Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Jesus, as a human being, never actually existed

Decal1us_____

Decal1us_____

Recruit
★★★★
Joined
Oct 10, 2024
Posts
354
TLDR: Jesus Christ was created by the Flavians to make jews(and non-jews) submissive to rome

Joseph Atwill, author of "Caesar’s Messiah," claims he’s found ancient confessions by the scriptures’ authors that they invented Jesus Christ and his story as basically a form of propaganda.

"Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century," Atwill said. "When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That’s when the ‘peaceful’ Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to ‘give onto Caesar’ and pay their taxes to Rome."
He says that Jesus was not based on an actual historical figure, but Atwill argues that the events of his life were overlaid on top of actual events from the First Jewish-Roman War, waged by Emperor Titus Flavius in Palestinian territories.

"The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar," he says.

"Although Christianity can be a comfort to some, it can also be very damaging and repressive, an insidious form of mind control that has led to blind acceptance of serfdom, poverty, and war throughout history," Atwill says. "To this day, especially in the United States, it is used to create support for war in the Middle East."

Although to many scholars his theory seems outlandish, and is sure to upset some believers, Atwill regards his evidence as conclusive and is confident its acceptance is only a matter of time. "I present my work with some ambivalence, as I do not want to directly cause Christians any harm," he acknowledges, "but this is important for our culture. Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods. They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people." Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire.

"Was Jesus based on a real person from history? "The short answer is no," Atwill insists, "in fact he may be the only fictional character in literature whose entire life story can be traced to other sources. Once those sources are all laid bare, there's simply nothing left."

Atwill's most intriguing discovery came to him while he was studying "Wars of the Jews" by Josephus [the only surviving first-person historical account of first-century Judea] alongside the New Testament. "I started to notice a sequence of parallels between the two texts," he recounts. "Although it's been recognized by Christian scholars for centuries that the prophesies of Jesus appear to be fulfilled by what Josephus wrote about in the First Jewish-Roman war, I was seeing dozens more. What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus. This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern. The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar." How could this go unnoticed in the most scrutinized books of all time? "Many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren't all immediately obvious. After all, the authors did not want the average believer to see what they were doing, but they did want the alert reader to see it.

An educated Roman in the ruling class would probably have recognized the literary game being played." Atwill maintains he can demonstrate that, "the Roman Caesars left us a kind of puzzle literature that was meant to be solved by future generations, and the solution to that puzzle is 'We invented Jesus Christ, and we're proud of it.'"

Is this the beginning of the end of Christianity? "Probably not," grants Atwill, "but what my work has done is give permission to many of those ready to leave the religion to make a clean break. We've got the evidence now to show exactly where the story of Jesus came from. Although Christianity can be a comfort to some, it can also be very damaging and repressive, an insidious form of mind control that has led to blind acceptance of serfdom, poverty, and war throughout history. To this day, especially in the United States, it is used to create support for war in the Middle East."

And the writings we do have are biased. Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus do make a few, scant remarks about his life. But that was a century after Jesus's time. So they may have garnered their information from early Christians. And those threadbare accounts are controversial too, since the manuscripts had been altered over time by Christian scribes whose job it was to preserve them.

Today, several books approach the subject, including:
- Zealot by Reza Aslan
- Nailed - Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald
- How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman
- The Christ myth by Arthur Drews
- On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have a reason for doubt by Richard Carrier
- Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald
- The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S (D.M. Murdock)
- The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth by John M. Allegro
- Caesar's Messiah: the roman conspiracy to invent Jesus by Joseph atwill

Historian Richard Carrier in his 600 page monograph, On the Historicity of Jesus, writes that the story may have derived from earlier semi-divine beings from Near East myth, who were murdered by demons in the celestial realm. This would develop over time into the gospels, he said. Another theory is that Jesus was a historical figure who become mythicized later on.

Carrier believes the pieces added to the work of Josephus were done by Christian scribes. In one particular passage, Carrier says that the execution by Pilate of Jesus was obviously lifted from the Gospel of Luke. Similar problems such as miscopying and misrepresentations are found throughout Tacitus.So where do all the stories in the New Testament derive?According to Carrier, Jesus may be as much a mythical figure as Hercules or Oedipus.

Bart Ehrman focuses on the lack of witnesses. "What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references - nothing..."

The Rank-Raglan Mythotype is a set of traits that heroes across cultures share.

There are 22 of them including,
  • a virgin birth​
  • the audience knowing little to nothing about his childhood​
  • being the son of god​
  • dying on a hilltop​
  • the mysterious disappearance of his remains​
Jesus meets 20 of the traits total. In fact, no one else meets the hero archetype quite as well...

One biblical scholar holds an even more radical idea, that Jesus story was an early form of psychological warfare to help quell a violent insurgency. The Great Revolt against Rome occurred in 66 BCE. Fierce Jewish warriors known as the Zealots won two decisive victories early on. But Rome returned with 60,000 heavily armed troops. What resulted was a bloody war of attrition that raged for three decades.

Joseph Atwill contends that the Zealots were awaiting the arrival of a warrior messiah to throw off the interlopers. Knowing this, the Roman court under Titus Flavius decided to create their own, competing messiah who promoted pacifism among the populous. According to Atwill, the story of Jesus was taken from many sources, including the campaigns of a previous Caesar. Of course, there may very well have been a Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef (as would have been Jesus's real name) who gathered a flock around his teachings in the first century. Most antiquarians believe a real man existed and became mythicized. But the historical record itself is thin.

HERE is a documentary about this topic, I encourage all of you to watch it.

Also, here’s something to think about, everything about Jesus has no true verification. one of the things I was thinking about is that if he was so well known, there should be some contemporary evidence of his life. for example, if he had been a carpenter before he started 'ministering', then he would have been a skilled one considering his age and apparent lineage, thus, some of his work would have survived, and when he died, the value of those artifacts would have skyrocketed, but there is no mention of any of his carpentry work, no toys, hangars, chairs, tables, knobs, dowels...nothing. There are exactly zero contemporary accounts of anything mundane about the apparent person, no records of his crucifixion or his altercation with the high ranking jewish rabbis, nothing.
 
Last edited:
Nah, this is some kooky shit, stop making us atheists look bad. He existed but he wasn't a zombie.
 
I refuse to believe such study man, for my own mental health and coping mechanism.

I am well versed on ancient scriptures before the testament I know the similarities between ancient cultures such as sumerian where the myth of the trinity started and we can go further to other latitutes on the globe like to the pre colombine cultures as mayan where the myth of a saviour repeats...

I have no much coping alternatives other than food, videogames and medicine so believing in God prevents me of commit ER massively.
 
I refuse to believe such study man, for my own mental health and coping mechanism.

I am well versed on ancient scriptures before the testament I know the similarities between ancient cultures such as sumerian where the myth of the trinity started and we can go further to other latitutes on the globe like to the pre colombine cultures as mayan where the myth of a saviour repeats...

I have no much coping alternatives other than food, videogames and medicine so believing in God prevents me of commit ER massively.
Ight
 
@blackpillgrim
Can you disprove it then?
 
I refuse to believe such study man, for my own mental health and coping mechanism.

I am well versed on ancient scriptures before the testament I know the similarities between ancient cultures such as sumerian where the myth of the trinity started and we can go further to other latitutes on the globe like to the pre colombine cultures as mayan where the myth of a saviour repeats...

I have no much coping alternatives other than food, videogames and medicine so believing in God prevents me of commit ER massively.
Spirituality mogs Christianity
 
TLDR: Jesus Christ was created by the Flavians to make jews(and non-jews) submissive to rome

You are correct that Christianity the religion was invented by Romans to control Jews and non-Jews alike. Every variant of Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, all Protestant variants) is just an outgrowth of that, and Christians are too dense and historically illiterate to understand this. (but to be fair, their theology demands this, but their sheer ignorance means they'd contradict the very figures many of them uphold, like Saint Augustine, who at least had some knowledge.)

Jesus never heard of Christianity, the earliest "Christians" were simply Jews who belived he was the Messiah. (and there have been Jews other Jews have believed to be the Messiah more recently, some Orthodox Chasidic Chabad adherents believe their Rebbe to be this)

However, that doesn't mean there was no historical Jesus. The moderate view between saying "Jesus never existed" and being a dumb believing Christian is clearly that there was a Jesus man who preached he was the Messiah and was killed by the Romans (notably, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe he was crucified on a cross, but rather a stake) at that time, but of course this really has nothing to do with the "Jesus" that Christians believe in, which is as mythological a figure as any. (there is no evidence for a historical Buddha, for instance) I've always maintained there were multiple Jewish Messiah claimants killed by the Romans around this time. Yeshua of Nazareth was but one of them. He's just the most successful Jewish Messiah claimant, there have been plenty before and since.

He also specifically shared his message for Jews (John 4:22, Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24) and talked like the end of the world was around the corner. (Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32, Revelation 3:11) Christianity is a completely fabricated religion for gentiles that Jesus never heard of. He was simply claiming to be the Jewish messiah to herald the end of the world, needless to say this didn't happen. The historical Jesus was merely a product of a desperate Jewish people living under Roman oppression in a pivotal period of history where the world was irreversibly changing anyway. Then Romans with a clever sleight-of-hand had the idea to take advantage of this and make it the state religion to justify controlling everyone, once it was clear its popularity would endure despite the early persecution. Then after Rome's collapse it just maintained power ever since.

You should read The Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars say pre-date the canonical gospels. The Gospel of Thomas eschews prayer and fasting, says "the father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth and people do not see it" and that everyone is/can be Jesus/God. (108) There is no literal belief in an after-life or God here, it is purely about life in the present moment, which dogma only interferes with. It aligns exactly to non-dualistic Hinduism and Buddhism. All Christianity is antithetical to it. If Christians are even aware of it, they all reject it without having read it, or reject a strawman false misunderstanding of it that proves its point in the process if they have.

The four canonical gospels and the rest of the New Testament were just compiled by people who insisted on their version to the exception of other approaches that always existed from the beginning. (Gnostic Christians even thrived in pre-Islamic Arabia and Muhammad borrowed from them, some of their beliefs making their way into the Quran, but of course once Islam took power they've been banned there since.) Even the apocrypha came to be excised from most English Bibles. The founding Church Fathers burned gnostic texts, this was always just about power, institutional authority to dictate to the masses what to believe with dogma. That's the only excuse to burn important early texts and not let the people who would otherwise read them decide for themselves what they want to adhere to or believe.

We now have internet and live in the information age. Authorities can't hide texts behind lock and key anymore. Anyone who wants to be informed on history and the true nature of these religions can be.

Christians are fucking idiots and I despise them. (in a sense Muslims are even worse and even more anti-intellectual and mind-numbing to talk to, because they're generally discouraged from so much as even reading the Bible, as a careful reading of history and the Jewish/Christian and even Zoroastrian beliefs Islam took from would call the Quran into question. At least books are not banned in the West.) They are the Pharisees Jesus refers to in verse 102.

Yeshua said,
Shame on the Pharisees.
They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger.
It does not eat or let the cattle eat.
 
Last edited:
Dnr. Seek Christ.

Women will always be protected and provided for regardless, and men are still willing to work.

The religious tradcon setup was destined to fail, because women will always demand more despite being safe and men always willing acquiesce to said demands.

Your response to the reveal of the smoke and mirrors behind the Wizard of Oz is to somehow pretend we didn't see it and "go back" to pretending it was still real. The cat's out of the bag. The only way forward is to address the core problem the smoke and mirrors was masking to begin with. We have no choice but to acknowledge the sickness. Placebos are no longer an option. We either get better or die. It doesn't matter whether it was "better" or not. Something built on foundation of sand is bound to fall eventually. It's not sustainable. That's my point. It fell because it was based on smoke and mirrors, i.e. a falsehood.

-IncelWithHate
Don't be fooled. Christcucks are all secret foid worshippers as well. They all worship Mary or Sophia behind the curtains. They worship the ideal of a loyal wife, of feminine virtue and family. Reality was whores were fucking Chad and betabuxxing incels for the past 2000 years anyway, despite the restraints placed on them by soyciety. Christcuckery forced men to turn a blind eye, to place doubt in their minds that women were beyond such behavior. Modern Christianity is hypercucked, just like everything else these days. There's no going back. A dead avatar for the Age of Pisces, aka the Age of Eros/Love, which is fast coming to an end, and by some measures already has ended. The social engineers pulling the strings yearn for a collectivist unification of humanity under a global government, and have already planted the seeds for such an undertaking in the Age of Aquarius. Incels who don't escape the path they already have planned for us in this totalitarian nightmare will only suffer.

My way out is prime robot pussy, living a life on the outskirts of civilization as a space pirate.

-suigintwo
 
Last edited:
However, that doesn't mean there was no historical Jesus. The moderate view between saying "Jesus never existed" and being a dumb believing Christian is clearly that there was a Jesus man who preached he was the Messiah and was killed by the Romans at that time, but of course this really has nothing to do with the "Jesus" that Christians believe in, which is as mythological a figure as any. (there is no evidence for a historical Buddha, for instance) I've always maintained there were multiple Jewish Messiah claimants killed by the Romans around this time. Yeshua of Nazareth was but one of them. He's just the most successful Jewish Messiah claimant, there have been plenty before and since.
I've literally provided good evidence why Jesus never actually existed. The most compelling evidence, to me, is how precisely Jesus aligns with the Rank-Raglan mythotype. Could you provide any evidence to prove Jesus did exist? Maybe there was a guy called Jesus/Yeshua back then, but the biblical Jesus definitely didn't exist.
He also specifically shared his message for Jews (John 4:22, Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24) and talked like the end of the world was around the corner. (Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32, Revelation 3:11) Christianity is a completely fabricated religion for gentiles that Jesus never heard of. He was simply claiming to be the Jewish messiah to herald the end of the world, needless to say this didn't happen.
so you agree the biblical Jesus didn't exist?
The historical Jesus was merely a product of a desperate Jewish people living under Roman oppression in a pivotal period of history where the world was irreversibly changing anyway. Then Romans with a clever sleight-of-hand had the idea to take advantage of this and make it the state religion to justify controlling everyone, once it was clear its popularity would endure despite the early persecution. Then after Rome's collapse it just maintained power ever since.
The historical Jesus parallels to Titus Flavius, another reason Jesus was created becuz Jews refused to worship Caesar so they made their messiah to BE caesar which turned out to become Christianity
You should read The Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars say pre-date the canonical gospels. The Gospel of Thomas eschews prayer and fasting, says "the father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth and people do not see it" and that everyone is/can be Jesus/God. (108) There is no literal belief in an after-life or God here, it is purely about life in the present moment, which dogma only interferes with. It aligns exactly to non-dualistic Hinduism and Buddhism.
ight, I'll buy it eventually
The four canonical gospels and the rest of the New Testament were just compiled by people who insisted on their version to the exception of other approaches that always existed from the beginning. (Gnostic Christians even thrived in pre-Islamic Arabia and Muhammad borrowed from them, some of their beliefs making their way into the Quran, but of course once Islam took power they've been banned there since.) Even the apocrypha came to be excised from most English Bibles. The founding Church Fathers burned gnostic texts, this was always just about power, institutional authority to dictate to the masses what to believe with dogma. That's the only excuse to burn important early texts and not let the people who would otherwise read them decide for themselves what they want to adhere to or believe.
:yes::yes::yes:
We now have internet and live in the information age. Authorities can't hide texts behind lock and key anymore. Anyone who wants to be informed on history and the true nature of these religions can be.

Christians are fucking idiots and I despise them. (in a sense Muslims are even worse and even more anti-intellectual and mind-numbing to talk to, because they're generally discouraged from so much as even reading the Bible, as a careful reading of history and the Jewish/Christian and even Zoroastrian beliefs Islam took from would call the Quran into question. At least books are not banned in the West.) They are the Pharisees Jesus refers to in verse 102.
yes 100% everyone must be shown the truth and I myself am still searching for the truth
 
b
You are correct that Christianity the religion was invented by Romans to control Jews and non-Jews alike. Every variant of Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, all Protestant variants) is just an outgrowth of that, and Christians are too dense and historically illiterate to understand this. (but to be fair, their theology demands this, but their sheer ignorance means they'd contradict the very figures many of them uphold, like Saint Augustine, who at least had some knowledge.)

Jesus never heard of Christianity, the earliest "Christians" were simply Jews who belived he was the Messiah. (and there have been Jews other Jews have believed to be the Messiah more recently, some Orthodox Chasidic Chabad adherents believe their Rebbe to be this)

However, that doesn't mean there was no historical Jesus. The moderate view between saying "Jesus never existed" and being a dumb believing Christian is clearly that there was a Jesus man who preached he was the Messiah and was killed by the Romans (notably, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe he was crucified on a cross, but rather a stake) at that time, but of course this really has nothing to do with the "Jesus" that Christians believe in, which is as mythological a figure as any. (there is no evidence for a historical Buddha, for instance) I've always maintained there were multiple Jewish Messiah claimants killed by the Romans around this time. Yeshua of Nazareth was but one of them. He's just the most successful Jewish Messiah claimant, there have been plenty before and since.

He also specifically shared his message for Jews (John 4:22, Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24) and talked like the end of the world was around the corner. (Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32, Revelation 3:11) Christianity is a completely fabricated religion for gentiles that Jesus never heard of. He was simply claiming to be the Jewish messiah to herald the end of the world, needless to say this didn't happen. The historical Jesus was merely a product of a desperate Jewish people living under Roman oppression in a pivotal period of history where the world was irreversibly changing anyway. Then Romans with a clever sleight-of-hand had the idea to take advantage of this and make it the state religion to justify controlling everyone, once it was clear its popularity would endure despite the early persecution. Then after Rome's collapse it just maintained power ever since.

You should read The Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars say pre-date the canonical gospels. The Gospel of Thomas eschews prayer and fasting, says "the father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth and people do not see it" and that everyone is/can be Jesus/God. (108) There is no literal belief in an after-life or God here, it is purely about life in the present moment, which dogma only interferes with. It aligns exactly to non-dualistic Hinduism and Buddhism. All Christianity is antithetical to it. If Christians are even aware of it, they all reject it without having read it, or reject a strawman false misunderstanding of it that proves its point in the process if they have.

The four canonical gospels and the rest of the New Testament were just compiled by people who insisted on their version to the exception of other approaches that always existed from the beginning. (Gnostic Christians even thrived in pre-Islamic Arabia and Muhammad borrowed from them, some of their beliefs making their way into the Quran, but of course once Islam took power they've been banned there since.) Even the apocrypha came to be excised from most English Bibles. The founding Church Fathers burned gnostic texts, this was always just about power, institutional authority to dictate to the masses what to believe with dogma. That's the only excuse to burn important early texts and not let the people who would otherwise read them decide for themselves what they want to adhere to or believe.

We now have internet and live in the information age. Authorities can't hide texts behind lock and key anymore. Anyone who wants to be informed on history and the true nature of these religions can be.

Christians are fucking idiots and I despise them. (in a sense Muslims are even worse and even more anti-intellectual and mind-numbing to talk to, because they're generally discouraged from so much as even reading the Bible, as a careful reading of history and the Jewish/Christian and even Zoroastrian beliefs Islam took from would call the Quran into question. At least books are not banned in the West.) They are the Pharisees Jesus refers to in verse 102.
by the way if you read The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus and the new testament side by side, you'll see Titus Flavius and Jesus Christ mirror eachother in many ways. And, the new testament has stories very similar to old testament stories.
 

Yes, we're basically in agreement the Biblical Jesus didn't exist, the point is whether the Biblical Jesus and the Jesus Christians believe in is the same as the historical person. We're in agreement it does not. But does it correspond or have anything at all to do with a historical person is the question.

My point is there could have been a Jewish guy that claimed to be the Messiah, preached, got (Jewish) followers and was persecuted and killed by Romans as a result of this at that time period, and that the anonymous writers of the Gospels wrote what they did as a consequence of those events. But this isn't the same thing as saying the Gospels accurately describe the person and events. When people say the Biblical Jesus was real, that's what they mean. What I'm saying is that there could have just as well been a Jewish man that preached and was killed, but that it doesn't really correspond to the Biblical Jesus at all, much less the "Jesus" that Christians believe in. (that's purely a mythological figure.) It's another question what name he really had. Again, I'm of the view there were multiple Jewish men who claimed to be the Messiah and were killed by the Romans around the time, so "Jesus/Yeshua of Nazareth" would be but one of them.

Christians are obviously brain-dead and would simply invoke the very existence of the Gospels as proof that they were genuine accounts, which is just circular logic. By definition, a Christian believes the contents of the New Testament. The vast majority go further into stupidity, being Nicene dogmatists, rejecting all Christians who study history enough to find valid criticisms of this as "rejecting Christ" himself, obviously just a mindless projection of authority.

But interestingly, the contents of the Gospels go against the view they were just completely made up. For example, in Matthew 16:22 and Mark 8:32, Peter rebukes Jesus for predicting he will suffer and die, because in Judaism, there is no belief that the Messiah will do this. On the contrary he's supposed to be a politically victorious leader who coalesces the Jews to Israel, takes it over and ushers in a new age of world peace, the opposite of being persecuted and killed by authorities. If someone things the Gospels were totally made up, logically they'd have to defend the position that the writers put things like this in just to trick people, predicting in advance it would make it all the more convincing. Therefore, the view the writers weren't consciously just making it all up purely in an attempt to manipulate people strikes me as more reasonable. (whether they actually describe events people and statements accurately as they really happened is another matter—of course they don't.)

My point in bringing up the Gospel of Thomas wasn't "this is true and what he really said, the 4 canonical Gospels aren't" but rather that the fact that Christians deny or justify the burning of texts outside the 4 Canonical gospels that are just as old i.e. just as likely to be authentic as what they adhere to demonstrates my point it's about their blind adherence to the authorities that compiled the Bible and set forth the Nicene Creed, not what is actually most authentic to the roots. Of course it really gets interesting when you read the texts and see how the Gospel of Thomas differs from the view of the Bible, while containing many of the same or similar things Jesus said in the Gospels. (It utterly rejects the notion of any dogma or religious authority, as I said, this applies as much to Jewish religious authority as Christianity or institutionalized religion in general. This is clearly the intent of the text as well.)

I have more to say about why Muslims are wrong later, it's such a headache lol. They're correct to a point because they have motivation to point out how Christianity was just a religion invented later, but of course are just mindlessly adhering to their own dogma. I've found generally it's easier to talk to Christians than Muslims as my previous comment implied, Islam is just less tolerant and more insecure and contradictory. Any Christian can pick up the Quran and read it, but Islam vigorously discourages historical, intellectual, and religious inquiry into other religions because it of course calls itself into questions which it doesn't want. Christians are encouraged to study Jewish history, whereas the Jewish and Christian Bibles are actually banned in some Islamic countries.
 
stubborncel

You won't convince him. Anyone suggesting religion is a solution for incels and incels should come to any religion is just bamboozling you. My reply with the two quoted replies from last year explained why.

I'd say this just as much for Buddhism as Christianity at this point, obviously. I disagree with Buddhism's view of history, people, society, life and philosophy as much as Christianity and for the same reasons. Buddhists just dismiss or blame incels, "just accept it bro just overcome desire bro" this shit is obviously only conducive to the smooth functioning of the system and society and rulers keeping us impoverished and miserable, which is why it's promoted at all to the extent it is. This is also why Redpillers and Bluepillers are basically the same.

This comes from much personal experience. I went to the monastery in New York and met the most notable Buddhist convert in the U.S.A. today due to translations he did of the original scripture, Bhikku Bodhi. (the books are titled, "In the Buddha's Words.") In one of his books he says: "that suffering is a consequence of one's own desire is an obvious fact for anyone with the intelligence and maturity to admit it." This is disingenuous. One is not less "intelligent" and "mature" if they don't just accept their suffering on the basis "it's my desire." This is just encouraging people to dismiss their personal suffering because other people obviously don't care, on pretense of "personal responsibility" and "maturity." These are just false concepts society uses to dismiss and victim-blame us. All society wants is for us to not complain or rebel, to accept worsening conditions, isolation, poverty to the maximum extent possible. An introduction to a translation of the Quran I have reads: "doing more than one's duty and expecting less than one's right." It's just the same shit. Tell this to the poors to work more for less money, while the rich go to the bank or New Zealand.

Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism, all religion...just variants of the same bullshit mindset I just broke down.

The same is true for irreligious stoicism of course. I'm not whitepilled, anyone here who says that it's basically the bluepill is right. Then again, this guy is also right that blackpill rage is gynocentric because you're focusing on your lack of having a woman in this way and being enraged about it. But this doesn't mean that the whitepill is a solution. You can just be blackpilled without succumbing to blackpill rage.

THAT'S why i call the redpill, and also the "blackpill rage" gynocentric, because it the end of the day enforces the current societal order without actively benefitting men.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we're basically in agreement the Biblical Jesus didn't exist, the point is whether the Biblical Jesus and the Jesus Christians believe in is the same as the historical person. We're in agreement it does not. But does it correspond or have anything at all to do with a historical person is the question.

My point is there could have been a Jewish guy that claimed to be the Messiah, preached, got (Jewish) followers and was persecuted and killed by Romans as a result of this at that time period, and that the anonymous writers of the Gospels wrote what they did as a consequence of those events. But this isn't the same thing as saying the Gospels accurately describe the person and events. When people say the Biblical Jesus was real, that's what they mean. What I'm saying is that there could have just as well been a Jewish man that preached and was killed, but that it doesn't really correspond to the Biblical Jesus at all, much less the "Jesus" that Christians believe in. (that's purely a mythological figure.) It's another question what name he really had. Again, I'm of the view there were multiple Jewish men who claimed to be the Messiah and were killed by the Romans around the time, so "Jesus/Yeshua of Nazareth" would be but one of them.
Yes I agree, it was definitely possible that the romans saw many jews acting as the messiah and so they got the idea to create the mythological Jesus Christ for the Roman Empire's benefit.
But interestingly, the contents of the Gospels go against the view they were just completely made up. For example, in Matthew 16:22 and Mark 8:32, Peter rebukes Jesus for predicting he will suffer and die, because in Judaism, there is no belief that the Messiah will do this. On the contrary he's supposed to be a politically victorious leader who coalesces the Jews to Israel, takes it over and ushers in a new age of world peace, the opposite of being persecuted and killed by authorities. If someone things the Gospels were totally made up, logically they'd have to defend the position that the writers put things like this in just to trick people, predicting in advance it would make it all the more convincing. Therefore, the view the writers weren't consciously just making it all up purely in an attempt to manipulate people strikes me as more reasonable. (whether they actually describe events people and statements accurately as they really happened is another matter—of course they don't.)
The jewish belief about the messiah is nothing like Jesus Christ. Like you said, the messiah was to make Israel the center of all world governments, be a great political leader, and will come after great war and suffering, etc. which Jesus didn't do any of.
My point in bringing up the Gospel of Thomas wasn't "this is true and what he really said, the 4 canonical Gospels aren't" but rather that the fact that Christians deny or justify the burning of texts outside the 4 Canonical gospels that are just as old i.e. just as likely to be authentic as what they adhere to demonstrates my point it's about their blind adherence to the authorities that compiled the Bible and set forth the Nicene Creed, not what is actually most authentic to the roots.
Yep the way Christians burned and rejected anything that went against their beliefs makes my blood boil. Like for example how they burned the gnostic writings.
Of course it really gets interesting when you read the texts and see how the Gospel of Thomas differs from the view of the Bible, while containing many of the same or similar things Jesus said in the Gospels. (It utterly rejects the notion of any dogma or religious authority, as I said, this applies as much to Jewish religious authority as Christianity or institutionalized religion in general. This is clearly the intent of the text as well.)
hmmm interesting, I'll buy it once I have enough money
I have more to say about why Muslims are wrong later, it's such a headache lol.
no worries lol I already know how flawed Islam is aswell, I've actually bought a book on the topic of Islam and I'm waiting for it to arrive:feelsautistic:
They're correct to a point because they have motivation to point out how Christianity was just a religion invented later, but of course are just mindlessly adhering to their own dogma. I've found generally it's easier to talk to Christians than Muslims as my previous comment implied, Islam is just less tolerant and more insecure and contradictory. Any Christian can pick up the Quran and read it, but Islam vigorously discourages historical, intellectual, and religious inquiry into other religions because it of course calls itself into questions which it doesn't want. Christians are encouraged to study Jewish history, whereas the Jewish and Christian Bibles are actually banned in some Islamic countries.
:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:
 
You won't convince him. Anyone suggesting religion is a solution for incels and incels should come to any religion is just bamboozling you.
I know lol
My reply with the two quoted replies from last year explained why.

I'd say this just as much for Buddhism as Christianity at this point, obviously. I disagree with Buddhism's view of history, people, society, life and philosophy as much as Christianity and for the same reasons. Buddhists just dismiss or blame incels, "just accept it bro just overcome desire bro" this shit is obviously only conducive to the smooth functioning of the system and society and rulers keeping us impoverished and miserable, which is why it's promoted at all to the extent it is. This is also why Redpillers and Bluepillers are basically the same.

This comes from much personal experience. I went to the monastery in New York and met the most notable Buddhist convert in the U.S.A. today due to translations he did of the original scripture, Bhikku Bodhi. (the books are titled, "In the Buddha's Words.") In one of his books he says: "that suffering is a consequence of one's own desire is an obvious fact for anyone with the intelligence and maturity to admit it." This is disingenuous. One is not less "intelligent" and "mature" if they don't just accept their suffering on the basis "it's my desire." This is just encouraging people to dismiss their personal suffering because other people obviously don't care, on pretense of "personal responsibility" and "maturity." These are just false concepts society uses to dismiss and victim-blame us. All society wants is for us to not complain or rebel, to accept worsening conditions, isolation, poverty to the maximum extent possible. An introduction to a translation of the Quran I have reads: "doing more than one's duty and expecting less than one's right." It's just the same shit. Tell this to the poors to work more for less money, while the rich go to the bank or New Zealand.

Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism, all religion...just variants of the same bullshit mindset I just broke down.

The same is true for irreligious stoicism of course. I'm not whitepilled, anyone here who says that it's basically the bluepill is right. Then again, this guy is also right that blackpill rage is gynocentric because you're focusing on your lack of having a woman in this way and being enraged about it. But this doesn't mean that the whitepill is a solution. You can just be blackpilled without succumbing to blackpill rage.
you're high iq, mirin:feelsLightsaber:
 
skimmed through will read properly later
 
Yeshua ben Yoseif was born in Bethlehem in the Roman Province of Judea in either Rosh Hashanah of 3 BCE or Sukkot of 4 BCE
Jesus was fully human but also fully God and Lord and he was the Messiah Lord and King

He had a aprox 3 year ministry and was put to death sometime between 27 and 30 CE
In his death on this stake he died for our sins so we could have life forever and ever and not be cast into the abyss!
 
Yeshua ben Yoseif was born in Bethlehem in the Roman Province of Judea in either Rosh Hashanah of 3 BCE or Sukkot of 4 BCE
Jesus was fully human but also fully God and Lord and he was the Messiah Lord and King

He had a aprox 3 year ministry and was put to death sometime between 27 and 30 CE
In his death on this stake he died for our sins so we could have life forever and ever and not be cast into the abyss!
Sorry to break it to you man but the biblical jesus didnt exist, I wish he did:feelsbadman:

Though, the romans most likely did see a jew acting like the messiah and stole that idea to make the mythological Jesus Christ up
 
Christianity is a jewish creation
 
Sorry to break it to you man but the biblical jesus didnt exist, I wish he did:feelsbadman:

Though, the romans most likely did see a jew acting like the messiah and stole that idea to make the mythological Jesus Christ up
You have been reading to much Richard Carrier
 
Christianity is a jewish creation
Christianity is a Roman creation to make the jews submissive, and the jews used it to their advantage instead. Christianity does stem from Judaism though
 
Christianity is a Roman creation to make the jews submissive, and the jews used it to their advantage instead. Christianity does stem from Judaism though
yes it does
 
he did steel ball run proves it:feelsthink:
 
Kinda odd contrast with empro Nero burning Christians and feeding them to lions narrative.
 
It was a huge empire of millions of people, I wouldn't be surprised if fhe policies of the various emperors flip flopped around a bit.

Look at how western society recently went from

:foidSoy:"my body, my choice"

to

:feels: "you have to put the vaxx in your body or else we'll take your livelihood and cut you off from society like a leper!"

and now we've returned back to

:foidSoy: "my body, my choice!"
 
High IQ post. Anybody who blindly believes Jesus existed just because some scriptures say so is 100% brainwashed
 

Similar threads

Diddlium
Replies
3
Views
216
reveries
reveries
Decal1us_____
Replies
1
Views
194
Decal1us_____
Decal1us_____
MaldireMan0077
Replies
4
Views
202
MaldireMan0077
MaldireMan0077
ShiiOfTheSPLC
Replies
7
Views
180
Regenerator
Regenerator

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top