The Slain One breathes

images (1)

They laid my Lord behind a stone, yet He wasn’t found, yea surely gone. The Pierced One walks and that again, behold the Lamb the Hope of men. No stone too heavy no grave too deep, could even try my Saviour keep. The Slain One breathes and that again, behold the Lamp the light of men. They nailed my Lord upon a tree, they didn’t know His Blood made free. The Hung One lives and that again, behold the Lord Creator of men. And now I shall not fear hell’s darkest doom, for my Saviour left an empty tomb. And at my last I’ll see this Treasure, whose worth and weight beyond my measure. Untouched by rust and safe from moth, my Saviour left a folded cloth.

 

Please note any similarity that poem has to any existing poetry was not intentional. I thought I’d take a post and reflect upon the reason for this blog, the reason I’m a Christian, the for everything. The Risen Christ.

 

Christos Anesti, Alithos Anesti.

Christ is Risen. He is Risen indeed.

 

 

“40 questions to ask Christians” Answered

th

A list of 40 questions against Christianity is circulating on the web, the article seems to have been “updated” last year, perhaps more were added or changed. The article was written by a man named Thomas Swan. The article is divided into several sections, I will attempt to answer all 40 in this post. The questions themselves are not that difficult, there are some in a particular section dealing with “Why did God do this instead of that” such questions can be asked ad infinitum and some can only be answered with a simple “Because He’s God.”

Nevertheless, this post today is more like an answer key. Perhaps these questions were plaguing a new Christian. Keep in mind my answers may vary and probably do from other Christians, I would also say some questions have more than one answer.

 

To quote the article:

 

Asking a difficult question can achieve better results because it taps into the Christian’s desire to share the wisdom they perceive themselves to have. Any reflex for angry disagreement is quashed and replaced by an obligation to think their answer through. Ultimately, thought is what an atheist should be trying to elicit. By asking the right questions, one can determine the direction that such thought takes.

 

Yeah…right.

OK, getting into question number one:

 

Regarding World Religion:

 

If a hundred different religions have to be wrong for yours to be right, does this show that people from all over the world like to invent gods that don’t exist?

 

Answer:

 

The truth of Christianity is not dependent on other religions “being wrong”, no other religion has to even exist for Christianity to be right. Christianity is true because Jesus rose from the dead. Not because Islam and Hinduism are untrue. Again, other religions being wrong is not what makes us right. If anything, those religions are wrong because Christianity is right, not the other way around.

In regards to the question of whether some religions like to invent gods that don’t exist, I would say what Paul said, that what the gentiles sacrifice to they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. (1 Corinthians 10:20) And so what they worship “not existing” is not quite correct.

 

If your parents had belonged to a different religion, do you think you would belong to that religion too?

 

Maybe. What has this to do with the truthfulness of a religion? Ultimately I believe God would have had me become a Christian anyway. This question ignores the vast majority of people born into other religions that become Christians.

 

If people from the five major religions are told conflicting information by their respective gods, should any of them be believed?

 

Yes, how does each religion teaching something different mean they’re all wrong?

 

How can you tell the voice of God from a voice in your head?

Since I don’t believe God still speaks audibly to people, and in Scripture God is never a “voice in someone’s head” I would say any voice in my head is obviously not God.

Would you find it easier to kill someone if you believed God supported you in the act?

Why would I believe God wanted me to kill someone when He said in the first place thou shalt not kill? We are not waging war against Caananites, so this question is anachronistic.

I might rephrase this question though:

“Would a person find killing someone easier if they were an executioner and they believed the state supported them in the act?”

If God told you to kill an atheist, would you?

Again, God doesn’t speak audibly to people anymore. Ultimately if an omniscient Being says to do something, I would say He has a good reason. (Killing young Hitler for example) But no, I wouldn’t  because it wouldn’t be God telling me to.

 

When an atheist is kind and charitable out of the kindness of his heart, is his behavior more or less commendable than a religious man who does it because God instructed him to?

The very concept of having a kind and charitable heart is questionable to begin with (Jeremiah 17:19) however, I would say doing something out of faith in Someone you cannot see is just as commendable.

If you are against the Crusades and the Inquisition, would you have been burned alive as a heretic during those events?

The Crusades were not against people “against” crusading. I don’t want control of Jerusalem, and I’m not a Jihadist, so I don’t think I’d be much of a target. In regards to the Inquisition, I’m not Roman Catholic so make of that what you will.

Either way, this has no bearing on the truth of Christianity.

If your interpretation of a holy book causes you to condemn your ancestors for having a different interpretation, will your descendants condemn you in the same way?

Huh?? When do I condemn my ancestors? And if my descendant do so what? I’m Italian so my ancestors probably worshiped the Roman gods and Caesars. For that I condemn them.

Rape wasn’t always a crime in the Middle East two thousand years ago. Is that why `do not rape’ is not part of the Ten Commandments?

See Deuteronomy 22:23-29. Rape was always a crime, it just had different penalties depending on the situation. Since marriage was a command for nearly all Jewish men, and “Thou shalt not commit adultery” IS one of the ten commandments, I think not raping is pretty clear here.

 

Do animals need `god-given’ morality to understand how to care for their young, co-operate within a pack, or feel anguish at the loss of a companion? Why do we?

No, but animals also eat their young, kill each other for food, and a large variety of other interesting behaviors including rape. I would not use animals as a pattern for human behavior, therefore we need another Law Giver.

If an organized religion requires a civilization in which to spread, how could this civilization exist without first having a moral code to make it civil?

Revealed religion and “moral code” is not synonymous. There are universal morals known to all. This is a non question. I might ask the atheist how these universal moral absolutes can be in their worldview.

An all-knowing God can read your mind, so why does he require you to demonstrate your faith by worshiping him?

He doesn’t… God knows my faith by looking at my heart. I worship Him because He’s God, not to prove something. He doesn’t require worship to prove faith, but worship is a natural result of faith in God.

 

 

 

If God is all-knowing, why do holy books describe him as surprised or angered by the actions of humans? He should have known what was going to happen, right?

If you know you’re child is going to break a vase in the next ten minutes, even though you repeatedly told the child not to, would you not be angered? In regards to God being surprised, I would need to see some Biblical reference indicating this, though I will say God displays anthropomorphized characteristics as a way of an eternal infinite Being relating to temporal spatial creatures.

If God is all-knowing, then why did he make humans, knowing that he’d eventually have to send Jesus to his death?

God made all things for His pleasure (Revelation 4:11) I a mortal man am in no position to question this. Ultimately though, God through Christ’s death and resurrection has displayed what an amazing God He is, dying for His creatures, and conquering death on top of that.

Why did a supposedly omnipotent God take six days to create the universe, and why did he require rest on the seventh day?

As a pattern for the human work/rest relationship. He could have taken 3 seconds but He didn’t for our benefit.

Is omnipotence necessary to create our universe when a larger, denser universe would have required more power?

Huh?? I thought the universe was without a true edge so how can we have a “larger” universe? Ultimately we would need such a universe to compare ours to. What is meant by “larger and denser” is not specified.

Why are Churches filled with riches when Jesus asked his followers to give their wealth away?

He asked the young ruler to give his wealth away, and that was to prove a point. Ultimately though, I do agree that many American churches spend too much money on bells and whistles. This has no bearing on the truth of Christianity however.

While in the desert, Jesus rejected the temptations of the Devil. He didn’t censor or kill the Devil, so why are Christians so in favor of censoring or condemning many Earthly temptations?

What is meant by “censoring earthly temptations”? We are not God incarnate so it would make sense to stay away from stuff that could cause us to trip up.

 

Given that the story of Noah’s Ark was copied almost word-for-word from the much older Sumerian Epic of Atrahasis, does this mean that our true ruler is the supreme sky god, Anu?

Word for word? The flood epics of the Sumerians are hardly “word for word” in that they have many gods flooding the earth, or arks shaped like cubes. Ultimately, I believe these tales are deriving from a common source. In others words, a flood actually DID happen.

The next one is probably my favorite question.

 

If your desire is to convert atheists so that they become more like you, do you think that you’re currently better than them?

Yeah, that’s why I want atheists to become Christians. So they’re just like me…right.

If religious people don’t respect their children’s right to pick their own religion, how can society expect religious people to respect anyone’s right to freedom of religion?

I wouldn’t respect my children’s right to pick their own food, drive the car, or watch adult channels on TV either. This is hardly to be compared to society.

 

If missionaries from your religion should be sent to convert people in other countries, should missionaries from other religions be sent to your country for the same reason?

No.

 

If children are likely to believe in Santa Claus and fairies, does this explain why religion has been taught to children for thousands of years?

Does this explain why children are taught evolution in school? See where this is going?

When preachers and prophets claim to be special messengers of God, they often receive special benefits from their followers. Does this ever cause you to doubt their intentions?

Yes.

When you declare a miracle, does this mean you understand everything that is possible in nature?

No, but one only needs to understand the things which are already established through science. In other words, dead men don’t come back to life naturally.

If a woman was cured of cancer by means unknown to us, and everyone declared it a miracle, would the chance of scientifically replicating this cure be more or less likely?

Less likely, miracles are not frequent even in Scripture. And I don’t believe miracles are scientifically replicable either.

If humans declared fire to be a miracle thousands of years ago, would we still be huddling together in caves while we wait for God to throw another lightning bolt into the forest?

Fire is clearly not miraculous, so anyone declaring has no bearing on Christian miracles.

If God gave a man cancer, and the Devil cured him to subvert God’s plan, how would you know it wasn’t a divine miracle? What if he was an unkind, atheist, homosexual?

That cannot happen unless God allows it. See the Book of Job.

Should an instruction to convert to your religion upon the threat of eternal torture in hell be met with anything other than hostility?

Someone in the comments section gave the analogy of trying to save someone from a burning building, should that be met with hostility? Well done sir, I will use that analogy.

Can a mass murderer go to heaven for accepting your religion, while a kind doctor goes to hell for not?

The point is is that person is not a mass murderer anymore. They become a new creature and the old man has died.

If aliens exist on several worlds that have never heard of your god, will they all be going to hell when they die?

Hell was created for beings that are not of this world, unless one can find fallen angels originating from Camden New Jersey, I would say they have heard of God and have seen Him, but chose to rebel anyway.

If someone promised you eternal life, the protection of a loving super being, a feeling of moral righteousness, a purpose for living, answers to all the big questions, and a rule book for achieving the pinnacle of human potential, all in exchange for having faith in something that wasn’t proven, would you be suspicious?

I’m already a Christian so yes.

Why does religion appeal more to poor, weak, vulnerable, young, ill, depressed, and ostracized people? Could religious promises be more of a temptation to these people?

I suppose this includes scholars such as William Lane Craig and Isaac Newton.

And that’s the end of the list. So far I’m underwhelmed.

Did the Romans invent Jesus?

images.jpg

 

 

It would seem as though the only place conspiracy theories can truly flourish are online. I have seen a lot of conspiracy theories in my day. I had a massive interest in conspiracy theories when I was younger, and of all the conspiracy theories I have seen, I can truly say this one takes the cake. I am writing on this topic as a part two to my previous post in response to a blogger propagating these theories.

Ready?

Wealthy Roman families with the help of emperor Vespasian and Flavius Josephus wrote the New Testament and created Christianity and everyone associated with it, including Jesus Christ, as a means of pacifying the Jews and sway them into accepting Roman rule after the Jewish revolt and destruction of the temple between 66 and 70 AD. They then hid codes in the New Testament that revealed the truth about this so well they went unnoticed for 2000 years only to be discovered by a computer programmer named Joseph Atwill.

Well, now we know…

These theories are so absurd that no one but a handful of apologetics or biblical scholarship ministries have even bothered to mention the claims.

However, I have located two excellent articles that completely expose the theory, comment if you’d like the links.

I’m going to approach these claims differently though. The above articles deal with evidence and lack thereof, but I’m going to work on the question of whether or not the Lord Jesus Christ is the type of Messiah the Romans would have invented had they truly invented one. We will see Jesus is the exact opposite, and would have only caused more outrage by the Jews.

We must also note that Rome would NOT have bothered creating a religion, they would have used the sword to quell upheaval. Which they did.

I will demonstrate in this article that the person and work of Jesus Christ would have been so offensive to the Jews at the time, that they would have been anything but “pacified”.

We need to address one thing first. This theory would have us believe that Jesus as a person didn’t exist and that these documents created by the Romans would have been passed around to the Jews with the intent that they would believe them.

Umm, didn’t the Jews NOTICE that the Messiah in the documents wasn’t real? The theory posits that the very people who were waiting for a Messiah to arise were convinced that one arose… And yet never actually existed in the places he was said to have… He’s not physically here in other words.

Imagine that. Nobody bothered to say ” wait a minute… There was no Jesus Christ” but instead bought into these Roman documents and the religion flourished for 2000 years.

That would be like trying to convince Americans a president existed that never did. Americans who lived in Washington DC around the time the president was said to have taken office.  Yeah, that’s believable.

But now let’s look at several factors that make Jesus the exact opposite of a pacifying Messiah.

If one reads the new testament one will clearly see Jesus didn’t quite get along with the Jewish religious leaders of the day. And does anyone know why?

Because almost everything He said and did was a challenge to their extreme traditions built around the law and their blatant hypocrisy. If I was creating a Messiah to “pacify” people I would not make one that actually stirred them up. Let’s take a look at a few points.

One:

Jesus made claims to Deity. This caused outrage among the Jews (John 8:56-59 Matthew 24:64-65)

Hardly intended to “pacify”

Two:

Jesus performed miracles on the sabbath and did other things against their laws on the sabbath. Again causing outrage (John 5:5-10, Matthew 12:1-2)

Hardly intended to “pacify”

Jesus hung around those who were shunned by the Jews (Matthew 11:19) And spoke about a caring Samaritan who was more godly than a priest ( Luke 10:30-37) the Jews hated the Samaritans. Again this would have caused outrage.

Hardly intended to “pacify”

Jesus was born of a virgin, this caused accusation  among the Jews that He was the result of fornication (John 8:41)

Hardly something one would make up if they were trying to sell a Messiah.

Hardly intended to “pacify”

Jesus berated the scribes and Pharisees and the entire 23 chapter of Matthew is devoted to Jesus rebuking the Jewish leaders as vipers. Jesus also called them children of devil and children of hell. What’s that about a peaceful Messiah trying to get the Jews to settle down?

Hardly intended to “pacify”

Jesus made claims about destroying the temple (John 2:19) and that the temple would be destroyed ( Matthew 24:2)

This a major strike against the theory. The theory says after the temple was destroyed Jesus was invented to pacify the Jews. Anyone reading this at the time would have been furious that this Messiah would have said these things about the beloved temple.

The equivalent would be telling Muslims the dome on the rock would be destroyed, or Americans that the white house would be destroyed.

Hardly intended to “pacify”

Jesus chose tradesmen and tax collectors as His disciples. The Messiah was prophesied as a King who would take the throne of David. Jesus hanging around these types of people would have fostered confusion. Jesus was from Galilee and the Jews were adamant the Messiah would not be from an obscure village like Galilee. Again, this would have created confusion.

Jesus was nearly stoned several times, accused of practicing magic, they accused His mother of fornication, they berated Him because of His town, they berated Him because He was a carpenter, they tried to throw Him off a cliff, and eventually, they crucified Him. (Which caused a whole new set of problems for an invented Messiah, see my previous post)

And we’re to believe Jesus was invented to appease the Jews into a state of docility?

How about a Messiah who overturned almost everything held to by the Jews? How about a Messiah who stirred up outrage and envy? How about a Messiah they tried to accuse of blasphemy? How about a Messiah with no regards for rabbinic tradition? How about a Messiah who said the temple would be annihilated and because they rejected Him!? How about a Messiah who said He was God? Taking on the sacred name for Himself? How about a Messiah who hung around the people the Jewish leaders wouldn’t look twice at?

Jesus a Roman creation?

I don’t think so.

Did Jesus exist? Responding to Xeno’s strange library

I came across an interesting website floating around in the ether called “True Strange Library”

The website seems to be run by a one “Xeno” right here on wordpress, who apparently had an uncle in the music industry. The article in question is from 2010, however, based upon another article that was published today, the blog is still putting forth some skeptical articles against Christianity .

 

My presence here on wordpress is to try and counter some of that.

Normally websites such as this aren’t really an attention grabber, at least not for me, however, the blog says they have around 3.5 million readers. If that number is anywhere close to true, we have a large sum of people reading this type of stuff right here on wordpress.

We need to note one thing though, according to the website:

“We focus on stories that intrigue and educate, specializing in bizarre or lesser-known theories and fringe science. Nearly every day we present new unique content in one of our thirty categories, from aliens to war news.” [source]

Fringe science indeed. Now let me state again the only reason I’m paying attention to this kind of stuff is because these articles are right next door. Normally a website devoted to conspiracy theories isn’t in my scope of commentary.

Anyway, the article in question is their “Search for a historical Jesus” which argues Jesus did not exist. I intend to show this article to be extremely flawed.

The quotes of the article will be indicated by ***

The article starts of with some comments about life after death and some theories about human souls.

To begin:

***

The evidence for his life seems to be only the Gospels which didn’t show up until over 100 years after he was gone.

A gospel (from Old English, gōd spell “good news“) is a writing that describes the life of Jesus. The word is primarily used to refer to the four canonical gospels: the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between AD 65 and 110. They appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century (i.e. 100–150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180.[1]

If the Gospels are, as they seem to be, separate accounts by different people who knew Jesus personally, why are parts of Matthew and Luke identical? This is known as the Synoptic problem.

 

***

 

First and foremost, the article quotes an (unamed) document which puts the gospels between 65 and 110. While I disagree with this general dating, the 65 is not “over a hundred years” it’s over 30 years.

Secondly the claim that the gospels were qouted anonymously to until 180 A.D. is questionable.

Papias (70-163 A.D.) attributed the Gospel of Mark to Peter.

Irenaus (130-200) did as well, and Justin Martyr (150) did too.

The Gospels were not just arbitrarily assigned authors all of the sudden in 180 A.D.

The dating of the gospels aside, the claim that they are the only source for Jesus’ existence or life is not true, as we will see.

In regards to why Matthew and Luke are identical in certain areas really doesn’t pose much of a problem for me, firstly Luke’s Gospel exists as a document based upon the testimonies of eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2-3) there is no reason Luke cannot be quoting Matthew, or perhaps they both quoted the same oral traditions.

Either way, Luke’s Gospel is not a personal testimony of what he saw about Jesus, he seems to be using testimonies that the disciples gave to him, so it would make sense that he would quote them.

Moving on

***

We are in the age of “spam,” the age of computer viruses and email hoaxes. Email hoaxers often exactly “cut and paste” the text from a previous hoax to create a new one. Is this the real solution to the Synopic problem?

***

This is quite telling as the author seems to make a habit of imposing 21st century perspectives on ancient texts. The ease of the computer age makes spreading information convenient. Why a group of twelve Jewish men decided to spread the 1st century equivalent of an “email hoax” is not explained, however, I must ask when was the last time someone gave their lives for such a “gimmick”.

 

***

“I wondered if the Gospels were partly a Roman deception after they won against the Jews in order to keep their vanquished foes peaceful. Perhaps not. The Gospel stories seem to have evolved organically because they had a ring of truth and they helped people. Parts of the Gospels are certainly based on real history. But then so was Homer’s Odyssey, it seems …”

 

***

 

While the Gospels certainly help people today (in the sense of evangelism and giving Christians hope) they were hardly what would have been invented in the first century. What about this theory that the Romans invented the gospels to pacify the Jews? A theory this site still puts forward.

Aside from the fact there is literally no evidence this is the case, I might add the following:

 

In Judaism anyone hung on a tree was seen as under God’s curse (Deuteronomy 23:21)

Why would anyone invent a Messiah that was under this? Jesus was the exact opposite of what the Jews at the time were expecting. They didn’t believe in a Messiah who was from Galilee (John 7:41) and they certainly wouldn’t accept a Messiah under the Deuteronomy 23:21 verse.

Jesus spoke of His kingdom being not of this world, while the Jews were waiting for physical deliverance from Rome.

The statements by Jesus about destroying the temple, or about the temple being destroyed, would have been outrageous to the Jews at the time, and one cannot posit such a politically incorrect Messiah as a means of somehow “keeping the Jews peaceful” inventing Jesus would have had the opposite affect.

 

***

“The Jesus story, which borrows from or parallels other savior stories (Mithra, Horus, Osiris, Zarathustra, Tammuz, etc. ) seems to be a thought virus born not from the designs of a Roman hacker, but from basic human needs for mental protection from life’s troubles. The story says something important about the human mind. We aspire to truth, fairness, clean living, immortality, and super powers.”

***

The author seems to have changed views because their latest post is about how the Romans invented Jesus. Citing the usual “gods” as alleged parallels for the life of Jesus will not do. These theories have already been answered time and time again and will not be dealt with here.

However, citing a general human need as an explanation for Christianity is not sufficient either, there is hardly anything psychologically protective about Christianity. Teachings on eternal punishment, that many people are under God’s judgement, that Jesus is the only way to heaven, that we will lose family for Jesus’ sake, plus the high ethical standards would if anything add more mental anxiety. Again, Christianity is a religion based upon historical people and historical claims. Looking to psychology is not going to suffice.

The article goes on citing examples of the ten commandments being borrowed from other ancient cultures (a non issue for me) and some thoughts on the AD/BC calendar.

***

Perhaps the most fallacious part of the article is the following:

 

***

We have archaeological evidence for people who lived after and before Jesus Christ:

  • Alexander the Great Alexander III of Macedon (356–323 BC). After 200 CE, his body went missing from the tomb, but it had been around for a long time. In addition to stories, we have hard archaeological evidence. We know Alexander lived and we know what this person who lived 323 years BCE looked like because there are coins and a Roman copy of a statue by Lysippus, in the Louvre Museum.
  • Plato (~428  BC to ~347 BC), unlike Jesus and Alexander, did a lot of writing when he lived and his students wrote about him.  We know what Plato looked like because we have physical evidence, a bust by Silanion, a Greek sculptor of the 4th century BC.  He died at 81. He was supposedly buried on the grounds of the Academy, the school he founded, after his death around 348. No one has located his grave because in 86 BC, Lucius Cornelius Sulla “ravaged the Academy”, which was about 2.5 km from the Acropolis near Colonus Hippius.  Today its modern name is Kolonos and it is a densely populated working-class district of the Municipality of Athens. }

 

***

The author also adds Odysseus and Gilgamesh in the list.

The intended meaning here is we have historical evidence of these guys, but not Jesus.

There’s a couple of problems with this.

First of all, citing a bust of Plato as though we should have one of Christ is not a good argument.

Jesus lived and preached among pious Jews who were forbidden from making such images as per the law, the representations of Christ didn’t arrive until very late in the gentile world. No Jews at the time would have had any motive to break the law against making images and made a sculpture of Jesus.

Secondly, who were His followers? Peasants. How on earth does anyone expect Jesus’ followers, or even the Jews at the time to have made a sculpture of Jesus? These were people worried about their next meal and not contracting leprosy not wealthy artisans.

What the author doesn’t mention is that we also have not only abundant historical evidence of Christ, but that there is more for Him than historical persons such as Pythagoras or Hannibal of Carthage.

 

Jesus was not a famous philosopher or a war general. He is famous now, but then Jesus was not even a blip on the radar. Jesus as a Man was a Jew from an obscure town who had a peasant following, who died the death of slaves that was designed to bring shame. He hung around the diseased and the poor. Jesus didn’t take over nations or write extensive philosophical treatises. Jesus was a tradesman who hung around other tradesmen.

Placing Jesus in with these figures is a category error.

***

“Isn’t it surprising that, given the boundless energy of Christians and their strong desire to prove their faith, that we have better physical evidence for Odysseus than Jesus Christ?  (Does someone have a photo of Odysseus’s gold brooch from the Argostoli museum? It would be surprising since we would not expect the Cyclopes that Ulysses fought to be real. And what of the Sirens? What of Medusa? And Cerberus/ Kerberos? Will we someday know the exact roots of these myths? The Greeks and Christians stories contain many elements  from earlier Egyptian stories … who adapted some of their stories from the Summarians.

 

***

No, as I stated Jesus was not to be compared to these men because of their prominence. Citing Greek mythology as a parallel to Christianity without giving instances or establishing a direct link is not going to be responded to.

The author then quotes a “Huffington Post” article that cites the theory that the story of Jesus was borrowed from the Sumerian gods without one quote or citation from any reputable source on Sumerian mythology. However, anyone familiar with these arguments can see where this is going, there are several resources I recommend for answering these charges. That is the end of the article after that.

 

Some final comments:

 

The author’s case was basically a blend of the “pagan god” thesis (which is answered in depth by apologists such as J.P. Holding) and an argument stating we have evidence for a famous war general and Plato so then why not Jesus.

The author never deals with the fact that Jesus is talked about by Roman historian Tacitus, Jewish historian Josephus, Roman official Pliny the younger, Syrian philosopher Mara Bar Serapion, and Lucian of Samosata. As well as possible references by Seutonius and Thallus.

Ultimately, in studying Jewish polemics against Jesus, one will never find the argument that He “didn’t exist” but that He did exist, and then they formulate arguments against His Messiaship. The Talmud for example.

If Jesus was invented whole cloth by His followers why didn’t the Jews notice? Why didn’t they recognize the alleged “pagan gods” similarities that Jesus supposedly has?

No one has ever put these theories forward in the ancient world, they all acknowledge His existence.

 

The belief that Jesus was not an historical person is the latest trend in trying to avoid the evidence in light of Jesus’ resurrection. I would strongly advise against following these types of conspiracy websites.