Ich bin inzwischen nicht mehr sicher, ob Jesus überhaupt gelebt hat. Wenn er gelebt hat, dann hieß er mit Sicherheit nicht Jesus sondern Yahshua.
(Yah_ sh_ua, Ie_s_ous, Ie_sus, Je_s_us ) Siehe die Transliteration weiter unten..
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1495691669271432&set=pb.100064918388636.-2207520000
Wenn Jesus gelebt hat, dann war er sicher nicht hellhäutig, sondern dunkelhäutig, denn Semiten und Hamiten waren nun einmal dunkelhäutig. Aus diesem Grunde verlinke ist das entscheidende Video hierzu gerne nochmals damit Sie sich überzeugen können : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7n46p2YeNU (Sem to Abraham: Wie sahen Semiten aus?) Wie kommt es dann, dass uns ein hellhäutiger Jesus oft mit blauen Augen verkauft wird? (=White Supremecy culture)
Könnte es sein, dass die ganze Jesusstory nur eine Neuauflage einer alten heidnischen Geschichte ist, die es in ähnlicher Weise schon zweiundzwanzig Mal zuvor gegeben hat und man nur unter dem Namen "Jesus" neu aufgewärmt hat? Es gibt dabei ein ständig wiederkehrendes Muster. Hier das Video aus dem ich die folgenden Informationen bezogen habe....
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbBUbdZD5IO/

Das Muster /die Blaupause / THE BLUEPRINT:
1) Geboren von einer Jungfrau
2) Getötet und wieder auferstanden am Dritten Tag
3) Ein rituelles Mahl aus Fleisch und Blut welches ewiges Leben garantiert.

Das sind keine jüdischen Motive sondern heidnische Motive. Jedes einzelne Motiv ist älter als das Christentum. Im Jahre 1890 hat James Frazer das Muster des sterbenden und wieder auferstandenen Gottes katalogisiert. Dabei werden im obigen Video genannt:
1) Osiris (Ägypten)
2) Tammuz (Babylonien , Lage Babylonien )
3) Adonis (ursprünglich syro-phönizischer Vegetationsgott, Lage Phönizien)
4) Attis (Phrygien, heutige Türkei, Lage Phrygien )
5) Dionysos (Griechenland)

Alle folgenden starben und sind wieder auferstanden in der LEVANTE Jahrhunderte vor Jesus.
1) Baal (kanaanitischer Fruchtbarkeitsgott),
2) Melqart (Hauptgott der phönizischen Stadt Tyros, Lage Phönizien),
3) Adonis (ursprünglich syro-phönizischer Vegetationsgott, Lage Phönizien )
4) Tammuz (sumerischer Hirtengott, Lage Sumer )

Bei der Recherche stieß ich vor allem auf Ägypten und Babylonien, die von besonderem Interesse sind:
1) Babylon: NIMROD (Vater) , SEMIRAMIS (Mutter) und TAMMUZ (Kind 1)
2) Ägypten: OSIRIS (Vater), ISIS (Mutter) und HORUS (Kind 2). Horus soll eine Reinkarnation von Nimrod gewesen sein.
Isis (Mutter), Osiris (Vater) und Horus (Kind)

ISIS und Semiramis sind im Prinzip identisch. Die Mutter-Kind-Verehrung ist ein uralter Hut und das gab es schon in Babylonien und Ägypten und anderswo .


************EIN ÜBERBLICK**************

BABYLONIEN: Nimrod (Lord of Heaven) und Semiramis (Queen of Heaven) >>Kind TAMMUZ (heidnischer Messias)

ÄGYPTEN: Isis (Queen of Heaven) und Osiris (Lord of Heaven) >>Kind HORUS (heidnischer Messias)

LIBANON: Baal (Lord of Heaven) und Ashtoreth (Queen of Heaven) > Kind TAMMUZ (heidnischer Messias)

PHÖNIZIEN: El (Lord of Heaven) und Astarte (Queen of Heaven) > Kind BACCHUS (heidnischer Messias)

CANAAN: Astarte (Göttin der Fruchtbarkeit und Liebe) und Molech/Baal
(Baalkult ist berüchtigt für Kinderopfer und wird auch heute noch praktiziert, satanistisch, mutmaßlich wird dieser Kult erwähnt in den Epstein files)

ROM: Fortuna (Göttin des Schicksals/Glücks) und Jupiter (höchster Gott) >zahlreiche Kinder: Mars, Vulcanus, Juventas, Minerva, Apollon, Diana, Merkur, Bacchus und Herakles)

GRIECHENLAND : Aphrodite (Göttin der Liebe und Schönheit) und Zeus (Lord of Heaven) hatten keine gemeinsamen Kinder.
Zeus ist der Vater von DIONYSOS, DIONYSOS wird auch BACCHUS genannt. Mutter von DIONYSOS ist Semele.
GRIECHENLAND : Aphrodite (Liebesgöttin) und Adonis (ihr schöner Geliebter, getötet von einem Eber) > Kind Beroe (Göttin einer Stadt im Libanon verheiratet mit Poseidon)

Heru = Horus in Ägypten

Ihr könnt von mir aus glauben was ihr wollt, müsst aber damit rechnen über Jahrhunderte mit einem fiktiven Jesuskult verarscht worden zu sein. Die Geschichte von der Geburt durch eine Jungfrau wurde von heidnischen Göttern gestohlen, die Jahrhunderte vor Jesus teilweise angeblich auch am 25. Dezember geboren wurden. Was sagt die KI?

"Am 25. Dezember feierten die Anhänger des persisch-römischen Mithraskults den Geburtstag des Gottes als „unbesiegte Sonne“ (lat. Natalis Solis Invicti). Dieses Datum fiel mit der Wintersonnenwende zusammen. Das Christentum übernahm diesen Tag später, um das Weihnachtsfest der Geburt Jesu entgegenzusetzen."
"Die Wintersonnenwende: Der 25. Dezember markiert die astronomische Wende, an der die Tage wieder länger werden. Für die Römer und den Mithraskult symbolisierte dies den Sieg des Lichts über die Dunkelheit."
"Sol Invictus: Im römischen Reich verschmolz Mithras oft mit der Gottheit Sol Invictus. Unter Kaiser Aurelian wurde dieser Tag im Jahr 274 n. Chr. offiziell zum staatlichen Fest erklärt
Die christliche Adaption: Weil die Menschen im Römischen Reich tief mit dem Sonnenkult verwurzelt waren, legte die Kirche (u.a. belegt durch das Konzil von Rom im Jahr 336 n. Chr.) die Feier zur Geburt Jesu auf dieses Datum, um den heidnischen Feiertag umzudeuten."

1) Mithras in PERSIEN, wurde 600 Jahre vor Christus von der Jungfrau Anahita geboren, auch am 25. Dezember in einer Höhle.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anahita

2) Horus in ÄGYPTEN, etwa 3000 vor Christus geboren, kam von der Jungfrau ISIS und behauptete, sie wäre vom Geist ihres verschiedenen Ehemanns geschwängert worden.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

3) Krishna in INDIEN, geboren etwa 900 vor Christus, wurde geboren von der Jungfrau Devaki in einem Gefängnis, während der König Babies getötet hat, um die Prophetien eines vorausgesagten kommenden Erlösers zu zerstören.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaki

4) Dionysos in GRIECHENLAND, geboren von der Jungfrau Semele, geschwängert von Zeus.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysos
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semele_(Mythologie)

5) Attis in PHRYGIEN, jungfräuliche Geburt am 25. Dezember starb, stand drei Tage später von den Toten wieder auf.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attis
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygien

Ein Bild von Jozel Belchez Botalon welches die Zeitschiene in einen schönen Zusammenhang bringt.

Jew / Jesus (Quelle Tarig Anter)

https://tariganter.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/the-god-of-jews-is-not-the-god-of-hebrew-israelite/

***************Transliteration Yahshua zu Jesus ***************


Transliteration Quelle 1:

Yah sh ua (Hebrew)
>Ie s ous (Greek)
>Ie so us (Latin)
>Je s us (English)

Transliteration Quelle 2:

YEH SHUA
>YEH SHUA
>YEH SOU
>IE SOU
>IE SUS
>JESUS

Quelle Tarig Anter

*************JESUS AND HIS HEBREW ORIGIN YAHUSHA******************

"Jesus is the english transliteration of the name which is Hebrew origin Yahusha."

Es muss berücksichtigt werden, dass der Buchstabe "J" in "JEW" oder "JUDE" erst 1524 entstanden ist, was weitere Probleme in der Logik aufwirft. Sagen wir mal so: Jesus hieß damals wohl nicht Jesus und der Stamm Juda hieß damals nicht Judah, weil es den Buchstaben J noch gar nicht gab.
Jesus war wenn überhaupt ein "Mann aus Judäa" und damit ein "Judäer".
Aus IUDEUS, aus einem Judäer, aus einem Mann aus Judäa wurde die Figur Jesus.
Jesus = Yahusha

***********JESUS AND HIS GREEK ORIGIN**********

"Jesus setzt sich aus dem griechischen Namen „Iesous/IHSOUS“ und dem lateinischen „Iesus“ zusammen. „Iesous“ ist an die griechische Heilgöttin „Iesos/Iaso“ angelehnt, die Tochter des Sonnengottes Apollo. Diese Göttin war mit der ägyptischen „Isis“ verbunden, die einen Sohn namens „Isu“ hatte. Zur Zeit der römischen Kaiser gab es zahlreiche Isis-Verehrer."
"Jesus comes from the Greek name "Iesous/IHSOUS and Latin "Iesus". "Iesous" is adapted from the name of the Greek goddess of healing "Iesos/Iaso", the daughter of Apollo, the Sun deity. This Goddess was linked to the Egyptian "Isis" who had a son named "Isu". During the era of roman Emperors, there were numerous worshippers of "Isis".

From YehShua to Jesus Transliteration from YeShua to Jesus

wichtig

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=122350430132193629&set=a.122102586692193629
Religion: The good, the bad and the ugly
Ein Facebook Beitrag von Mo Hamid

Christian zealots love to cite these historians as proof of Jesus’s existence. Curiously, they omit the dates of the evidence in every case. There’s no falsehood quite like Christian honesty.
Jesus is generally placed in the early first century CE, with his death usually dated around 30 CE. The earliest surviving Christian writings are Paul's undisputed letters, generally dated to approximately the middle of the first century. The canonical Gospels appear later, beginning with Mark, commonly dated around 65–75 CE.
The major non-Christian references are later still.
Tacitus wrote his Annals in the early second century. Josephus completed Antiquities of the Jews around 93–94 CE. Pliny the Younger wrote about Christians around 112 CE. Suetonius wrote in the early second century.
Therefore, if the question is:
“Do we possess a surviving contemporary, independent, non-Christian account written while Jesus was alive?”
The answer is no.
That is a much stronger and more defensible statement than the image's blanket “No, nothing.”
By Religion: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
JOSEPHUS: THE MOST INTERESTING CASE
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus is particularly important.
Josephus wrote Antiquities decades after Jesus' death. One passage, Antiquities 20.200, refers to James as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” The overwhelming majority of scholars regard this passage as authentic.
This matters because it is not simply Josephus saying, “Christians existed.” It connects an identifiable individual—James—with a person called Jesus.
That does not prove Christianity.
It does not prove miracles.
It does not prove resurrection.
It does not prove that Jesus was divine.
It does not even establish every detail of the Gospel narrative.
But as historical evidence for the existence of a first-century Jesus associated with the Christian movement, it is relevant evidence.
Then there is the more famous Testimonium Flavianum in Antiquities 18.
This passage is much more controversial. The surviving text contains language that sounds distinctly Christian, including claims about Jesus being the Christ and his resurrection. Consequently, scholars have long debated whether Josephus wrote the passage in its present form or whether Christian scribes modified it.
Recent scholarship has argued strongly for substantial authenticity, including the 2025 Oxford University Press study by T. C. Schmidt, which argues that the passage reflects Josephus' writing and may preserve a neutral or somewhat ambiguous account of Jesus.
The sensible conclusion is therefore not “Josephus proves Christianity.”
It is:
Josephus provides significant evidence relevant to the historical existence of Jesus, while the exact wording and authenticity of the Testimonium remain debated.
That is considerably less exciting than a meme, but considerably more accurate.
TACITUS: A ROMAN HISTORIAN, NOT AN EYEWITNESS
Tacitus, writing in Annals 15.44, describes the persecution of Christians under Nero and identifies Christus as the figure from whom the Christians derived their name. He states that Christus was executed during the reign of Tiberius under Pontius Pilate.
This is valuable because Tacitus was not a Christian evangelist. His attitude toward Christians was distinctly hostile.
But an important qualification is necessary.
Tacitus wrote roughly eight decades after the probable death of Jesus. He does not tell us where his information about Christus came from. Consequently, historians debate how independent his information was and whether it derived from Roman records, earlier sources, or knowledge of Christian claims.
So Tacitus is evidence—but not contemporary eyewitness evidence.
The Cambridge discussion of the historical Jesus appropriately emphasizes that Roman references such as Tacitus and Suetonius tell us relatively little beyond the existence of Jesus and the early Christian movement.
PLINY THE YOUNGER: EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANS, NOT A BIOGRAPHY OF JESUS
Around 112 CE, Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan concerning Christians in Bithynia.
Pliny describes Christians gathering and singing to Christ “as to a god.” His letter is useful evidence that, by the early second century, Christians were worshipping Christ as a supernatural figure.
But notice what it does not do.
Pliny does not provide an independent biography of Jesus.
He does not tell us that he investigated Jesus' execution.
He does not describe Jesus' childhood, ministry, miracles, resurrection, or tomb.
The document primarily tells us something about what Christians believed and practiced, not what Jesus personally did.
That distinction is crucial.
SUETONIUS AND THE MYSTERY OF “CHRESTUS”
Suetonius mentions disturbances among Jews in Rome “at the instigation of Chrestus.”
This is frequently presented as an explicit reference to Jesus.
But that identification is not certain.
“Chrestus” was a name, and the spelling does not automatically mean “Christ.” The passage may refer to disputes among Jews concerning Christianity, but the wording does not allow us to confidently reconstruct the event.
Again, evidence should be graded rather than stamped “PROVEN.”
THALLUS AND PHLEGON: THE LOST-SOURCE PROBLEM
Thallus and Phlegon are often presented on social media as independent witnesses to the darkness and earthquake supposedly accompanying Jesus' crucifixion.
There is a substantial problem:
their relevant works are lost.
What we know about the supposed references comes through later writers. In the case of Thallus, the connection with Jesus depends on an interpretation of a passage discussed by Julius Africanus centuries later.
Phlegon is similarly problematic. His reported astronomical phenomenon does not securely establish that he was describing the Gospel crucifixion tradition.
A scholarly examination of the evidence concludes that neither source can securely authenticate Jesus' life or ministry.
This is a perfect example of why “ancient source” does not automatically mean “independent evidence.”
A lost book quoted centuries later is not equivalent to having the original book sitting on the historian's desk.
MARA BAR-SERAPION: POSSIBLY JESUS, BUT NOT CERTAIN
The Syriac writer Mara bar Serapion refers to a “wise king” whom the Jews killed and whose teachings continued afterward.
Some scholars have interpreted this as a reference to Jesus.
It is certainly compatible with Jesus.
But compatibility is not identification.
Mara never names Jesus. The dating is also uncertain. Therefore, this is potentially interesting evidence but weak evidence for establishing specific facts about Jesus.
The historian's job is not to turn every vaguely compatible ancient sentence into a smoking gun.
THE TALMUD AND CELsus: LATE HOSTILE TRADITIONS
Rabbinic literature contains passages that some interpreters associate with Jesus, but the relevant traditions were compiled considerably later and are difficult to date and interpret.
Celsus, a second-century pagan critic of Christianity, also discussed Christian claims about Jesus. But Celsus' original work is lost; much of what we know comes through Origen's later response, Contra Celsum.
These sources are useful for studying how Christians and their opponents understood Jesus and Christianity in the second century.
They are much less useful for reconstructing the first-century Jesus himself.
WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE ACTUALLY ESTABLISH?
From a skeptical perspective, the evidence should be separated into levels.
RELATIVELY STRONG HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS
A first-century Jewish preacher or religious figure named Jesus probably existed.
He was associated with the origins of the movement that became Christianity.
He was executed by crucifixion.
His followers subsequently proclaimed him as the Messiah and believed that he had been raised from the dead.
Paul's letters provide very early evidence for this movement and refer to people associated with Jesus, including James, whom Paul calls “the Lord's brother.”
PLAUSIBLE BUT LESS CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS
Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher.
He attracted followers.
He was connected with Galilee and Jerusalem.
He was executed under Pontius Pilate.
These conclusions are broadly compatible with the surviving evidence and with mainstream historical reconstruction.
CLAIMS HISTORY CANNOT ESTABLISH SIMPLY BY REPETITION
That Jesus was born of a virgin.
That he performed supernatural miracles.
That he was literally God.
That he physically resurrected from the dead.
That he ascended bodily into heaven.
That he will return at the end of history.
These are theological claims, not conclusions that automatically follow from the existence of ancient documents.
A historian can investigate whether people believed a resurrection occurred.
That is different from demonstrating that a supernatural resurrection actually occurred.
The distinction is fundamental.
THE ATHEIST POSITION: DON'T REPLACE ONE CREDULITY WITH ANOTHER
Atheism does not require believing that Jesus never existed.
That would simply replace one unsupported certainty with another.
A person can reasonably conclude:
«Jesus probably existed, Christianity developed around his followers, and supernatural Christian claims remain unproven.»
There is nothing contradictory about that position.
Indeed, it is arguably more intellectually consistent than demanding that Jesus must either have been the literal Son of God or have been completely fictional.
The historical question and the theological question are different questions.
“Did Jesus exist?”
is not the same as:
“Was Jesus God?”
And:
“Did his followers believe he rose from the dead?”
is not the same as:
“Did a supernatural resurrection actually occur?”
History can investigate the first and third questions. The second and fourth require additional philosophical and theological arguments.
THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE IMAGE
The image contains an important insight buried beneath an exaggerated conclusion.
It is correct that none of the listed non-Christian writers was a contemporary eyewitness writing during Jesus' lifetime.
But “No, nothing!” is misleading because Josephus, Tacitus, and several other later sources provide genuine ancient evidence concerning Jesus, Christians, or traditions about Jesus.
The proper skeptical conclusion is therefore:
There is no surviving contemporary non-Christian eyewitness documentation of Jesus. Later non-Christian sources exist, but their evidentiary value varies considerably, and none independently establishes Christianity's supernatural claims.
That statement survives scrutiny.
The meme does not need exaggeration.
The evidence is already interesting enough.
THE GREAT HISTORICAL HUMILITY TEST
There is something almost comical about humanity's tendency to take a few ancient paragraphs, written decades after an obscure Galilean preacher's death, and transform them into absolute certainty about the architecture of the universe.
We have ancient manuscripts copied by hand.
We have lost sources.
We have anonymous or disputed authorship.
We have theological agendas.
We have contradictory traditions.
We have centuries of transmission.
And then, somehow, the conclusion becomes:
“Therefore we know exactly what God wants.”
That leap is enormous.
The historical evidence is far more modest.
It gives us fragments.
Probabilities.
Traditions.
Arguments.
Counterarguments.
And uncertainty.
Science and serious historical scholarship do not become weaker when they admit uncertainty. They become stronger.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
1. STOP TURNING HISTORICAL QUESTIONS INTO TRIBAL WEAPONS
Christians should not pretend that every skeptical objection destroys Jesus.
Atheists should not pretend that every Christian claim collapses simply because there is no Roman birth certificate.
Both sides should distinguish historical probability from theological certainty.
2. GRADE SOURCES INSTEAD OF COUNTING THEM
Ten late references are not automatically stronger than one early source.
Ask:
- When was the source written?
- Who wrote it?
- Was the author an eyewitness?
- What sources did the author use?
- Is the passage authentic?
- Could the information have come from Christians?
- Is the text independent?
- Does the claim fit the historical context?
Evidence should be evaluated, not accumulated like loyalty points.
3. SEPARATE EXISTENCE FROM SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS
Establishing that a person existed does not establish that the person was divine.
The existence of Muhammad would not prove Islam.
The existence of Joseph Smith would not prove Mormon theology.
The existence of Jesus does not prove Christianity.
Historical existence and supernatural identity are separate propositions requiring separate evidence.
4. TEACH SOURCE CRITICISM
People should learn how historians actually work.
Ancient texts should be examined for provenance, dating, authorship, transmission, bias, genre, corroboration, and independence.
The question should not be:
“Does this source support my religion?”
It should be:
“What information can this source responsibly support?”
WHAT CAN WE ALL DO?
We can stop rewarding confident nonsense.
We can read primary sources and reputable scholarship rather than memes.
We can distinguish “possible” from “probable,” and “probable” from “certain.”
We can criticize religious claims without caricaturing religious people.
We can criticize atheistic claims when atheists overstate their evidence.
We can teach children that saying “I don't know” is not intellectual weakness.
Most importantly, we can cultivate a culture in which changing one's mind in response to evidence is considered a virtue rather than a humiliation.
The goal should not be to win an argument.
The goal should be to get closer to what actually happened.
QUESTIONS FOR THE READER
If Jesus probably existed, does that make Christianity true?
If an ancient source confirms that Christians believed something, does that confirm the thing they believed?
How much historical evidence would you require before accepting an extraordinary claim?
Would you apply the same evidentiary standard to another religion?
If a source agrees with your beliefs, do you examine it more carefully—or less?
If Josephus' passage about Jesus were entirely authentic, what would it actually prove?
If Tacitus derived his information ultimately from Christians, how much independent evidentiary weight should it receive?
Can a person accept the historical Jesus while rejecting the supernatural Jesus?
And perhaps the most uncomfortable question:
Are you trying to discover what is true—or trying to find evidence that allows you to keep believing what you already decided was true?
CONCLUSION
The historical Jesus is neither established by a magical collection of “non-Christian sources” nor erased by their limitations.
The evidence is sparse, late, fragmentary, and complicated.
Nevertheless, the mainstream historical judgment that Jesus probably existed is substantially stronger than the claim that absolutely nothing outside the Bible relates to him. The surviving evidence does not remotely justify treating every Gospel story as historical fact, still less does it establish divinity or resurrection.
From an atheist perspective, that distinction is precisely the point.
A historical person does not require a supernatural explanation.
Jesus can have existed without being God.
His followers can have sincerely believed in his resurrection without the resurrection having occurred.
Christianity can have transformed world history without its supernatural claims being demonstrated.
And uncertainty about an ancient Galilean preacher does not create evidence for a deity.
The intellectually responsible position is not:
“Jesus definitely never existed.”
Nor is it:
“The ancient sources prove Christianity.”
It is:
“The evidence most likely supports a historical Jesus, while the supernatural claims attached to him remain matters of faith rather than established historical fact.”
That conclusion may be less satisfying than absolute certainty.
It is also much harder to fool.
REFERENCES
Ehrman, B. D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium. Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, T. C. (2025). Josephus and Jesus: New evidence for the one called Christ. Oxford University Press.
Stanton, G. (2002). The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press.
van de Weghe, L., & Wilson, J. (2024). Why name popularity is a good test of historicity. arXiv.
Allen, N. P. L. (2018). Thallus and Phlegon: Solar eclipse in Jerusalem c. 33 CE? Akroterion, 63, 73–93.
Chilton, B. (2017). James, the brother of Jesus. Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies. Oxford University Press.