Discuss the mythology of Jesus here.

Some say he's the god of Abraham and Noah. Some say he didn't exist at all.

Jehova (a.k.a. Yahweh; a.k.a. Elohim) is the god of the Israelites and thus the god of both Christians and Muslims...

False. YHWH is not 'allah' and even a cursory reading of the cults' respective texts reveals/demonstrates this to be the case.

For example, consider the testimony/relationship of YHWH to Jesus (In both Old and New Testaments) vis a vis these same things (testimony/relationship) of 'allah' to Jesus found in the Quran...

Cuz Jesus has nothing to do with it.
Not in the equation of my question whatsoever.
Why are folks even bringing him up???

Why? Because YHWH = Jesus = The LOGOS/Word of God Written/Incarnate, so He has everything "to do with it." Refer to YHWH and you refer to Jesus.

Furthermore, Jesus is certainly not that allah character--even allah says so...he (allah) differentiates himself from Jesus. Ergo, allah is not YHWH according to allah himself.

Jesus (YHWH) is both King of the Jews and God of the Jews--and of course King and God of the Gentiles also.

Why? Because YHWH = Jesus = The LOGOS/Word of God Written/Incarnate, so He has everything "to do with it." Refer to YHWH and you refer to Jesus.

Ugh ah, that just ain't so. The mythos of Jehovah had been around long before the Christian mythos evolved.
Besides, Jesus' main shtick was love and understanding, (ill-respective of the actions of his followers).
While Jehovah's modus operandi seems to be jealousy and exclusion. (On a different day I might use different words for Jehovah.)

And on a more personal level, as said by those sage fathers 'The Doobie Bros.': Jesus is just alright with me'. (Please do not take this as an admission that I'm a christian. I'm not.)

While, to repeat myself, from post #5 on this thread:
Jehovah strikes me as either: a violent psychotic or just plain malevolent.

Ugh ah, that just ain't so. The mythos of Jehovah had been around long before the Christian mythos evolved.

They are One and The Same...as Jesus states: Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM...So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. -->God said to Moses, I AM Who I AM. And He said, Say this to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.


Besides, Jesus' main shtick was love and understanding...

Jesus' main shtick was to do the will of the One Who sent Him:

So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise...For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do what I want...Jesus told them, "I'm not teaching my own ideas, but those of God who sent me. Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own... I don't speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me gave me his own instructions as to what I should say.

So, what you perceive to be Jesus' "main shtick" is the same "shtick" as the One who sent Him. Jesus declares Himself to be the "I Am" of the OT (YHWH) and He, in turn, does nothing of His own accord but what He sees the Father doing...ergo, your perception of YHWH is incorrect.

Suffice it to say, then, that for some of those deluded by mythology of Bronze and Iron Age mystics, Jesus is both the son of a god and the god itself.

Clearly, this delusion is contradictory within the mythical text itself and there is more evidence that Jesus was a completely invented figure of those that sought to create a cult based on earlier Jewish writings. This, however, is a separate topic and I'll probably split the posts out of this one if it continues.

They are One and ...as...
Jesus states Jesus said to ergo, The Same


You're blathering. This is the last time I will respond to one of your posts, or read one.

Ugh ah, that just ain't so. The mythos of Jehovah had been around long before the Christian mythos evolved.

They are One and The Same...as Jesus states: Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM...So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. -->God said to Moses, I AM Who I AM. And He said, Say this to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.


Besides, Jesus' main shtick was love and understanding...

Jesus' main shtick was to do the will of the One Who sent Him:

So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise...For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do what I want...Jesus told them, "I'm not teaching my own ideas, but those of God who sent me. Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own... I don't speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me gave me his own instructions as to what I should say.

So, what you perceive to be Jesus' "main shtick" is the same as the One who sent Him. Jesus declares Himself to the "I Am" of the OT (YHWH) and He, in turn, does nothing of His own accord but what He sees the Father doing...ergo, your perception of YHWH is incorrect.

Jesus may have been a real person. We just don't know.
The only reliable historical source comes from Josephus, who referred to a man named "Jesus" who preached and was executed by the Romans.
Trouble is, there were a lot of preachers who were executed by the Romans, and "Jesus" was actually a fairly common name. "Jesus" is just a bastardized Greek form of the Aramaic "Yeshua", which is "Joshua" when translated directly.

So, most likely, that man Josephus mentioned by name was the central figure around which the Christian myth formed. His followers just took the historical figure and blew it out of proportion, mythologising his deeds to the point that they were no longer true.

But the man was most certainly not a god, as the Abrahamic god does not exist.

Discuss the mythology of Jesus here.



Some also say he is not a myth

But since there's no evidence to support a physical person of the same name, he remains a myth.

But since there's no evidence to support a physical person of the same name, he remains a myth.

what evidence is there to support the Emperor Augustus or Spartacus ever REALLY lived?

Historical records which are internally consistent with their depiction. Busts and statues contemporary to their lives which are consistent.

Jesus, on the other hands, has few, if any, contemporary sources or evidence. Almost all of it was written long after he supposedly lived.
The only direct evidence contemporary to the supposed time is Josephus' writings, which mention a man by that name.
However, at that time, it was a common name, and preaching a common profession. It literally could have been any number of people.

Historical records which are internally consistent with their depiction.

And exactly how are you going to prove this, wiki article?

Historical records which are internally consistent with their depiction. Busts and statues contemporary to their lives which are consistent.

Jesus, on the other hands, has few, if any, contemporary sources or evidence.

Please list these "few, if any," contemporary sources or evidence".

Almost all of it was written long after he supposedly lived.

So, "almost all" and "long after" hmmm? Again, to which records are you refering? Also, that portion of the "historical records" that do not fall into the catagory "almost all"...which records are those?

what evidence is there to support the Emperor Augustus or Spartacus ever REALLY lived?

I wasn't aware that I was asserting that either did exist. Moreover, nothing I believe about the world depends upon their existence or non-existence.

But I ask you: does the existence of Jesus depend upon the existence or non-existence of these two entities.

But since there's no evidence to support a physical person of the same name, he remains a myth.

I guess it just indicates the flimsiness of empiricism as applied to ancient history - since there is not much evidence to back many personalities 2000 years ago - there is probably no evidence of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother's aunt either - I guess that makes her a myth too ...

I wasn't aware that I was asserting that either did exist. Moreover, nothing I believe about the world depends upon their existence or non-existence.

But I ask you: does the existence of Jesus depend upon the existence or non-existence of these two entities.
they are said to be from around the same time era for a start

But how does their existence have anything to do with the alleged existence of Jesus? And where have I ever asserted their existence to begin with. This is a fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Back on topic: Jesus Christ.

Historical records which are internally consistent with their depiction. Busts and statues contemporary to their lives which are consistent.

Jesus, on the other hands, has few, if any, contemporary sources or evidence. Almost all of it was written long after he supposedly lived.
The only direct evidence contemporary to the supposed time is Josephus' writings, which mention a man by that name. However, at that time, it was a common name, and preaching a common profession. It literally could have been any number of people.
*************
M*W: Haps, you bring up a very good point as always. Look at all the busts of the Roman emperors, Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Roman soldiers, even saints, but none that I've ever seen or heard about of Jesus and his immediate family! There will always be paintings but not from reality, so paintings don't count. Everything that depicts an image of Jesus is generally found in places of religious worship, but there is no known piece of sculpture depicting Jesus. Why?

I guess it just indicates the flimsiness of empiricism as applied to ancient history - since there is not much evidence to back many personalities 2000 years ago - there is probably no evidence of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother's aunt either - I guess that makes her a myth too ...
*************
M*W: Not necessarily so, my dear. I've traced my grandmothers back to 1858 Germany, but even that is recent. I can go farther back, all the way to Charlemagne, but there are no documents to prove it that I can actually get my hands on. But, then, my family was the descendants of the first French kings, so there should be some documented evidence, it just cannot be proven. Jesus, however, was the savior of the world, unlike my mortal family of questionable heritage. If I can find stones, steles and statues of my family, why isn't there any of Jesus' family? His family was world famous. My family was well beheaded in the French Revolution. You do the math. Jesus had no family because he didn't exist.

Now anyone in their right mind would realize that Jesus is the Sun and Mary Magdalene was the Constellation Virgo as was his mother Mary who delivered Jesus in the manger (the zodiac--a circle of animals) in Bethlehem--the House of Bread. After all, Jesus's body was 'the bread' and his blood was 'the wine.' It's no secret that he changed water into wine. Grapes need lots of rain to make the quality of grapes to ferment wine. Jesus is just another name for the Sun.

Some also say he is not a myth
*************
M*W: Could you please provide a roster of those who believe Jesus is NOT a myth?

Please list these "few, if any," contemporary sources or evidence".
Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is the only contemporary source which gives evidence showing Jesus' possible existence. Two passages speak of a Jewish preacher in Jerusalem who was executed by the Romans, by the name of Jesus.
However, it was just about the most common Jewish name in that period and region, so the person mentioned could have been just about anyone in the region who took up preaching as a profession.
It is not a direct proof of the biblical character's existence. Rather, it's evidence that the Jesus in the bible is based off of one or more historical figures.

Again, to which records are you referring?
The "gospels" weren't written until some 50 to 100 years after Jesus supposedly died. They're about as reliable a historical record as Homer's The Iliad.

Even Christian theologians generally regard the Josephus passage about "Jesus" as a forgery. The vernacular is different. I once read a theologian's critical review of Josephus that detailed the differences, but the source eludes me at this time. Search for threads by Iasion for a detailed list and the problems of so-called "historical" accounts of Jesus.

*************
M*W: Not necessarily so, my dear. I've traced my grandmothers back to 1858 Germany,
1858 AD or BC?



Now anyone in their right mind would realize that Jesus is the Sun and Mary Magdalene was the Constellation Virgo as was his mother Mary who delivered Jesus in the manger (the zodiac--a circle of animals) in Bethlehem--the House of Bread.
right mind?

After all, Jesus's body was 'the bread' and his blood was 'the wine.' It's no secret that he changed water into wine. Grapes need lots of rain to make the quality of grapes to ferment wine. Jesus is just another name for the Sun.
are you trying to pass this off as empirical fact or a tentative claim ... or something else?
:m:??

But how does their existence have anything to do with the alleged existence of Jesus? And where have I ever asserted their existence to begin with. This is a fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Back on topic: Jesus Christ.

quite simply

If you assert that there is no empirical evidence for jesus, further investigation reveals that there is no empirical evidence for well over 99% of anyone else from the same time era

If you feel this is sufficient to classify jesus as a "mythical", it raises the problem how we should classify everyone else from the same time era who fulfills the same criteria (ie a lack of empirical evidence).

Please quote the post where I used the phrase "empirical evidence" with regard to any historical figure. If you're done with the straw man, can the topic continue?

Please quote the post where I used the phrase "empirical evidence" with regard to any historical figure. If you're done with the straw man, can the topic continue?

But since there's no evidence to support a physical person of the same name, he remains a myth.

Given that there is only a smattering of evidence to support a handful of physical people from the same era, it's not clear why jesus gets the "mythical status" by default - hardly a scientific classification

I wasn't aware that I was asserting that either did exist. Moreover, nothing I believe about the world depends upon their existence or non-existence.
---------------------------------------
But I ask you: does the existence of Jesus depend upon the existence or non-existence of these two entities.
---------------------------------------
But how does their existence have anything to do with the alleged existence of Jesus? And where have I ever asserted their existence to begin with. This is a fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Back on topic: Jesus Christ.

Comparisons are common and vital to any investigation. Your statements represent a contradiction. No one is forcing you to believe in any historical figures if you do not really want to.

*************
Look at all the busts of the Roman emperors, Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Roman soldiers, even saints, but none that I've ever seen or heard about of Jesus and his immediate family! There will always be paintings but not from reality, so paintings don't count. Everything that depicts an image of Jesus is generally found in places of religious worship, but there is no known piece of sculpture depicting Jesus. Why?

Paintings are more realistic with the addition of shadows which add another dimension envisioned by the artist, enhancing the relationship of individual and creation. IF you mean why didn't Jesus sit in for a portrait by a Da Vinci caliber artist then the answer should be obvious.

You even answer the question yourself with the examples you cite.

Jesus inspired the most magnificent creations known to humanity, specifically artistic representations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caravaggio.emmaus.750pix.jpg

This represents the artists interpretation of the entombment of Jesus. Some overemphasis of musculature is common. It is the subtleties of creation that are hardest to reproduce. The artist and his abilities can only come so close before the line between masterpiece and blank paper become blurred.

http://www.wga.hu/art/c/caravagg/07/37depos.jpg

http://www.clevelandart.org/museum/collect/highlights/high24.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_view_on_Jesus'_life

Can you explain your statement further? be specific.

1858 AD or BC?
*************
M*W: CE.
[QUOTE]right mind?
*************
M*W: Or left. It makes no difference.
are you trying to pass this off as empirical fact or a tentative claim... or something else? :m:??
*************
M*W: My opinion only.

Paintings are more realistic with the addition of shadows which add another dimension envisioned by the artist, enhancing the relationship of individual and creation. IF you mean why didn't Jesus sit in for a portrait by a Da Vinci caliber artist then the answer should be obvious.
*************
M*W: I'm not sure I understand what you meant when you said 'adding shadows creates another dimension,' yes, I understand this, art is a combination of highlights and shadows. In art, let's say, paintings, there are no solid lines but highlights abutting shadows. But I still don't get your point in this discussion. What is the significance of your Art 101 instruction?

I wasn't really thinking along the lines of Jesus posing for a portrait, because if he was of the stature christians believe him to be, somebody out there would have created some art form of him somewhere. Yes, I know there are all kinds of pictures (not portraits) of Jesus and the Holy Family all over the world, but again, these weren't portraits just man-made images from the artist's mind or replicas from other artists' conceptions. That doesn't make these people real. In fact, since we discussing art here, where do you think the idea of Jesus and the Holy Family came from? It came from the other holy family of Isis, Osiris and Horus.

Just because there are a gazillion paintings of Jesus doesn't mean that he existed in reality. There are also paintings of dragons, unicorns and pixies.

It would be more believable if someone who had actually known Jesus personally would have drawn a stick figure of him. A Da Vinci-quality portrait wouldn't be absolute proof of Jesus's existence. Yet, as many paintings as Da Vinci did of Jesus and his peers, Da Vinci himself didn't believe in Jesus's existence! Why, then, did Da Vinci paint so many scenes of the Holy Family if he believed they didn't exist? I suppose therein lies the alleged code.

You even answer the question yourself with the examples you cite.
*************
M*W: Please enlighten me. What question did I answer?

Jesus inspired the most magnificent creations known to humanity, specifically artistic representations.
*************
M*W: Jesus didn't inspire anything. The inspiration came from within the psyche of the artist. The artists believed in him or they didn't. As with any product, its creator makes it saleable so the sheeple would buy it. It's nothing more than the economic factor of supply and demand. If I were a painter of art, I'd paint scenes of Jesus, too, because they would sell, so the artists who painted scenes of Jesus offer no proof of their reality.

This represents the artists interpretation of the entombment of Jesus. Some overemphasis of musculature is common. It is the subtleties of creation that are hardest to reproduce. The artist and his abilities can only come so close before the line between masterpiece and blank paper become blurred.

http://www.wga.hu/art/c/caravagg/07/37depos.jpg

http://www.clevelandart.org/museum/collect/highlights/high24.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_view_on_Jesus'_life

*************
M*W: I studied several paintings by Caravaggio, including his entombment. He portrays a darkness with his excessive use of shadow and minimal highlight. This is concurrent throughout all the paintings I studied (from the Internet). There is a morbidity portrayed in his work. I imagine Caravaggio to be depressed and forelorn. His work reminds me of El Greco in ways, although El Greco's work is more enigmatic, Caravaggio's work has a feeling of sadness throughout. He was an amazing artist in his own right, but I wouldn't claim him to be one of my favorites. Depressed people might take a liking to his techniques, though.

Can you explain your statement further? be specific.
*************
M*W: John, you've lost me again. I wish I was telepathic so I could understand what you are trying to say.

It would be more believable if someone who had actually known Jesus personally would have drawn a stick figure of him. A Da Vinci-quality portrait wouldn't be absolute proof of Jesus's existence. Yet, as many paintings as Da Vinci did of Jesus and his peers, Da Vinci himself didn't believe in Jesus's existence!

How do you know da Vinci did not believe in Jesus?

Any person interested in becoming an artist would have to study Christian art as far as classical\traditional artists go. Are you going to get upset about that and question the artists mental state? Like you did here:

I imagine Caravaggio to be depressed and forelorn.

I suppose therein lies the alleged code

Give me a break M*W.

Why, then, did Da Vinci paint so many scenes of the Holy Family if he believed they didn't exist? I suppose therein lies the alleged code

Don't you see that i already answered that? I said that ALL your examples are from elite class.

Look at all the busts of the Roman emperors, Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Roman soldiers, even saints, but none that I've ever seen or heard about of Jesus and his immediate family!

Show me an image of any common individual from that time period. How many people from that time period were drawn or had sculpture commissioned?


It would be more believable if someone who had actually known Jesus personally would have drawn a stick figure of him.

Even if there were an image you would not believe it anyway

There aren't any historical records of any of the messiahs of the time...so it makes sense that there wouldn't be any of Jesus...also the Jews who were against Jesus when Christianity first began never once said that Jesus didn't exist...I guess the great atheistic faith has people convinced that "Even though people almost never start following non-existent spiritual teachers, Jesus must have not existed"

There aren't any historical records of any of the messiahs of the time...so it makes sense that there wouldn't be any of Jesus...

Hence, none of them probably existed.

How do you know da Vinci did not believe in Jesus?
*************
M*W: I've read about what a trickster da Vinci was. It's common knowledge that da Vinci ridiculed the RCC through his art.

Any person interested in becoming an artist would have to study Christian art as far as classical\traditional artists go. Are you going to get upset about that and question the artists mental state? Like you did here:
*************
M*W: I have studied christian art, but I'm not going to get upset about something that has no affect on me.

Give me a break M*W. Don't you see that i already answered that? I said that ALL your examples are from elite class.
*************
M*W: John, even though I read thoroughly what you write, I am missing something in the translation. What do you mean by my examples being from "elite class?"
Show me an image of any common individual from that time period. How many people from that time period were drawn or had sculpture commissioned?
*************
M*W: Are you saying that Jesus was a "common individual?" I would think that "common individuals" were not portrayed in art forms, only the emperical class.

Even if there were an image you would not believe it anyway
*************
M*W: "Images" are not real, so, no I would not believe in the reality of any image. That goes for ANY image, not just that of Jesus.

...M*W: I've read about what a trickster da Vinci was. It's common knowledge that da Vinci ridiculed the RCC through his art.....

So he got in trouble for it in his time, or is it just how we see it now? :confused:

Hence, none of them probably existed.

Actually most historians agree that there were many messiah claimants at the time of Jesus, Jesus was just another one of them.....as for why Jesus wasn't recorded in history it's because historians at the time didn't really care nor pay attention to messiah claimants, they only cared about politics, kings, etc.....a historical record doesn't cause someone to exist.....this is the typical atheistic logic "evidence causes something to become true, even if it logically shouldn't be present"

Actually most historians agree that there were many messiah claimants at the time of Jesus, Jesus was just another one of them.....

Which historians, exactly? Who were the other messiahs?

...The "gospels" weren't written until some 50 to 100 years after Jesus supposedly died. They're about as reliable a historical record as Homer's The Iliad.

...he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/

http://www.request.org.uk/issues/evidence/evidence12.htm

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html

http://christopherbutler.wordpress.com/2006/04/06/a-survey-of-new-testament-documents/

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/NTrely.html

A final thought:

...if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise...if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

One must--objectively/"DILIGENTLY"--weigh the evidence and decide whether it is reasonable to believe. It's fair to say that it's quite reasonable to accept these documents at face value.

That said, like Paul says, if Christ hasn't Risen from the dead, then Paul and the rest are liars, worse yet, they were proclaiming something God did (supposedly raised Christ from the dead) when He didn't...and those who believe their lie? --> Of all men the most pitiable...On the other hand--

A general FYI: The original location/context of my earlier posts in this thread was actually the "Is Jehovah God?" thread... They were taken from that thread and placed here.

Does it matter if Jesus existed or not? Those that belive, believe. Those that do not do not. I suggest reading the "Golden Bough". Also, some research on the cult of Mithras might be helpful to those seeking truth.

One final point, faith is never wasted. Religion is a tool that leads man to God.

Does it matter if Jesus existed or not?

If He does not exist then neither do you:

For by Him (Jesus) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

Does it matter if Jesus existed or not? Those that belive, believe. Those that do not do not.

Yes, and those who do believe are shoving it down everyone else's throat, whether we like it or not.

One final point, faith is never wasted. Religion is a tool that leads man to God.

No, gods are tools that lead men to religion.

I am critical of no man for his religion. But those who try to shove religion down the throats of others are insecure in their faith. If one is secure in ones faith, then there is no need to force feed it to others. And if ones faith is true, others will be attracted to it like a light in the darkness.

I am critical of no man for his religion. But those who try to shove religion down the throats of others are insecure in their faith. If one is secure in ones faith, then there is no need to force feed it to others. And if ones faith is true, others will be attracted to it like a light in the darkness.

Unfortunately, part and parcel with the religion is the active recruiting of flock. The faith demands it.

...the Abrahamic god does not exist*.
*italics mine
Not a fan of Jehovah, but... This is a position of faith.

No, gods are tools that lead men to religion.

...gods are the tools that lead hu/mans to submission.

I am very sad to see that religion has come to this...it is much better. It is the practice of man, that dispoils the name of God. Let me remind you that Mother Theresa was led by God, and so were a great number of other saints.

Let me remind you that Mother Theresa was led by God, and so were...

So?

"Dear Lord, you're big, ooo you are so huge. Gosh, we're all really impressed down here I can tell you..."
my apologies to... never mind the apologies
From Monty Python "Meaning of Life"

lol tht1gy!

One final point, faith is never wasted. Religion is a tool that leads man to God.
*************
M*W: Faith is wasted energy. Religion is a propaganda device that leads man to his ultimate and deadly abomination.

propaganda create by? for?

propaganda create by? for?

**************
M*W: Propaganda was created by the believers in a false reality.

Propaganda created for the purpose of controlling the believers.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

come on tht1gy, you can do better. That is real real old.

Try this, religion is what people make of it.

I am critical of no man for his religion. But those who try to shove religion down the throats of others are insecure in their faith. If one is secure in ones faith, then there is no need to force feed it to others. And if ones faith is true, others will be attracted to it like a light in the darkness.then all religions should stop indoctrinating children, stop witnessing and pushing their faith on all and sundrie and in particular stop fight wars over these evil cults.

Please list these "few, if any," contemporary sources or evidence"read this from Iasion

Josephus is considered some of the best evidence - even though is is generally considered to be tampered with, if not an outright forgery (of course, the word used is "interpolated" - scholars avoid the word "forgery" even though that's exactly what it is.)




JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm


The Acts of Pilate (3rd, 4th C.)

Justin does refer to such a report or Acts of Pilate, but no such document existed, until forged in two versions in 3rd and 4th century. The story Tertullian tells is patently absurd.


MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.


with thanks to Iasion

Q
Yes, and those who do believe are shoving it down everyone else's throat, whether we like it or not.
that’s the right – the only reason atheists are exempt from tangling one’s tonsils is because they don’t have a “belief”
:rolleyes:

MW

**************
M*W: Propaganda was created by the believers in a false reality.

Propaganda created for the purpose of controlling the believers.
and I guess if we happen to get controlled by your belief that’s simply because it’s the truth of the matter, eh?

Wow. Thanks for that geeser.

IMO, the NT documents are the best source of information about Jesus. In most cases, they're penned by eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ (Paul, Peter, John, etc.)

Paul: "Dear brothers and sisters, I solemnly assure you that the Good News of salvation which I preach is not based merely on human reasoning or logic. For my message came by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ Himself. No one else taught me. You know what I was like when I followed the Jewish religion how I violently persecuted the Christians. I did my best to get rid of them..."

Peter: "For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming again. We have seen his majestic splendor with our own eyes. "

John: The One who existed from the beginning is the One we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is Jesus Christ, the Word of Life. This One Who is Life from God was shown to us, and we have seen him. And now we testify and announce to you that He is the One Who is Eternal Life. He was with the Father, and then He was shown to us. We are telling you about what we ourselves have actually seen and heard, so that you may have fellowship with us.

Yep, you're certainly free to 'believe' they're lying, or that these documents are embellished through/with deliberate intent to deceive, the express purpose of which is to foist a cruel hoax upon humanity... or, in reference to Jesus, are merely composites of many personas/"Messiah's", forgeries, i.e. in some way, shape, or form, fraudulent...however, for me?... well, to deny they are telling the truth would be to lie to myself. But... you be true to yourself...be confident of your ability to 'smell a rat' so to speak...you know phake, phony, phrauds when you see 'em don't you... Like The Image that greets you every morning (in the mirror) for example.

...read this from Iasion ...



The desperation is evident, indeed, when, among some of the more disingenuous infidels, one of the most popular ideas to pop up recently is the "Jesus-myth." This is the idea that Jesus didn't even exist, let alone conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament. It is an idea that the careful and discerning reader would suppose would be found in the pages of a pre-school comic book. It might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who are gullible enough to take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their faith.

Initially, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a brilliant epiphany. Simply eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, yeah, just eliminate the founder! Nice try, kiddies.

J.P. Holding writes, "Amateur skeptics like to pass lists around that they borrow from outdated and irrelevant sources written by kidney specialists; one of these is a list of writers contemporary with Jesus who are alleged to have been mysteriously silent about him."

For a thorough discussion of the relevant issues, including a refutation of Iasion, the sedulous and honest reader will examine this link:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.html

Be of good cheer. God be with you.

Very good Geeser, you have done some homework. After the death of Jesus there were several different versions of Christianity. And not all Christians believed in the divinity of Jesus. And other non-Christian cults were preaching doctrines similar to those of Christ in the same period.

And certainly if you read the New Testament, it will tell you in black and white that there is more to the story that is not written and not disclosed in the New Testament:.

Mark 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Notice the New Testament is written in parables.

It was not until the council of Nicea that established Christ’s divinity by fiat. The council of Nicea was conducted at the behest of a pagan emperor who legalized Christianity in the empire…Constantine. It is reported that Constantine had a death bed conversion to Christianity. However, Constantine was a high priest of the Sol Invictus cult...which by the way is one of those religions preaching similar messages to Christ. Constantine used Christianity to blend the two religions into one and consolidate his empire.
That is why and when the Christian Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday. That is when pagan (Sol Invictus) holidays were incorporated into the Christian calendar (Christmas and Easter). And that is also when the Invictus symbol, the cross, became a Christian symbol. Prior to Constantine, the symbols for Christians did not include the cross. It was the fish. And the cross that Jesus died on was not the traditional cross we see represented to day. It looked more like a capital T than a +. The + is a Sol Invictus symbol.

If you assert that there is no empirical evidence for jesus, further investigation reveals that there is no empirical evidence for well over 99% of anyone else from the same time era

If you feel this is sufficient to classify jesus as a "mythical", it raises the problem how we should classify everyone else from the same time era who fulfills the same criteria (ie a lack of empirical evidence).

Clearly, LG would rather troll the thread and get responses to his straw man argument that no historical figures can be shown to “empirically exist” so, therefore, mythical figures like Jesus have just as much legitimacy in reality as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and George Patton. All historical figures. Some would rather dissuade discussion and discourse rather than encourage it and perhaps LG knows that many choose simply not to post in threads he posts in. Or, perhaps, he is truly offended that someone might dare to question mythical creatures and entities since this questions his own, possibly deluded, perception of reality.

Regardless, LG is undoubtedly aware that historians don’t use the “empirical evidences” of chemists and physicists, and he was obviously unable to produce a quote where I stated such a thing, but historians do make predictions based upon the evidence they actually obtain. Evidence for historical figures and events comes in the forms of primary and secondary evidence. The written artifacts of the subject constitute primary evidence: bills of laden, manifests, deeds to property, signed orders, correspondence, etc. Secondary evidence comes in the form of documents written in an era after the subject’s period, usually written about the subject, describing his deeds, actions, or ideas about the world.

With regard to historical figures like George Washington, there exist many primary documents that conform to the period contemporary to the man. Occasionally, a forged document emerges (documents related to George Washington are valuable, after all) and is detected by some inconsistence when compared with other documents. Or, in the case of a document I recall being discussed once, the forger used the wrong ink, which when empirically analyzed, showed to be of a 20th century variety.

What exists with the Jesus account amounts to only secondary evidence. The only sources we have to say that Jesus existed in history are the Synaptic Gospels and a few apocrypha. Each of which offer conflicting accounts in some cases or appear to be derived from a single source in others. None of Jesus’ personal correspondences exist; not a single account of his life exists that was written while he was alleged to exist; not a single artifact is produced that can be empirically linked to Jesus; etc.

Apologists for the Jesus myth will often respond with, “what artifact would be good enough?” A blood-soaked piece of wood that tests to only have 23 chromosomes comes to mind, but, realistically, I’m reminded that many historical figures contemporary to Jesus or before are accompanied by artifacts that are in their name: effigies, murals, tapestries, sculptures, trinkets, jewelry, songs, poems, stories, cities and streets named after them, and so on. Jesus Christ has none of these things that were created during his life or even just after. It isn’t until about 50 – 70 years after he was alleged to have been executed that the newly emergent Christian cult created documents detailing the life of this person.

If Jesus Christ did not exist, we would expect to see only post-mortem accounts of his life. We would expect to see the creators of this mythical character use existing mythology to flesh out the character they’re creating. We would expect to see a borrowing of text, as was common for the day, from existing religious texts to create the new myth. We would expect to see mistakes in things like geography and contradictions between authors of the new mythical character if they weren’t collaborating close enough –or if they were competing with one another! We would also expect the Jesus myth to conform to the hero archetype as well.

And you know what, we see all these things.

Existing Mythology and Borrowing of Text

In Daniel 7:13, we find, “[a]s I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven.” In Mark 13: 26, we see, “[t]hen they will see 'the Son of Man coming in clouds' with great power and glory.”

This direct word-for-word borrowing of Old Testament text by gospel author is something that was done throughout Near Eastern cultures. Anyone who’s read in Near Eastern texts ranging from Gilgamesh to the Egyptian stories from the earliest writings to well after the alleged time of Jesus will see examples of this literary “borrowing.” One of the only time this literary practice of ancient texts is ignored is with Judeo-Christian and Islamic myths.

As another example of so many, the crucifixion scene in Mark is clearly based on Psalm 22. The first lines of Psalm 22 read “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?,” which is a lamentation song supposedly written by David. In Mark, Jesus quotes this as he “dies” on the cross. Those deluded by the spell of Christianity will cite this as “prophecy fulfillment,” even though this isn’t a “prophecy” at all. It’s a song. A song of lament and there is no indication in Psalms that this is any sort of prophecy. We are left to accept that either the alleged “son of God” lacked imagination or originality in this and dozens of other sayings and speeches.

Indeed, the obvious explanation of so-called “prophecy-fulfillments” is that they are all written by authors who were writing with these prophecies and sayings in mind.

Geographical Problems

1. The author of Mark states that Jesus cast out demons from a man and into a couple thousand pigs while in Gerasa. The pigs then ran down a steep place and into the Sea of Galilee. Galilee is about 30 miles from Gerasa.

2. Matthew's author changed the earlier Mark to Gadara, which is still 5 miles from the shore of Galilee. The earliest manuscripts are Mark, which state Gerasa. But even if it were Gadara and Mark's author was wrong (leaving one to wonder why we should trust "as gospel" the word of either since they cannot agree -one is obviously deluded), did Mark's author run to keep up with the pigs for 5 miles just to watch their fate?

3. The author of Mark also wrote that Jesus traveled from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, about 30-50 miles (depending on the route) in order to reach Sidon, which was back on the Mediterranean coast, yet another 40-50 miles! The wisest of wise men took a 70 mile journey, on foot, to reach his destination. Talk about taking the scenic route. A more likely explanation is that the gospel was invented by an author that was simply ignorant of Palestinian geography (in other words, had never been there; in other words, wasn't an 'apostle') and thought Sidon was on the coast of the Sea of Galilee. [1]

Inter-Gospel Contradictions

The contradictory genealogies of Matthew and Luke are probably the first that come to mind for most. Even the most deeply deluded of Christian apologists seem to have difficulty reconciling this difference. Though I have seen one or two lame attempts, the worst of these being the excuse that one of the genealogies is actually that of Mary. There shouldn’t even be a genealogy of Joseph going back to David since he isn’t Jesus’ father… yet Paul writes in Romans 1:3 that Jesus was born of the sperm of David. This is evidence of a bit of editing and footwork done by the early Christians who were reconciling OT prophecy to create their “messiah.” This bit gets written in to the Jesus mythology to help create the character and flesh out his part.

But, speaking of Jesus’ birth, only Luke and Matthew seem aware of the fact that it is supposed to be a “virgin” birth (complete and utter nonsense to begin with). Luke and Matthew also disagree on the date that he was born. Luke has him born during the first census of Israel during the period in which Quirinius was governor of Syria. Matthew says he was born during the reign of Herod. Herod died in 4 BCE and the census took place between 6 and 7 CE. The authors of Matthew and Luke both agree on the place of Jesus’ birth, however, putting it at Bethlehem. Incidently, the author of Matthew seems to be quoting Micah (5:2) when he writes of it, more “borrowing” from the OT. Luke, on the other hand, has Joseph and Mary leave their home in Nazareth to go to Bethlehem for the birth for census purposes (which doesn’t make any logical sense, since Romans were interested in taxing people where they actually lived). The contradiction between Matthew and Luke is regarding their home, apparently Luke’s author thinks they lived in Nazareth before Jesus’ birth, whereas Matthew’s author says it was only after JC’s birth that they moved there because they were afraid to return to Judea.

There are many, many other contradictions between these alleged “synoptic” gospels (such as who bought the field of blood, how the field got its name, how Judas died, trials of Jesus, his death, the alleged “resurrection,” etc.), enough that it is apparent that “synoptic” is the last adjective that should be applied to these fables.

The Hero archetype.

The modern mythical archetype is as follows:

The hero usually suffers a great loss, which makes him set off on a quest.
The hero generally has a mentor or helper who helps him on his quest.
The hero must face a set of trials, which allow him to overcome "evil".
The hero narrowly escapes death, usually more than once.
The hero escapes the "evil villain's" stronghold or destroys him.
The hero is then reintegrated into society with a new status, wealth, or marriage to the princess.
There has to be a happy ending.


Such modern heroes include Luke Skywalker, Superman, Batman, etc. But the hero archetype is nothing new to storytellers. Joseph Campbell outlined the “hero’s journey” in his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces [2] and noted that this journey is shared by mythical heroes throughout history:


A call to adventure, which the hero has to accept or decline
A road of trials, regarding which the hero succeeds or fails
Achieving the goal or "boon," which often results in important self-knowledge
A return to the ordinary world, again as to which the hero can succeed or fail
Application of the boon, in which what the hero has gained, can be used to improve the world


To quote Campbell, “A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.”

So why “Jesus Christ?”

The theology the group of believers that became Catholics held that a new covenant could only be made with a blood sacrifice. Therefore, Jesus had to exist and real, actual blood had to be spilled in order to form a new covenant. Catholics, the folks that voted on what texts were going to be “biblical” and which were not, voted in a new covenant along with the New Testament texts added to the earlier Judaic texts like the Torah. A new covenant exists. Therefore, Jesus existed. All very circular.

But why the name “Jesus” and not “Yeshua: as it is written in Hebrew. And why “Christ?” Yeshua, meaning “god saves” already existed and was very prominent in the newly voted on Bible. He’s better known as Joshua, the mass-murderer who is alleged to have committed genocide on Canaanites and other innocent people of the land he and his band of terrorists wanted to take. Of course, biblical mythology paints his deeds as acts of heroism (one man’s hero is another man’s terrorist), but rest assured, this hero is quoted directly in biblical mythology as having “devoted the city [Jericho] to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys (Joshua 6:21).” That is, every living thing except his favorite prostitute.

So the Catholic editors of their newly voted on biblical texts saw fit to change the name ever so slightly. Jesus, was also among the most common names of the time. And, since “christ” is from the Greek khristós, meaning “anointed one,” the functional equivalent of “messiah,” we are left with an “everyman name.” He might well have been named Joe Messiah if the story were to have unfolded in 20th century Ohio instead of the Iron Age.

References:
[1] SkinWalker. Bible Contradictions. Post #2 http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1328853&postcount=2
[2]Campbell, Joseph. The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949.

The desperation is evident, indeed, when, among some of the more disingenuous infidels, one of the most popular ideas to pop up recently is the "Jesus-myth." This is the idea that Jesus didn't even exist, let alone conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament. It is an idea that the careful and discerning reader would suppose would be found in the pages of a pre-school comic book. It might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who are gullible enough to take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their faith.

Initially, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a brilliant epiphany. Simply eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, yeah, just eliminate the founder! Nice try, kiddies.

J.P. Holding writes, "Amateur skeptics like to pass lists around that they borrow from outdated and irrelevant sources written by kidney specialists; one of these is a list of writers contemporary with Jesus who are alleged to have been mysteriously silent about him."

For a thorough discussion of the relevant issues, including a refutation of Iasion, the sedulous and honest reader will examine this link:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.html

Be of good cheer. God be with you.

It could be that Jesus existed, but the picture we get about him from the Bible is a myth. There is just no way to know if Jesus existed or not. It might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who are gullible enough to take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their faith.

It could be that Jesus existed, but the picture we get about him from the Bible is a myth. There is just no way to know if Jesus existed or not. It might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who are gullible enough to take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their faith.

Exactly, from my perspective, Jesus was an enlightened drunkard & healer... :D

Hey guys don't miss the forrest for the trees. Just because Jesus may not have existed does not negate the message.

If he didn't exist, then he didn't have a message. The "messages" would then be messages from ourselves. Which fits since the alleged Jesus didn't seem to say a thing that wasn't already said by someone else. In some cases, it was better said by others.

*************
M*W: Thank, ylooshi, for your excellent post! You raise many inconsistancies of scripture that are truthful and thought provoking.

I have a couple of questions:

What is your opinion of the Jesus-Mary Magdalene marriage theory?

What is your opinion of the astro-theological theory of God=the Sun?

Thanks. I look forward to reading all your posts!

Skinwalker, the message is not the bearer. If he did not exist then he was the vehicle for a message. Read Mark, and Luke, what is he said to have taught? Also, don't you think you can learn from the collective experience of mankind? Is that not how we have advanced our technology. Why cannot we use that same principla to advance our social and spirtual selves as well.

Hey guys don't miss the forrest for the trees. Just because Jesus may not have existed does not negate the message.

True, there is no Lao Tse, of Tao Te Ching fame.

Joepistole,

The problem is that millions of Americans believe that their dogma has a place in secular society and that it should inform public policy, laws, and matters not related to religious pursuit. If the only agenda that these, otherwise fine, folks had was to agree with "the golden rule," then I'd have no problem with them.

Instead, however, they want their particular brand of superstition taught as fact in science classes; they want their deity prayed to by all; they want to limit scientific discovery and medical advancement based on their dogma; they wish to use that dogma to inform laws regarding marriage, end of life, beginning of life, and quality of life; and they seek to oppress any who don't think as they do about their dogma.

Their dogma goes beyond the alleged "teachings of Jesus." It extends back into Old Testament genocide, misogyny, racism, bigotry, etc., and it reaches into New Testament superstitions about so-called "end times," a superstition that holds the mythical messiah will return to pass judgment on the world. In light of this, the followers of this benevolent but mythical character have little motivation to preserve the planet for future generations. The majority of the deluded masses who consider the myth of Jesus to be historical fact believe that he will return to this world in their lifetime. While there are some who consider themselves good stewards of the planet and believe it is the "Christian thing to do," they are in a minority and generally ridiculed and criticized by their deluded majority.

It will be only once people shed their delusions of superstition that the world can truly progress in a positive way. It will be then, that people can recognize the difference between the wisdom presented through allegory and the dogma of a superstitious doctrine.

Are there wise words in the bible? Certainly. There is wisdom in just about every religious text I've opened -and I've opened far more than the typical deluded Christian or Muslim. But there is also wisdom in The Briar Patch, Moby Dick, and Tom Sawyer. And if there were fanatics who adhered to the literal word of Br'er Rabbit or the gospel of Ahab, or if they were able to convince millions that Huck Finn was a messiah sent to deliver southerners from a life of sin, then these people would be just as wrong and deluded as any modern Christian.

If he didn't exist, then he didn't have a message. The "messages" would then be messages from ourselves. Which fits since the alleged Jesus didn't seem to say a thing that wasn't already said by someone else. In some cases, it was better said by others.
*************
M*W: As far as I can tell, everything that Jesus was credited to have said, was in fact, second-hand words. In a court of law, this is called "hearsay." So, in effect, absolutely nothing that Jesus would have said would be admissible evidence and would not hold up in court!

The problem is that millions of Americans believe that their dogma has a place in secular society and that it should inform public policy, laws, and matters not related to religious pursuit. If the only agenda that these, otherwise fine, folks had was to agree with "the golden rule," then I'd have no problem with them.

Instead, however, they want their particular brand of superstition taught as fact in science classes; they want their deity prayed to by all; they want to limit scientific discovery and medical advancement based on their dogma; they wish to use that dogma to inform laws regarding marriage, end of life, beginning of life, and quality of life; and they seek to oppress any who don't think as they do about their dogma.


Your bias is quite ordinary, for whatever the reason bias is bias, there is no way to get around it. Take away the group that you hate the most and there will be another to take it's place. We all want someone\group to blame for our own failures and lack of understanding. Surely this is negative but we must accept it as it is part of the human condition, i cannot give an adequate explanation for this. The scary part is when it becomes acceptable to hate a specific group, then it becomes truly damaging. We can look towards Adolf Hitler as an example.

Just as a group of children in a third world country will fight those in the town next to them right up to sanctioned events in any country you pick.

the world sucks because of...

this is not happening because of...

this is happening because of...

To an extent we are all deluded, why? Because we DO NOT KNOW HOW WE GOT HERE. Do you think evolution explains everything? I dont know of anyone with the ability to reason can conclude that it does. It is such basic theory and it remains ONLY a theory.

Take some humans and drop them on another planet and will they just accept it? And what if their leader says: we came from that swamp...what f'ing explanation is that? 2000+ years later and YOU tell me what have we learned?

Instead, however, they want their particular brand of superstition taught as fact in science classes; they want their deity prayed to by all; they want to limit scientific discovery and medical advancement based on their dogma; they wish to use that dogma to inform laws regarding marriage, end of life, beginning of life, and quality of life; and they seek to oppress any who don't think as they do about their dogma.

Give specific examples so we can intelligently discuss them, maybe we will come to an understanding.

*************
M*W: As far as I can tell, everything that Jesus was credited to have said, was in fact, second-hand words. In a court of law, this is called "hearsay." So, in effect, absolutely nothing that Jesus would have said would be admissible evidence and would not hold up in court!

there were no recorders, no t.v, no internet, no radio. we cannot dismiss everyone or everything that we do not witness with our own eyes. do you believe anything that came from the ancient world? you know that is where WE came from.

you know that is where WE came from.

WE as in Winning Eleven??

WE as in Winning Eleven??

no, Wii - worship of Nintendo.

Way to go John99. Create some straw men for us rather than actually address the topic at hand.

I readily admit that we all have a bias of a sort or another. Me included. But that knowledge only helps examine an issue like whether or not Jesus Christ was a real person in history or whether he was simply a myth. The difference between me and you is that I go into that examination realizing that I have a bias and test against that bias continually. Whenever I take on an hypothesis, one of the very first things I attempt to do is disprove it. I attempt to criticize the very assertions I've made. And I'm not alone: this is the modus operandi of any rational thinker.

The religious rarely do this and the extent to which they are worst at this practice is directly proportional to the extent to which they take literally the doctrines of their cults.

So rather than discuss the topic of the apparent mythical nature of Jesus Christ, the more deluded believers seek to switch topics to something they can more easily obfuscate and argue.

Such as with your straw man about group hatred. Not a word of that would-be diatribe spoke to anything regarding the mythical/factual nature of Jesus or the validity of the message this mythical character is alleged to have had.

Such as with your straw man about evolution. "Where did we come from?" Who gives a crap. It has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus was a myth.

Such as with your red herring requesting "specific examples." This was in reply to another post that questioned why worry about whether or not Jesus was a myth when the message is all that matters. My response was to show that the message itself is flawed and not demonstrably the best thing for humanity since it assumes that message is genuine for it to be right. It assumes it right and, therefore, genuine. The circularity is blinding when looked from an objective and outside perspective.

I don't disagree with you Skinwalker. But I think we need to show them there is a better way. I cannot tell you how disheartening it is to watch the likes of Falwell and company make movies about how the Clintons are murderes or watch these preachers hawk everything from spring water to garments on TV.

I have addressed the topic with post #12. I see no difference in believing Jesus existed as a physical being than any other historical figure from that period and for hundreds of years before or after. Yet people readily accept these figures BUT not Jesus, this constitutes bias. Iow, you cannot make what you do not agree with just disappear.

The religious rarely do this and the extent to which they are worst at this practice is directly proportional to the extent to which they take literally the doctrines of their cults.

So rather than discuss the topic of the apparent mythical nature of Jesus Christ, the more deluded believers seek to switch topics to something they can more easily obfuscate and argue.


You assume that i am 'religious' but that is not an accurate assumption. I have never once stated my personal beliefs on this forum because i am not here to sway anyone one way or another. People have to make their own decisions, what good is it if one persons views are forced on another?

Such as with your straw man about evolution. "Where did we come from?" Who gives a crap. It has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus was a myth.

Oh, i think you do give a crap, are you saying you do not believe in evolution? Given the time and inclination i honestly think i can get many people to reject it outright and many highly intelligent people do. I am NOT talking about evolving in general (strawman) i am talking about the scope in which we are being FORCED to accept it or else. In this i mean man came from monkeys, you want to talk about science? If this were proven to be the case would i really care, would it be life altering for me? NO.

Such as with your red herring requesting "specific examples." This was in reply to another post that questioned why worry about whether or not Jesus was a myth when the message is all that matters. My response was to show that the message itself is flawed and not demonstrably the best thing for humanity since it assumes that message is genuine for it to be right. It assumes it right and, therefore, genuine. The circularity is blinding when looked from an objective and outside perspective.

There are no 'red herrings' in any of my posts, i am effectively rendering a counter argument, if you think this is unfair i think you are wrong.

I simply want examples given for these assertions, so we can get to the bottom of it:
they want to limit scientific discovery and medical advancement based on their dogma; they wish to use that dogma to inform laws regarding marriage, end of life, beginning of life, and quality of life; and they seek to oppress any who don't think as they do about their dogma.

You may have what you view as legitimate reasons.

Greetings all,

Thanks to geeser for posting my list.
I encourage readers to check Nutter's link - J.P Holding is famous on the internet. Infamous that is. Carefully compare the facts to what he claims.

It was not until the council of Nicea that established Christ’s divinity by fiat.

Complete and utter bollocks!
This is straight out of the Da Vinci Code - but it's completely FALSE.

Have a read of Paul - he goes on and on about the divine Jesus, so do the rest of the early epistles. (It is the historical Jesus that is missing from the early writings, the exact opposite of what Joe claims.)

Only someone who believed the Da Vinci Code, but who has never read Paul or the NT epistles could say this.


Iasion

Very good Geeser, you have done some homework...

It was not until the council of Nicea that established Christ’s divinity by fiat. The council of Nicea was conducted at the behest of a pagan emperor who legalized Christianity in the empire…Constantine. It is reported that Constantine had a death bed conversion to Christianity. However, Constantine was a high priest of the Sol Invictus cult...which by the way is one of those religions preaching similar messages to Christ. Constantine used Christianity to blend the two religions into one and consolidate his empire.
That is why and when the Christian Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday. That is when pagan (Sol Invictus) holidays were incorporated into the Christian calendar (Christmas and Easter). And that is also when the Invictus symbol, the cross, became a Christian symbol. Prior to Constantine, the symbols for Christians did not include the cross. It was the fish. And the cross that Jesus died on was not the traditional cross we see represented to day. It looked more like a capital T than a +. The + is a Sol Invictus symbol.

Doesn't the word Christian come from Christ. (edit: nevermind) I dont know about that story of yours regarding Constantine, i have never seen da Vinci code.

Which Constantine are you referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine

... since “christ” is from the Greek khristós, meaning “anointed one,” the functional equivalent of “messiah,” we are left with an “everyman name.” He might well have been named Joe Messiah if the story were to have unfolded in 20th century Ohio instead of the Iron Age.


Very true. Nevertheless, ...we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He, by the grace of God should taste death for every man...Forasmuch then as the human race are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

For verily He did not take upon Himself the nature of angels; but He took upon Himself the seed of Abraham.

The "everyman" aspect comes into play in this respect also: Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest (on behalf of the human race) in things pertaining to God.

come on tht1gy, you can do better. That is real real old.

While I appreciate your confidence...:D

...I was just quoting K. Marx.:itold:
It seemed relevant at the time...:shrug:

Well John99 seeing the da Vinci code would not have helped you with Constantine, as he is never mentioned in the da Vinci code. But he is an historical figure, Constantine the Great.

By the way, religion is not an opiate byt a way to grow personally. And if you belive in God as I do, come closer to God. But to become closer to God and to grow spiritually one does not need be persecute others...in fact one cannot become closer to God while mistreating others.

By the way John99 instead of Secundum nex, pacis nex

Clearly, LG would rather troll the thread and get responses to his straw man argument that no historical figures can be shown to “empirically exist” so, therefore, mythical figures like Jesus have just as much legitimacy in reality as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and George Patton.
erm - since there is empirical evidence for George Washington and co., it seems you've just done yourself a strawman ....

Btw - by trolling do you mean I begin a post by engineering a character assassination with unbacked claims or references - eg "ylooshi trolls threads all the time with his strawman arguments. Everyone knows it. blah blah blah"

All historical figures. Some would rather dissuade discussion and discourse rather than encourage it and perhaps LG knows that many choose simply not to post in threads he posts in.
thats all fine and well, but the original point still stands - is it sufficient to deem an entity "mythical" because there is no empirical evidence for their existence (particularly if they come from an era where empirical evidence is not really in vogue)?

Or, perhaps, he is truly offended that someone might dare to question mythical creatures and entities since this questions his own, possibly deluded, perception of reality.
questioning is fine
its the use of faulty constructs of reasoning that irks me ...

Regardless, LG is undoubtedly aware that historians don’t use the “empirical evidences” of chemists and physicists, and he was obviously unable to produce a quote where I stated such a thing, but historians do make predictions based upon the evidence they actually obtain. Evidence for historical figures and events comes in the forms of primary and secondary evidence. The written artifacts of the subject constitute primary evidence: bills of laden, manifests, deeds to property, signed orders, correspondence, etc. Secondary evidence comes in the form of documents written in an era after the subject’s period, usually written about the subject, describing his deeds, actions, or ideas about the world.
thats all fine and well but the OP was bypassing this important foundation by inviting people to discuss the jesus "mythology" - which is clearly an empirical claim ("jesus does not exist")

What exists with the Jesus account amounts to only secondary evidence. The only sources we have to say that Jesus existed in history are the Synaptic Gospels and a few apocrypha. Each of which offer conflicting accounts in some cases or appear to be derived from a single source in others. None of Jesus’ personal correspondences exist; not a single account of his life exists that was written while he was alleged to exist; not a single artifact is produced that can be empirically linked to Jesus; etc.
well 2000 years is a long time - and given the social climate of christians at the time, its not clear why you demand such things

Apologists for the Jesus myth will often respond with, “what artifact would be good enough?” A blood-soaked piece of wood that tests to only have 23 chromosomes comes to mind, but, realistically, I’m reminded that many historical figures contemporary to Jesus or before are accompanied by artifacts that are in their name: effigies, murals, tapestries, sculptures, trinkets, jewelry, songs, poems, stories, cities and streets named after them, and so on.
exactly who are these contemporaries of jesus you are referring to?

Jesus Christ has none of these things that were created during his life or even just after. It isn’t until about 50 – 70 years after he was alleged to have been executed that the newly emergent Christian cult created documents detailing the life of this person.
once again, given the social climate of christianity at the time, why is this deemed unusual?

If Jesus Christ did not exist, we would expect to see only post-mortem accounts of his life. We would expect to see the creators of this mythical character use existing mythology to flesh out the character they’re creating. We would expect to see a borrowing of text, as was common for the day, from existing religious texts to create the new myth. We would expect to see mistakes in things like geography and contradictions between authors of the new mythical character if they weren’t collaborating close enough –or if they were competing with one another! We would also expect the Jesus myth to conform to the hero archetype as well.
you do realize that we would also expect all of these things if jesus actually did exist in a social environment that was not primarily geared up for extolling his glories

And you know what, we see all these things.

its not at all unusual to uncover anomalies in historical data from even 100 years ago, what to speak of 2000 years ago
you should realize that the moment you use the word "mythical" you are laying a positive claim to an objects non-existence (ie you are laying down an empirical claim) - if all you have is tentative foundations for such a claim, you have a weak argument
:shrug:

To build on what you said Light, Luke and Matthew were latter documents with portions taken from an earlier document which scholars refer to as the Q document. The Q document have never been found. But because of similarities in writting styles Luke and Matthew can be traced to this Q document which is a much earloer document. There are also non cannonized books like the Book of Thomas and the Book of Judas which shed new and different perspectives. And there are the writtings of the Gnostics as well.

When you look at the Bible you are looking at two things, the version cannonized at the council of Nicea and subsequent revisions. By the way the cannonized version was written in Greek not Aramic which was the language of Jesus. And somethings just don't translate well.

*************
M*W: ... If I can find stones, steles and statues of my family, why isn't there any of Jesus' family? His family was world famous. My family was well beheaded in the French Revolution. You do the math. Jesus had no family because he didn't exist.

Let's talk about the STORY of Jesus...

1) He wasn't famous for long
2) Had a bad rep in the end among the populace.
3) He did not want publicity

MW, we have no evidence of Jesus being real. If we hoped that he was real and looked for evidence we would not find any.

But, if the story was real, perhaps there is no evidence because he was not famous until after the dead sea scrolls were unearthed.

Over his liftetime, the Bible's account of Jesus doing miraculous things and saying all sorts of fabulous things that enlightened people and religious leaders. I'm sure he was famous for a relatively short period of time, but not compared to the reknown of rulers AND accredited saints.

In the end, Jesus was killed, and all record shoved under the rug. In the Bible, it also claims that the Jewish leaders put him under wraps and denied Jesus's claim even after the resurrection. I bet only the disciples and those who were touched by Jesus knew of him 10 years after his death. He was forgotten.

How many years was he actually known of...and how long does one have to be famous to have art created depicting oneself? What, wasn't he supposed to be like in his thirities when he died?

Aside from that, it wasn't popular to publicize a criminal. That's what he was to the people in the end. They chose Barabas to be free, not the blasphemer.

To this day, I don't think Jesus is accepted by the Jews as the savior spoken of in the Torah?

And aside from that, Jesus told the people he did stuff for to not spread the word....though the blind man couldn't contain himself.

If the story were true, it does not surprise me that we see no evidence of him.

So if God exists, I believe it is unreasonable to demand that we believe in him to be saved.

Let's talk about the STORY of Jesus...

1) He wasn't famous for long
2) Had a bad rep in the end among the populace.
3) He did not want publicity

MW, we have no evidence of Jesus being real. If we hoped that he was real and looked for evidence we would not find any.

But, if the story was real, perhaps there is no evidence because he was not famous until after the dead sea scrolls were unearthed.
*************
M*W: I couldn't agree with you more.
Over his liftetime, the Bible's account of Jesus doing miraculous things and saying all sorts of fabulous things that enlightened people and religious leaders. I'm sure he was famous for a relatively short period of time, but not compared to the reknown of rulers AND accredited saints.
*************
M*W: If there were no real Jesus, then there would have been no saints, apostles or martyrs. Zero from zero equals zero.

But since there was a storybook Jesus, it's only fitting that there were also storybook apostles, martyrs and saints (portrayed in scrolls, books, radio, epic films, TV programming, televangelism everywhere, and in all the faith-based programs in the USA that are anything but the separated by church and state.

In the end, Jesus was killed, and all record shoved under the rug. In the Bible, it also claims that the Jewish leaders put him under wraps and denied Jesus's claim even after the resurrection. I bet only the disciples and those who were touched by Jesus knew of him 10 years after his death. He was forgotten.*************
M*W: If THE crucifixion really happened (because the Romans were known to have used this form of execution), I find it unlikely that of all the crucifixions that Romans had effected, with Jesus obviously being the most famous, why were the records of this crucifixion swept under the camel hair? Wouldn't this have been one of the major Roman triumphs? And you know how flashy and arrogant those Romans were? They would have taken great pride in flashing this particular spoil, but it just didn't happen. That would mean the Romans had a shred of empathy in their humane treatment of a convicted criminal, a traitor to the Holy Roman Empire! It just doesn't add up.
How many years was he actually known of...and how long does one have to be famous to have art created depicting oneself? What, wasn't he supposed to be like in his thirities when he died?
*************
M*W: I don't think there is any set rule on how long one must live to be famous enough to be depicted by some art form. Look what a short time it took Rodney King to become a martyr for all time, resurrected from beyond his videotaped crucifixion that was unbeknownst to the terrorist LAPD officers. Whose infamous words still echo o'er the land, "People, can't we get along? Can't we all just get along?" He was a victim, not a hero, and he has his place in posterity.

Aside from that, it wasn't popular to publicize a criminal. That's what he was to the people in the end. They chose Barabas to be free, not the blasphemer.
*************
M*W: I have a problem with Barabbas whose name literally means "Son (Bar) of the Father (Abbas). Why the duplicity? I even think Bar Abbas's full name was Jesus Bar Abbas. That's just too close for their being two men to be crucified at the same time with the same name, but then, I don't believe either one of them existed.
To this day, I don't think Jesus is accepted by the Jews as the savior spoken of in the Torah?
*************
M*W: And I think you're right. Of course, the Jewish Old Testament and the christian old
testament aren't the same. However, they do tend to believe a man named Jesus existed, but you have to realize that the OT wasn't put together until after the NT was written. I bet most people don't know this. The Jewish OT wasn't completed until around 400 CE, and the Catholic church was well on it's way to becoming the state religion.
And aside from that, Jesus told the people he did stuff for to not spread the word....though the blind man couldn't contain himself.
*************
M*W: Sure, if Jesus was a storybook character.
If the story were true, it does not surprise me that we see no evidence of him.
*************
M*W: Well, as you said, he was a criminal, but I don't think so. There could have been many men named Jesus from that day and time, although I've not come across any more than the two Jesus Bar Abbas and Jesus, Son of the Father, but I believe them to be one character in an ambiguous story.
So if God exists, I believe it is unreasonable to demand that we believe in him to be saved.
************
M*W: So true! There is no reason we would need saving! The bible christians know is so totally opposing the Jewish bible. How did the christian bible become so erroneous? I'll tell you how--it was man-made not god made.

By the way, religion is not an opiate but a way to grow personally.
That's not religion's job. I have no problem with faith, faith in something greater than ourselves. But one doesn't need religion for that.

Sermon on the mount, something like, well, to paraphrase, Don't worry about church, it's fine if you pray in your closet. Your heavenly father already knows...

Religion's job on the other hand is to make sure that your personal growth is acceptable to the church fathers, and other authority types...


And if you belive in God as I do, ...everything will be just fine!

in fact one cannot become closer to God while mistreating others.
I agree! Please inform the lionshare of your compatriots of this little tidbit.

Greetings all,

Thanks to geeser for posting my list.
I encourage readers to check Nutter's link - J.P Holding is famous on the internet. Infamous that is. Carefully compare the facts to what he claims.

From what I've gleaned so far, the only argument JP has is:

"My challenge to skeptics: Show me why each of these writers should have mentioned Jesus. Remsberg's say-so ain't gonna cut it."

Interesting though, someone by the name of Iasion is mentioned throughout much of the article. (Where have I heard that name before?) :D