Creator--the firstborn of the dead].

Your recent imaginary HJ [two or three] are as fictitious as Jesus in the NT.

Your recent imaginary HJ [two or three] are without historical evidence in all writings of antiquity.

Your imaginary HJ [two or three] never ever existed.

Let me start with



Wow! You're so transparent. I now understand why you see misrepresentations here and there.

Your first mistake is to "own" the term "historical". You not only bring the term to its extreme -material evidence- but you ask for multiple lines and exclude testimony from that, what is a no-no. You go even farther, your should-be-the-only-conclusion-of-this-debate works like saying "as Robin Hood was a fictional character you'll never prove that Roger Godberd existed".

Your second mistake is to leave no doubts it's a personal thingy. With your «your recent imaginary» you evidence nothing can exist until it reaches your radar range. In that, you're the epistemological hedonist as much as the South African prophet who cavorts in the end-of-the-times threads.

I'll wait for you replies. It's always quite the show to watch the god-must-not-exist-at-any-cost people operating here.

 

[dejudge]

.....Your first mistake is to "own" the term "historical". You not only bring the term to its extreme -material evidence- but you ask for multiple lines and exclude testimony from that, what is a no-no. You go even farther, your should-be-the-only-conclusion-of-this-debate works like saying "as Robin Hood was a fictional character you'll never prove that Roger Godberd existed".

I do not own the term "historical". I am arguing that Jesus and Paul were fiction characters based on the massive amount of evidence from antiquity.

In hundreds of writings from antiquity Jesus was a water walking transfiguring son of a Ghost--the Logos, God Creator who was in the company of Satan.

Paul is a fiction character in the monstrous fables about God, Satan, angels and Ghosts called Acts of the Apostles and letters under the name of Paul.

It is quite absurd to assume Jesus existed because Robin Hood and Godberd may or may not have existed.

Your mistake is that you invent your Jesus from your imagination and then believe what you assume is history.

Your second mistake is to leave no doubts it's a personal thingy. With your «your recent imaginary» you evidence nothing can exist until it reaches your radar range. In that, you're the epistemological hedonist as much as the South African prophet who cavorts in the end-of-the-times threads.

Your statement is fiction. I am arguing that Jesus was a fiction character based on the massive amount of evidence from antiquity.

Hundreds of Christian writings of antiquity claim Jesus was a transfiguring water walking product of a Ghost without a human father.

I'll wait for you replies. It's always quite the show to watch the god-must-not-exist-at-any-cost people operating here.

It is you who claim that you are sure there was an historical Jesus[two or three] without evidence.

It is you who believe your HJ [two or three] existed because of missing unknown evidence.

As expected you cannot and will never ever present any historical evidence for your imaginary HJ [two or three].

 

[aleCcowaN]

I do not own the term "historical". I am arguing that Jesus and Paul were fiction characters based on the massive amount of evidence from antiquity.

In hundreds of writings from antiquity Jesus was a water walking transfiguring son of a Ghost--the Logos, God Creator who was in the company of Satan.

So, either you base your opinion in a huge number of non-sequiturs or you can't explain your objection. It looks like you would consider those writings solid evidence if they told something you may believe.

"Jesus didn't existed because he was said of having walked on water" IS THIS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

Paul is a fiction character in the monstrous fables about God, Satan, angels and Ghosts called Acts of the Apostles and letters under the name of Paul.

It is quite absurd to assume Jesus existed because Robin Hood and Godberd may or may not have existed.

You're talking erratically here. You didn't understand, or it wasn't convenient to your cause to understand, and you're making a mash up to confound everything.

Paul was likely a name dropper from the East who was good at motivating the masses and was given carte blanche to twist and made things up. Nobody looks more real to me than Paul.

Your mistake is that you invent your Jesus from your imagination and then believe what you assume is history.

I don't invent Jesus because Jesus existed before me. I just make hypothesis and analyse them with all the evidence available, which include perceptible absences.

Your statement is fiction. I am arguing that Jesus was a fiction character based on the massive amount of evidence from antiquity.

Hundreds of Christian writings of antiquity claim Jesus was a transfiguring water walking product of a Ghost without a human father.

You're flailing in a sea of non-sequiturs and repeating yourself

It is you who claim that you are sure there was an historical Jesus[two or three] without evidence.

It is you who believe your HJ [two or three] existed because of missing unknown evidence.

As expected you cannot and will never ever present any historical evidence for your imaginary HJ [two or three].

My Jesus is as good as any Jesus, including the official one. And I can prove a lot of evidence adjust to such Jesus, unlike you who are monothematically rejecting any notion of Jesus because it couldn't possibly fit your psychological needs.

 

[dejudge]

I do not own the term "historical". I am arguing that Jesus and Paul were fiction characters based on the massive amount of evidence from antiquity.

In hundreds of writings from antiquity Jesus was a water walking transfiguring son of a Ghost--the Logos, God Creator who was in the company of Satan.

So, either you base your opinion in a huge number of non-sequiturs or you can't explain your objection. It looks like you would consider those writings solid evidence if they told something you may believe.

"Jesus didn't existed because he was said of having walked on water" IS THIS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

You don't know what you are talking about.

Fiction characters always have zero historical evidence.

Jesus, Satan, the Holy Ghost and Paul have zero historical evidence.

The claim by Christians writers of antiquity that their Jesus walked on water is a small part of the massive amount of evidence which supports the argument that Jesus was a fiction character.

You have nothing [zero historical evidence] for your imaginary Jesus.

You imaginary Jesus must be fiction.

Paul is a fiction character in the monstrous fables about God, Satan, angels and Ghosts called Acts of the Apostles and letters under the name of Paul.

It is quite absurd to assume Jesus existed because Robin Hood and Godberd may or may not have existed.

You're talking erratically here. You didn't understand, or it wasn't convenient to your cause to understand, and you're making a mash up to confound everything.

Again, fiction characters always have zero historical evidence of their existence.

Paul, Jesus, Satan and the Holy Ghost have zero historical evidence.

Paul was likely a name dropper from the East who was good at motivating the masses and was given carte blanche to twist and made things up. Nobody looks more real to me than Paul.

You just made up that story about Paul. You have no historical evidence at all that any actual person named Paul motivated anyone at anytime in the 1st century before c 70 CE.

Who gave Paul carte blance?? Gods and Ghosts!!! [Things without flesh and blood].


Galatians 1

15 But when it pleased God........ To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood

You seem to believe the monstrous fables called the NT is truth.

The character called Jesus is fiction from conception to ascension yet in the NT a writer under the name of Paul claimed he was a witness that God [a fiction entity] raised Jesus from the dead.

The NT are fiction fables about Gods, Devils, Ghosts, Jesus, Paul and disciples.

Your mistake is that you invent your Jesus from your imagination and then believe what you assume is history.

I don't invent Jesus because Jesus existed before me. I just make hypothesis and analyse them with all the evidence available, which include perceptible absences.

You must have existed before you imagined your Jesus into existence. No-one knows your Jesus and no-one knows of any historical evidence for your Jesus. Who would have known that there were perhaps one, two or three historical Jesus before you.

Was your Jesus the Logos?

Was your Jesus born of a Ghost?

Was your Jesus in the company of Satan at the Jewish Temple ?

Did your Jesus resurrect?

Did your Jesus ascend to heaven.

If you answered in the negative then your imagined Jesus is just modern fiction--a modern fiction character uncorroborated by all writings of antiquity.

Your statement is fiction. I am arguing that Jesus was a fiction character based on the massive amount of evidence from antiquity.

Hundreds of Christian writings of antiquity claim Jesus was a transfiguring water walking product of a Ghost without a human father.

You're flailing in a sea of non-sequiturs and repeating yourself

Based on your bizarre absurdities--it follows that Jesus existed because you believe so.

The stories of Jesus are fiction and there is no historical evidence so it can be argued for infinity that Jesus never ever existed.

It is you who claim that you are sure there was an historical Jesus[two or three] without evidence.

It is you who believe your HJ [two or three] existed because of missing unknown evidence.

As expected you cannot and will never ever present any historical evidence for your imaginary HJ [two or three].

My Jesus is as good as any Jesus, including the official one. And I can prove a lot of evidence adjust to such Jesus, unlike you who are monothematically rejecting any notion of Jesus because it couldn't possibly fit your psychological needs.

Finally you admit that it is YOUR JESUS.

YOUR Jesus must have been invented after you were born from your own imagination.

Your Jesus is just as fictional as Jesus of Nazareth, Satan or the Holy Ghost

It is virtually impossible to prove what you recently imagined in the 20/21st century.

There are no writings of antiquity which have historical evidence for a modern imagined Jesus.

All ancient stories of Jesus and Paul are fiction and from the 2nd century or later.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You don't know what you are talking about.

Fiction characters always have zero historical evidence.

Jesus, Satan, the Holy Ghost and Paul have zero historical evidence.

The claim by Christians writers of antiquity that their Jesus walked on water is a small part of the massive amount of evidence which supports the argument that Jesus was a fiction character.

You have nothing [zero historical evidence] for your imaginary Jesus.

You imaginary Jesus must be fiction.







Again, fiction characters always have zero historical evidence of their existence.

Paul, Jesus, Satan and the Holy Ghost have zero historical evidence.



You just made up that story about Paul. You have no historical evidence at all that any actual person named Paul motivated anyone at anytime in the 1st century before c 70 CE.

Who gave Paul carte blance?? Gods and Ghosts!!! [Things without flesh and blood].


Galatians 1

You seem to believe the monstrous fables called the NT is truth.

The character called Jesus is fiction from conception to ascension yet in the NT a writer under the name of Paul claimed he was a witness that God [a fiction entity] raised Jesus from the dead.

The NT are fiction fables about Gods, Devils, Ghosts, Jesus, Paul and disciples.





You must have existed before you imagined your Jesus into existence. No-one knows your Jesus and no-one knows of any historical evidence for your Jesus. Who would have known that there were perhaps one, two or three historical Jesus before you.

Was your Jesus the Logos?

Was your Jesus born of a Ghost?

Was your Jesus in the company of Satan at the Jewish Temple ?

Did your Jesus resurrect?

Did your Jesus ascend to heaven.

If you answered in the negative then your imagined Jesus is just modern fiction--a modern fiction character uncorroborated by all writings of antiquity.





Based on your bizarre absurdities--it follows that Jesus existed because you believe so.

The stories of Jesus are fiction and there is no historical evidence so it can be argued for infinity that Jesus never ever existed.






Finally you admit that it is YOUR JESUS.

YOUR Jesus must have been invented after you were born from your own imagination.

Your Jesus is just as fictional as Jesus of Nazareth, Satan or the Holy Ghost

It is virtually impossible to prove what you recently imagined in the 20/21st century.

There are no writings of antiquity which have historical evidence for a modern imagined Jesus.

All ancient stories of Jesus and Paul are fiction and from the 2nd century or later.

I'm going to discard this piece of liturgy as a whole, as it is just ****. I could analyse one by one the poor rags in your post, like your "fictional characters always have zero historical evidence (SIC)" and say "no ****, Sherlock", but I'm not into obsessive-compulsive symptomatic personal religions. Those are a matter for the shrink, not a forum about sceptical thinking.

For the logical side of your increasing recitation, you're evading engagement in any serious debate. You're repeating yourself non-stop and have the silly idea that slightly different versions of the same counts as adding evidence (but that is what OCD is all about, isn't it?)

My post #990 was spot on about the nature of your participation here. So I will continue to address you in a post by post basis, and I'll deal with Jesus and all the biblical manure as real here just to make your ritual fail.

 

[dejudge]

I'm going to discard this piece of liturgy as a whole, as it is just ****. I could analyse one by one the poor rags in your post, like your "fictional characters always have zero historical evidence (SIC)" and say "no ****, Sherlock", but I'm not into obsessive-compulsive symptomatic personal religions. Those are a matter for the shrink, not a forum about sceptical thinking.

You still cannot and never will be able to present any historical evidence for your imaginary Jesus [two or three].

You cannot discard the evidence that Jesus was a fiction character because it is documented in actual manuscripts from antiquity.

Jesus was a water walking transfiguring son of a Ghost without a human father.

Your modern imagination Jesus is rejected for lack of historical evidence.

For the logical side of your increasing recitation, you're evading engagement in any serious debate. You're repeating yourself non-stop and have the silly idea that slightly different versions of the same counts as adding evidence (but that is what OCD is all about, isn't it?)

Your statement is quite absurd. You are have nothing but your imagination Jesus and want people to take you seriously.

Please, first go get some historical evidence but you never will.

My post #990 was spot on about the nature of your participation here. So I will continue to address you in a post by post basis, and I'll deal with Jesus and all the biblical manure as real here just to make your ritual fail.

Jesus and Paul are characters of biblical manure [fiction, forgeries and false attribution].

You still believe that those characters in biblical manure were real people and not non-historical manure.

It is impossible to make my argument fail when ALL manuscripts with stories of Jesus are fiction.

It is impossible to make my argument fail when ALL manuscripts with stories of Jesus are dated to the 2nd century or later.

It is impossible to make my argument fail when Jesus of Nazareth has no historical corroboration in all contemporary writers of antiquity.

 

[Brainache]

I'm going to discard this piece of liturgy as a whole, as it is just ****. I could analyse one by one the poor rags in your post, like your "fictional characters always have zero historical evidence (SIC)" and say "no ****, Sherlock", but I'm not into obsessive-compulsive symptomatic personal religions. Those are a matter for the shrink, not a forum about sceptical thinking.

For the logical side of your increasing recitation, you're evading engagement in any serious debate. You're repeating yourself non-stop and have the silly idea that slightly different versions of the same counts as adding evidence (but that is what OCD is all about, isn't it?)

My post #990 was spot on about the nature of your participation here. So I will continue to address you in a post by post basis, and I'll deal with Jesus and all the biblical manure as real here just to make your ritual fail.

Good luck with that.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You still cannot and never will be able to present any historical evidence for your imaginary Jesus [two or three].

You cannot discard the evidence that Jesus was a fiction character because it is documented in actual manuscripts from antiquity.

Jesus was a water walking transfiguring son of a Ghost without a human father.

Your modern imagination Jesus is rejected for lack of historical evidence.



Your statement is quite absurd. You are have nothing but your imagination Jesus and want people to take you seriously.

Please, first go get some historical evidence but you never will.



Jesus and Paul are characters of biblical manure [fiction, forgeries and false attribution].

You still believe that those characters in biblical manure were real people and not non-historical manure.

It is impossible to make my argument fail when ALL manuscripts with stories of Jesus are fiction.

It is impossible to make my argument fail when ALL manuscripts with stories of Jesus are dated to the 2nd century or later.

It is impossible to make my argument fail when Jesus of Nazareth has no historical corroboration in all contemporary writers of antiquity.

What was that? The pseudo-intellectual equivalent of "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"?

Your rituals are ridiculous.

Your religion of Jesus being imaginary is false and rejected as an imaginary invention of your mind.

Sorry, in the post above you have put all your meat in the barbecue at the same time but that won't make into a yummy meal. We don't even need to eat it to get feed.

The problem here isn't getting you convinced but cured. You are just adoring a Christ hanging from the Cross, but you constantly need to be sure that Christ is dead forever. Your religion is not different of those Xians, and it's as imaginary as theirs.

Of course you won't understand my words, as they go after the gist of what troubles you. But I hope that to make others to understand you and avoid debating with you what doesn't need to be debated because it's an urgent personal need badly disguised as a logical argument.

 

[dejudge]

What was that? The pseudo-intellectual equivalent of "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"?

Your rituals are ridiculous.

Your religion of Jesus being imaginary is false and rejected as an imaginary invention of your mind.

Sorry, in the post above you have put all your meat in the barbecue at the same time but that won't make into a yummy meal. We don't even need to eat it to get feed.

The problem here isn't getting you convinced but cured. You are just adoring a Christ hanging from the Cross, but you constantly need to be sure that Christ is dead forever. Your religion is not different of those Xians, and it's as imaginary as theirs.

Of course you won't understand my words, as they go after the gist of what troubles you. But I hope that to make others to understand you and avoid debating with you what doesn't need to be debated because it's an urgent personal need badly disguised as a logical argument.

Your post is utter incoherent contradictory nonsense.

You have forgotten that you are sure a historical Jesus existed because of the scriptures.

Examine excerpts of your own words

My main reason for being sure a "historical Jesus" existed -or two, or three people acting together during the same years- are the scriptures themselves..

You are the one who believe that Jesus was hanging from a cross.

You are the one who believe the monstrous fables are truth.

Jesus was never ever hanging from anywhere in the history of mankind.


http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_against_hierocles.htm

Against Hierocles attributed to Eusebius

And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars......

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm

Against the Galileans attributed to Julian

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

The Jesus stories are a pack of lies and fiction fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century.

It is simply complete fiction that Romans knowingly worshiped a crucified criminal as a God after he was dead and rotting in his grave.

The Jesus stories are non-historical garbage.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Your post is utter incoherent contradictory nonsense.

You have forgotten that you are sure a historical Jesus existed because of the scriptures.

Examine excerpts of your own words



You are the one who believe that Jesus was hanging from a cross.

You are the one who believe the monstrous fables are truth.

Jesus was never ever hanging from anywhere in the history of mankind.


http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_against_hierocles.htm

Against Hierocles attributed to Eusebius


http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm

Against the Galileans attributed to Julian


The Jesus stories are a pack of lies and fiction fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century.

It is simply complete fiction that Romans knowingly worshiped a crucified criminal as a God after he was dead and rotting in his grave.

The Jesus stories are non-historical garbage.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in hearing your mass. Your religion is a pretty lame one.

And by the way, you have no idea what I believe or what I don't believe.

But I know how your religion works: it's call kill God, kill Jesus, kill Buddha, kill Bruce Springsteen. Kill everything and everyone that may bring content to other people. Kill them by mocking them, kill them by being repetitive, kill them by controlling what is evidence and what is not; kill them in any way, but kill them!!! That's basically your desperate scream which you badly hide as a "debate": your professed religion "Annihilate Jesus".

Yours in the kind of religion that is created in the windmills of the minds of those prone to OCD. And a proof of it is how irritating the mention of Jesus is to you. That's why I say to you Jesus! Jesus! ¡Viva Jesús! Jesus forgives you for being such a bagel! Jesus loves you! Jesus! Jesus! Jesus! Jesus lives! Jesus is not the rotting corpse you imagine hanging on that Holly Cross! Jesus is with you no matter you turned your back on him!

 

[dejudge]

Sorry, but I'm not interested in hearing your mass. Your religion is a pretty lame one.

And by the way, you have no idea what I believe or what I don't believe.

But I know how your religion works: it's call kill God, kill Jesus, kill Buddha, kill Bruce Springsteen. Kill everything and everyone that may bring content to other people. Kill them by mocking them, kill them by being repetitive, kill them by controlling what is evidence and what is not; kill them in any way, but kill them!!! That's basically your desperate scream which you badly hide as a "debate": your professed religion "Annihilate Jesus".

Yours in the kind of religion that is created in the windmills of the minds of those prone to OCD. And a proof of it is how irritating the mention of Jesus is to you. That's why I say to you Jesus! Jesus! ¡Viva Jesús! Jesus forgives you for being such a bagel! Jesus loves you! Jesus! Jesus! Jesus! Jesus lives! Jesus is not the rotting corpse you imagine hanging on that Holly Cross! Jesus is with you no matter you turned your back on him!

Again, you post more nonsense.

Jesus lives!!!!???

What fiction you write!!!!

You must know that if Jesus really lived that he MUST be dead now.

You have exposed that your Jesus is fiction.