The siege of Masada happened 40 years later.

Be afraid to die child of darknessi: no matter how far you are from the light, you should be able to reflect the light of the Son of God.

Gods and their sons are fictional characters.

What evidence do you have to say that Jesus is a fantasy character? On the contrary, Flavius Josephus who was a non-Christian testified about Him.

The accounts of Jesus in Flavius Josephus' history is a forged addition made centuries later by Christian monk copyists. It breaks the flow of the narrative. Josephus would not actually have spoken so favorably about Jesus. Origen and other early Christian writers knew Josephus' works well, but none of them were aware of him mentioning Jesus. Objective Christians admit this is a clumsy forgery. There is plenty of evidence that practically the entire Bible is fiction. It mentions actual places and people, as do harry Potter and James Bond novels. You try to shift the logical burden of proof. If you claim Jesus exists, show us some scientific evidence. Thomas Jefferson said that critically reading the Bible proves that God does not exist. Other sages say much the same thing. That was my experience as well. I recall doubting the Bible by age six.

Quote: "The accounts of Jesus in Flavius Josephus' history is a forged addition made centuries later by Christian monk copyists." Not exactly, Among scholars of the New Testament of the Christian Bible, there is little disagreement that he actually lived. Lawrence Mykytiuk who is an associate professor of library science at Purdue University and author of a 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review article on the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus notes that there was no debate about the issue in ancient times either. "Jewish rabbis who did not like Jesus or his followers accused him of being a magician and leading people astray,” he says, "but they never said he didn’t exist."

Yes the accounts of Jesus in Josephus' history are forged additions made cebturies later. You have no proof but just deny it. That is not logical. There has always been a debate about Jesus, and many distinguished scholars know he never existed. You are wrong to claim there is little disagreement about his existence. Read Michael Martin, David Mills, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and others. You use Appeal to Popularity and Appeal to Authority which are Logical Fallacies. When you list one man who agrees with your biases, I can list other men who disagree with you. I see Confirmation Bias on your part, and that is yet another Logical Fallacy. Christians have only absurd lies, vicious insult, Logical Fallacies and extremely bad fiction in the Bible to use in their arguments, so they totally discredit themselves to a n expert in Logic like myself.

Pei, quote: "Yes the accounts of Jesus in Josephus' history are forged additions made cebturies later." Based on what facts????????????????????? The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works you can read about New Testament people like the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist, even Jesus Himself and His brother James. There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels.

I told you several times. One is that Early Christian writers, e.g. Origen knew Josephus' works well and referred to them, but they never mentioned Josephus even mentioning Jesus. Josephus would not be as favorable to Jesus as these forgeries were. They break the flow of the narrative and do not sound like Josephus at all. Any objective human can readily perceive that they are sophomoric forgeries. . My maternal grandfather was a Baptist pastor, and he and his 2nd wife were teachers. He had a copy of Josephus' history. I noticed that Josephus said Goliath was 4 cubits and a span in height, while the Bible says Goliath was 6 cubits and a span tall. That is about three feet different. So, was Goliath of Gath 6'-9" or 9'-9" in height? The tallest man ever reliably measured was Robert Pershing Wadlow who measured 8'-11.1" tall just before his death. In Greek myths, Achilles was 13.5 feet tall.

Pei, quote: "Josephus would not be as favorable to Jesus as these forgeries were." your arguments are backfiring on you, cause Josephus was not a Christian to show favoritism among Christians. The records are clear: Josephus was a commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee and would later become a Roman citizen. The fact is he mentions Jesus in his historical writings and his brother James cf (Antiquities 20.200). Jesus' life could not have been forged, given the Old Testament prophesied how the Messiah would die. In addition, the prophecies reveal that as a result of this child being born, local ruling tyrants would make an attempt to crucify Him.

That is fine. Jesus was not there either.

Matthew and Luke disagree with the dates you give. Matthew has him die about A.D. 5 to 8. Luke has him die about A.D. 36 to 41.

Nice answer. Thanks for the link. The notes from the AMP on those verses are helpful.

Judaism does not accept Jesus as the Messiah. He did not fulfill any of the prophecies. One problem is that someone decided to copy virgin birth myths in various cultures, and that caused contradictions. The Messiah was to be descended from David. Matthew and Luke give conflicting lineages of David to Joseph, but if Jesus is son of God, not Joseph, he cannot be the Messiah. There are other problems as well.

Quote: "Judaism does not accept Jesus as the Messiah." I never said Judaism accepted Jesus as the Messiah to speak of past tense. Quote: "Matthew and Luke give conflicting lineages of David to Joseph," This so-called contradiction has been recycled. The simplest solution is that we have genealogies of both parents of Jesus, Joseph and Mary. In this case, Luke gives us Mary’s genealogy, while Matthew gives us Joseph’s genealogy. This makes good sense, since Luke’s birth narrative focuses on Mary. Luke tells the story from her perspective.

You are right Jews do not accept Jesus as the moshiah but they have him historically listed as living. What prophesied did he not fulfil? The virgin birth malarkey has already been debunked Pei, your spouting the information I use to quote as an atheist over 7 years ago, however since then I've read numerous books on ancient Egypt and on Greece etc, Isis was not a virgin she used Osiris disembodied penis to become pregnant, and Horus was buggered by Set, I don't remember reading any of that in the bible regarding Jesus and Mary, neither were there the 12 disciples etc etc. When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/daughter of the following name. Hence, when people read the following in Luke 3:24, "Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, KJV, 1769 they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38, which states, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. KJV, 1769 and thus, it is believed that Adam is the son of God, since Adam precedes God in the genealogy. However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; KJV, 1769 We must ask, “Who is the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite?” Based on the aforementioned rule, you might say, “It is Anah, since Anah precedes Zibeon in the genealogy. Therefore, Anah must be Zibeon’s daughter.” Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone’s daughter. So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and the same Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah’s father4 and thus, Aholibamah’s grandfather).Therefore, there is no reason to assume, especially in light of the absence of viou before each father, that Luke is saying A is the son of B, B is the son of C, C is the son of D, and so forth. In other words, what reason is there for assuming that Luke is saying that Joseph is the son of Heli, or that Adam is the son of God? I have shown you using the example of Aholibamah that a name simply preceding another name in a genealogy is not evidence of such a rule. have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man’s father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man’s son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David,5 but also the son of Abraham,6 even though neither were Jesus’ direct, biological father. In Luke 3:23, it is written, And Jesus himself was being about thirty years [old], being [the] son (as was supposed) of Yosef, of Eli, If we consider that Luke intentionally omitted vioc from each father and only included it after Jesus and before Joseph. Again, it wasn’t normal for it to be omitted before each father in a genealogy. Either it is an anomaly, or Luke intended to do so. The belief is that Luke does not want us to understand Joseph as being the son of Heli, but Jesus as being the son of Heli, and Jesus being the son of: •Matthat •Levi •Melchi •Janna, all the way to... •Enos •Seth, and likewise, Jesus is the son of Adam, and Jesus (not Adam) is the son of God.

Creamcrackered, good research.

True research involves looking objectively at all sides in an issue. What I see is Cherry-Picking to find a Straw Man. That is a Double Logical Fallacy. There are many Virgin Birth Myths, What about Mithras, Athene, Tammuz, Agdistis, Attis, Korybas, Aphrodite and many others? Nothing I say has been debunked. You are trying hard to reinforce your strong biases. You conveniently forhet that Jews were strong patriarchs, so the would not use women;s lineages, You make so many unwarranted assumptions and try to obscure things,

True research involves looking objectively at all sides in an issue. What I see is Cherry-Picking to find a Straw Man. That is a Double Logical Fallacy. There are many Virgin Birth Myths, What about Mithras, Athene, Tammuz, Agdistis, Attis, Korybas, Aphrodite and many others? Nothing I say has been debunked. You are trying hard to reinforce your strong biases. You conveniently forhet that Jews were strong patriarchs, so the would not use women;s lineages, You make so many unwarranted assumptions and try to obscure things,

I knew it! Both lineages from David to Joseph clearly say they are up to Joseph. Neither says it is about Mary. You forget that Hebrew-Jews were patriarchs, so the lineages they give are all males. They put women down, Neither Matthew nor Luke would give Mary's lineade. There was no record of her. As I have said, Christians only have absurd lies, vicious insults, Logical Fallacies and very bad fiction in the Bible to use in their arguments, and that totally discredits them

Pei, quote: "There are many Virgin Birth Myths, What about Mithras, Athene, Tammuz, Agdistis, Attis, Korybas, Aphrodite and many others?" But there are no rational explanations for those so-called virgins. The biblical evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary indicates that she remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to Him, a virgin in carrying Him and even a virgin in nursing Him at her breast meaning, she was a virgin in the birth of Jesus.

Pei, The blessed virgin Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the cross in the gospels of John. John 19:26-27 "When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" 27 Then He said to the disciple, Behold, your mother! And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. Clearly we see Jesus certainly wouldn't have done this if He had brothers, all of whom would have been younger than He was.

Mary is a character in extremely bad primitive fiction, and fictional characters can do anything. You use the Logical Fallacy of Special Pleading. The fiction about Mary is no better than that of these other myths I mentioned. Bible passages are far from being genuine evidence. If the Bible proves that Mary had a virgin birth, then "Goldfinger" proves that Auric Goldfinger almost blew up Fort Knox., "Homeric Hymns" prove Heracles held the sky upon his shoulders, etc. Reading Bible passages is not proof of anything. As I said several times, Christians can only quote the bad fiction in the Bible, tell absurd lies, Viciously insult unbeliever and use Logical Fallacies in their arguments, and that totally discredits them. Clearly, I see Jesus never existed. I began to think he did not exist by age six. What do you accomplish by quoting Bible verses. You had just as well read :Batman" comics to me. .

Pei, quote: "Mary is a character in extremely bad primitive fiction, and fictional characters can do anything." You have not proven why Mary is a fictional character. On the contrary, my remarks lean to more evidence for her existence than what you can disprove. Almost no Christians denied that Mary the mother of Jesus was perpetually a virgin: including Protestants. Of the early leaders of that movement, virtually all fully accepted this doctrine: including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Turretin, and Cranmer. Moreover, most Protestant exegetes continued to believe it for at least another 350 years or so. Today for various reasons, things are very different, so it's helpful to revisit the biblical arguments, since the Bible is the authority all Christians revere in common. A surprising number can be found.

Quote: "He never actually lived at all." Your answer is not supported by any evidence to disprove the existence of Jesus. Saying the accounts were forged based on what? is not an argument. There was no need for forging when the Old Testament clearly speaks of the Messiah, how He lived and how He died. It is only right that we should find that Jesus was both actually present in the Old Testament and accurately predicted. Scripture speaks for itself. You must disprove the prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament first to say His story was forged.

Many of the Old Testament prophecies (for example, refer to Psalm 2) speak of a messiah who is to come and liberate Israel with violence. The Jesus of the gospels doesn't come close to that sort of character. During the events of the entire New Testament, Israel was occupied territory. Jesus predicted in Matthew 24:34 that the people alive during His lifetime would see the end of the world. That certainly has not been the case.

The real evidence shows there was no such person. Again, Jenny shifts the logical burden of proof. It is logically her task to prove Jesus did exist There is no firm evidence that he ever lived. The accounts by Flavius Josephus were quite obviously clumsy forgeries made centuries after his time. The Early Christian writers knew Josephus' writings well and referred tot hem, but none of them were aware of him even mentioning Jesus. The passages break the flow of the narrative and are obviously clumsy additions. Josephus would not have spoken so favorably about Jesus. Well-educated and objective Christians agree that these are much later forged additions by medieval Christian monk copyists of old books. . Read your Bible more closely. Jesus does not fulfill all of the predictions about the Messiah. Judaism does not accept Jesus as the Messiah. The Messiah was to be a descendant of David. Matthew and Luke say that Joseph was a descendant of David, and give conflicting lineages, even giving Joseph different fathers. Then, they say Jesus was son of God, not Joseph. The Messiah was to be a king who made war to free Israel. That is quite contrary to the Jesus in the New Testament. It is quite obvious that Jesus did not fulfill all of the predictions about the Messiah. Yes, Jesus supposedly said the end of time would occur while some people hearing his sermon were still alive.

bostjan64, the Old Testament is filled with Messianic prophecies who perfectly identify Jesus. In Psalm 22:16, it states the Messiah would have His hands and feet pierced. As for Matthew Chapter 24, keep in mind that 1000 years to mankind is like 1 day that went by for God. (2 Peter 3:8)

Pei, quote: "The real evidence shows there was no such person." You don't have any evidence other than rants. In 1961, the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently in 1990, the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial was discovered south of Jerusalem. Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after His death.

I have given evidence, but you have not. I have much more than rants. You have only that, of course. "Harry Potter" novels mention some real people and places. Just because Pilate existed does not make Jesus exist too. Historians are not critical at all if they claim Jesus, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Hercules, etc. actually existed. Ignorant people make many dumb assertions. Matthew and Luke disagree about Jesus' birth date by 15-20 years. Tiberius reigned A.D. 14-37. Matthew has Jesus living until about A.D. 15-20, while Luke has him living until about A.D. 43-48.

Pei, you have not provided any evidence. The Bible was not written in English to claim Matthew and Luke contradict the time being of Jesus. While this is sometimes debated, the majority of New Testament scholars place Jesus’ birth in 4 B.C. or before. This is because most date the death of King Herod the Great to 4 B.C. Since Herod played a major role in the narrative of Jesus’ birth (see Matthew 2), Jesus would have had to be born before Herod died.

Scholars who ignore the accounts of Matthew and Luke are incompetent scholars. Neither of them claims Jesus was born in 4 B.C. Luke has him born in an A.D. year. Luke has him born during a census held by Quirinius who became governor of the region in A.D. 7. You only look at one account and ignore the other that conflicts with the one you chose. This is a logical fallacy called cherry-picking. You claim that I anm not logical. Well, Professor John C. Plott is much better judge of who is logical than yhou are. All you have is that you just say I am not logical. You violate Bible rules against bearing false witness and judging.

Jesus wasn’t born during Year Zero. That’s because there wasn’t a Year Zero. Matthew 2:1 tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great. At about that same time, the Magi arrived in Jerusalem and reported they had seen the Star in the west and had traveled to worship the boy born to be king. Herod, vicious enough to have murdered two of his wives and three of his sons when he thought they plotted against him, ordered all male children around Bethlehem who are two years old and under. Matthew 2:16 "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."

Jenny ignores Luke's account. Matthew and Luke have many differences in their accounts. Jenny has a habit of just looking at one verse and ignoring others. Luke would have Jesus born about A.D. 10-15. Matthew has him born about 10-15 B.C. No actual man could be born twice 20-30 years apart. Historians say Herod died in 4 B.C. He had baby boys up to age two killed. Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt until Herod died. All of that indicates Jesus was supposed born several years before Herod's death in 4 B.C.

Quote: "Matthew and Luke have many differences in their accounts." I accept both accounts and I definitely know the Bible was not written in English, not to mention many of the original manuscripts were lost. Matthew begins with a genealogy to show Jesus' heritage and then tells of His miraculous conception and birth without any reference to a journey to Bethlehem. Luke on the other hand has no genealogy and instead focuses heavily on John the Baptist as a foil to Jesus. if you also notice, two of the four Gospels don't feature the story of Jesus' birth at all. Mark and John jump straight into His baptism and ministry without reference to how or where He was born. Quote: "All of that indicates Jesus was supposed born several years before Herod's death in 4 B.C." Uhh, in logic, there is no such thing as a year 0. A few years later to speak from 2-4 B.C. is logical.