First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Jesus was not a real person
17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/16/09
Before we start I like to make it clear this is not a thread attacking religion or about religion in it self. This is a thread about If Jesus the person was real or not.



The story of Jesus was originally an allegorical story based partly on the Jewish exodus myth and Joshua/Jesus ben Nun, successor of Moses, the Jewish Messiah-myth and the widespread pagan myth of the dying and resurrected godman Dionysos-Osiris. Later uneducated Christians in Rome, people without the insight and understanding of the deeper meaning of the texts, started to take these allegorical stories for their face value, and Literary Christianity as we know it was born.



All the teachings of Jesus are "borrowed" from older sources, for example from the teachings of Buddha. Many of Jesus teachings are almost word for word identical with some of Buddhas sayings (400 years earlier). The so-called "Golden rule" can be found in several earlier pagan Greek (and Jewish) texts. The famous "Sermon on the Mount" was never held by Jesus (of course, since he never existed), but also because it was actually first produced in the second century AD by Christian priests, assembled from what they assumed were sayings of Jesus in different other texts.



King Herod tried to kill Jesus as an infant, so famed was Jesus before he knew his own name. But nobody wrote about him. The Judaic and Roman cultures were literate, as we well know. True, maybe only ten percent of Romans — for example — were able to write, and most of them may have used literacy for no more than records of transaction. But nobody wrote about the King of Kings?... It's almost impossible.

It's more likely that Jesus did not exist.



No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus.



Perhaps the most historically correct of all the theories is the apparently true theory that Christianity started out as much more Gnostic than it became from the 2nd century onwards, and the stories of Jesus and the disciples match those of other Mystery religions and Pagan religions precisely because Christianity was another Mystery Religion. Literalist Christianity as we know it was the Outer Mysteries of this spiritual religion. It explains why the historical centres of Christianity were all gnostic when literalist Christians went back to research the past, and why so many Pagan god-man elements are part of Christianity. It also explains why none of the scholars of the time mention Jesus or the miracles around his life, because even the Christians themselves knew that they were symbolic stories, not actual events.


"Elements that were common in Pagan mystery of religions include much of the religious content of Christianity. All elements of Jesus' life such as the events around his birth and death and ministry were also said of other god-men of the time. Peripheral elements such as there being twelve disciples were similarly present in other more ancient religions and sometimes with an astonishing amount of duplication. First century critics of Christianity voiced these accusations that Christianity was nothing but another copy of common religions, they are not new accusations.

All the actual sayings and teachings of Jesus were also not new, and much of the time speeches attributed to Jesus are more like collections of Jewish and Pagan sayings. Even distinctive texts like the Sermon on the Mount are not unique. If we remove all the content that Jesus could not have heard and repeated himself, there is nothing else left. If we remove the supernatural elements of Christianity that are copies of already existing thought and religion, there is nothing left which is unique! Even much of the sayings of subsequent Christians is not unique; Jesus appears to not have taught anyone anything that was not already present in the common culture of the time. This shows us that not only did Christianity follow on, as expected, from previous thought in history but that we do not even need to believe in God or supernatural events in order to account for the history of Christianity. Stephen Hodge very usefully lists many of the similarities found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to the teachings and organisation of Jewish Christianity. He also concludes that these Jewish documents make the teachings and appearance of Jewish Christianity less revolutionary."



Jesus and the other God-men are personifications of the Sun

"The reason why all these narratives are so similar, with a godman who is crucified and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 disciples, is that these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the planet because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words, Jesus Christ and all the others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the Gospel fable is merely a rehash of a mythological formula (the "Mythos," as mentioned above) revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens.
3920 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Planet E-Arth
Offline
Posted 7/16/09
I could point out that your disbelief is going to earn you a one way ticket to hell, but there's really no need.

Jesus existed and still lives in Heaven today at the right hand of God, who also exist. You can throw around your fancy speeches and your well sought out facts and information, but how do you explain away the miracles, the sightings, the people and believers who know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both real even if they can't see them. Even if you can't see the wind, you can see the effects of the wind. Faith is much the same way.

Jesus was real. He still is.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/16/09 , edited 7/16/09


Well, the historical evidence of Jesus Christ’s existence is not only abundant it’s entirely conclusive. There’s no real debate amongst the academic community as to rather or not he existed, though the stories of thaumaturgy are obviously doubted. Really, there’s no reason to doubt he existed and plenty of reasons to believe he existed. The only thing we can academically question are the details. I’ve written a paper discussing the plethora of sources surrounding Jesus Christ, and also posted it around here somewhere. I don’t feel like going over this all again but I’m going to try to find either my paper or my post to copy over. For now, a brief over view.

Twenty seven sources agreeing that Jesus existed are the personal testimonies and letters later gathered together and juxtaposed to form a cannon. We know these items collectively as the New Testament, but they were originally historical documents. They were not written to be a cannon like the Qur’an; they were just journal documents later gathered by curious historians.

Aside from these texts, we have the writings of Roman’s, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Gnostics. They all agree on some details while disagree on others. The Pharisees, for example, say that Jesus Christ was executed by means of hanging but agree that he came from Nazareth. The Gnostics, as another example, said that Jesus Christ was a sorcerer but that he was still a great teacher and good man.


As far as Jesus’ teachings being borrowed, many of them had been seen in other religions and traditions. But these religions and traditions were mostly foreign to his culture he would doubtfully have been introduced to them; moreover, other aspects of his preaching were entirely original. Circumstantial morality is one example.

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/16/09 , edited 7/16/09
Non-Biblical Sources for the Historical Jesus Christ:

During the opening post you asserted that no historian mentioned Jesus Christ. This is not actually true. The Jewish historian Josephus made a very direct reference to Jesus Christ and certain aspects of his life while describing the days of Pontius Pilate. He points out that Jesus existed, was a teacher, had a following, and was executed in his historical document “Testimonium Flavianum,” which can be found in Antiquities 18.63-64. He wrote:


At this time Jesus, a wise man […] appeared. For he was a worker of great deeds, a teacher of men […], and he drew to himself many Jews--and many Greeks, too. And when Pilate had executed him at the instigation of leading men among us, those who had first loved him did not give up.


Josephus also mentions Christ briefly in Antiquities, 20.200 by identifying a Judeo/Christian martyr by the name of James as “the brother of Jesus, called Christ.”

It’s true that Roman literature on the topic is mostly centered on Christians, but there are also indirect references to Christ. Suetonius, in Claudius 25.4 described riots among the Jews at Rome during the reign of Claudius in A.D.49. He stated that these riots were incited by “Chrestus,” a garbled Roman version of “Christ.” The Roman historians, then, said that Christ was not God but rather the man who sparked Jewish rebellion. The Roman historians were mostly focused on political and national issues, not prominent philosophers. It’s only natural that they would be more interested in the movements of the Christians (called Ebionites at that time, not Paulists) than in the teachings of Christ himself.

The Roman historian Tacitus is famous today as a humanist. Although he thought Christianity was a silly, primitive, and pagan superstition Tacitus none the less condemned the emperor Nero for his persecution of the Christians. In Annals he discussed the term “Christian,” saying: “The author of this name, Christ, suffered the ultimate penalty at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate during the imperium of Tiberius.” The ultimate penalty, of course, was crucifixion.

Many argue that Christ was hanged, but this is a historically unlikely event. Jesus Christ was not a Roman citizen and it was the tradition of Roman law that Roman citizens condemned to execution be decapitated while foreigners be crucified. There was no tradition in Roman law for hanging.

The rabbinical text known as the “Babylonian Talmud,” also argues that Jesus was hanged on Passover in Sanhedrin 43.

The Gnostics wrote in many documents that Christ was a sorcerer. Calling Christ God was a crime punishable by death in the Roman world, and social ostracizing in the Jewish world. Their most famous documents offering a historically warped perspective on his biography were later collectively called “The Apocrypha.” The Sadducees and Manichees also wrote similar things about Jesus Christ.


So, to summarize, if we ignore the texts written by Christ’s followers which were later amalgamated into the NT we have:

Roman historians, Jewish historians, Pharisees, Sadducees, rabbinical Jews, Manichees and other Gnostics all writing about Jesus Christ. There is actually more evidence that Jesus Christ live than there is that Caesar invaded Gaul. Many historically accepted facts are actually only affirmed by one source. For example, we may take an inscription on a grave marker saying: “Mauled by a pig at the age of one,” and accept that the person buried in this spot was in fact mauled by a pig at the age of one.

The Twenty Seven Separate Sources in the New Testament


The New Testament is an amalgam of sources deemed later to be historically reliable by the church. These, however, were not written to be a part of a religious cannon as the Qur’an was. No, they were simply individual testimonies. Individual testimonies are, of course, a major element in understanding recent and ancient historical events. Police, for example, when arriving at the scene of the crime gather personal testimony from witnesses to investigate what exactly went down. These documents are as reliable as any other historical document, and more so since they’re affirmed by so many separate sources and witnesses.
17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/16/09 , edited 7/16/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Non-Biblical Sources for the Historical Jesus Christ:

During the opening post you asserted that no historian mentioned Jesus Christ. This is not actually true. The Jewish historian Josephus made a very direct reference to Jesus Christ and certain aspects of his life while describing the days of Pontius Pilate. He points out that Jesus existed, was a teacher, had a following, and was executed in his historical document “Testimonium Flavianum,” which can be found in Antiquities 18.63-64. He wrote:


At this time Jesus, a wise man […] appeared. For he was a worker of great deeds, a teacher of men […], and he drew to himself many Jews--and many Greeks, too. And when Pilate had executed him at the instigation of leading men among us, those who had first loved him did not give up.


Josephus also mentions Christ briefly in Antiquities, 20.200 by identifying a Judeo/Christian martyr by the name of James as “the brother of Jesus, called Christ.”

It’s true that Roman literature on the topic is mostly centered on Christians, but there are also indirect references to Christ. Suetonius, in Claudius 25.4 described riots among the Jews at Rome during the reign of Claudius in A.D.49. He stated that these riots were incited by “Chrestus,” a garbled Roman version of “Christ.” The Roman historians, then, said that Christ was not God but rather the man who sparked Jewish rebellion. The Roman historians were mostly focused on political and national issues, not prominent philosophers. It’s only natural that they would be more interested in the movements of the Christians (called Ebionites at that time, not Paulists) than in the teachings of Christ himself.

The Roman historian Tacitus is famous today as a humanist. Although he thought Christianity was a silly, primitive, and pagan superstition Tacitus none the less condemned the emperor Nero for his persecution of the Christians. In Annals he discussed the term “Christian,” saying: “The author of this name, Christ, suffered the ultimate penalty at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate during the imperium of Tiberius.” The ultimate penalty, of course, was crucifixion.

Many argue that Christ was hanged, but this is a historically unlikely event. Jesus Christ was not a Roman citizen and it was the tradition of Roman law that Roman citizens condemned to execution be decapitated while foreigners be crucified. There was no tradition in Roman law for hanging.

The rabbinical text known as the “Babylonian Talmud,” also argues that Jesus was hanged on Passover in Sanhedrin 43.

The Gnostics wrote in many documents that Christ was a sorcerer. Calling Christ God was a crime punishable by death in the Roman world, and social ostracizing in the Jewish world. Their most famous documents offering a historically warped perspective on his biography were later collectively called “The Apocrypha.”


Jesus of Nazareth is possibly mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century CE. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it had at a minimum been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly was outright forgery.


Roman historian Tacitus? evidence about Jesus was also found to be a Fifteenth Century Forgery

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/16/09 , edited 7/16/09

Darkphoenix3450 Jesus of Nazareth is possibly mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century CE. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it had at a minimum been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly was outright forgery.


Controversy surrounds the Testimonium, with some scholars claiming it was a forgery. However, other scholars have also argued that it is not likely to be an interpolation by later Christian scribes after all in light of more recent studies. The cornerstone of this suspicion is that in Antiquities 20.200 Josephus described James by saying: “the brother of Jesus, called Christ.” This offhand reference to Jesus suggests that either Josephus expected his audience members all already knew who Jesus was, or Josephus had already or introduced Jesus to the readers. This passage is not under debate for reliability, even though the earlier passage was; since this passage is reliable the other likely is. Most historians now think that while the previous passage was altered to include a more confessional note, the references I included in my citation are still reliable.


Edit:

Read your own post. Jesus was mentioned twice, once in the Testimonium Flavianum and the other is what I’m mentioning. This one, you’ll notice, has not fallen under question. So that’s still, even if we don’t accept my argument that it verifies the Testimonium Flavianum to some degree, a source verifying that Jesus Christ was a living person.
47 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Oahu
Offline
Posted 7/16/09
You should discuss this somewhere else.
Believe what you want... whatever happens to you isn't my fault...
There is scientific evidence that things said to happen in the bible are true, and the bible is God's word, and God never lies, so don't you think God is real?
The fact that you were willing to research and type that whole speech shows that you are afraid to be wrong (which you are about this).
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/16/09

mistresscrow wrote:

You should discuss this somewhere else.
Believe what you want... whatever happens to you isn't my fault...
There is scientific evidence that things said to happen in the bible are true, and the bible is God's word, and God never lies, so don't you think God is real?
The fact that you were willing to research and type that whole speech shows that you are afraid to be wrong (which you are about this).


Actually I think he just copied an article from another website and posted it here, but whatever the case I enjoy these types of conversations and am in fact a Christian. I also go through great in depth research and type up speeches on it. Am I also afraid to be wrong? Hardly, I just want to understand my views. Threads like these are incredibly helpful because they allow us to employ the Socratic method and learn. There’s nothing wrong with that. Dark is not being aggressive, is not attacking anything. He’s simply laying down an academic theory. Just let it be so that the rest of us can enjoy it, please.
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Andromeda
Offline
Posted 7/16/09
Do you consider history as a reliable resource?
Who write history?
Isn't history written by the victors?
Wasn't Roman Empire considering Jesus as a rebel?
Didn't they try to kill him and think they succeeded?
Do you expect that they would allow other to write about him?
What about Jesus's disciples? wasn't writing Gospel -which describe Jesus' life - more important to them than writing history?
322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Somewhere you're not
Offline
Posted 7/16/09

Real_ZERO wrote:

Do you consider history as a reliable resource?
Who write history?
Isn't history written by the victors?
Wasn't Roman Empire considering Jesus as a rebel?
Didn't they try to kill him and think they succeeded?
Do you expect that they would allow other to write about him?
What about Jesus's disciples? wasn't writing Gospel -which describe Jesus' life - more important to them than writing history?


History is written by what happened and embellished by the victor. So, the accounts of the Romans would favor the Romans sure, but they would still be there.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/16/09 , edited 7/16/09

Ahaz wrote:


Real_ZERO wrote:

Do you consider history as a reliable resource?
Who write history?
Isn't history written by the victors?
Wasn't Roman Empire considering Jesus as a rebel?
Didn't they try to kill him and think they succeeded?
Do you expect that they would allow other to write about him?
What about Jesus's disciples? wasn't writing Gospel -which describe Jesus' life - more important to them than writing history?


History is written by what happened and embellished by the victor. So, the accounts of the Romans would favor the Romans sure, but they would still be there.


You know the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and if we've learned anything from history, it's that we've been doing just that, the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, so by definition, humanity is insane.

The romans would have documented jesus doing his thing, being murdered, and his death. But according to the bible itself, jesus didn't exist, for it said, he was born to a virgin, and since back then, they didn't have artificial insemination, jesus couldn't have existed because he would have just been an unfertilized egg. Since those don't become people, jesus wouldn't have been born. If he did in fact then he was not born to a virgin like the bible said he was. As again unfertilized eggs generally don't divide into people. So if he existed the bible is in fact wrong.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/16/09 , edited 7/16/09

Ahaz wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Ahaz wrote:


Real_ZERO wrote:

Do you consider history as a reliable resource?
Who write history?
Isn't history written by the victors?
Wasn't Roman Empire considering Jesus as a rebel?
Didn't they try to kill him and think they succeeded?
Do you expect that they would allow other to write about him?
What about Jesus's disciples? wasn't writing Gospel -which describe Jesus' life - more important to them than writing history?


History is written by what happened and embellished by the victor. So, the accounts of the Romans would favor the Romans sure, but they would still be there.


You know the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and if we've learned anything from history, it's that we've been doing just that, the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, so by definition, humanity is insane.

The romans would have documented jesus doing his thing, being murdered, and his death. But according to the bible itself, jesus didn't exist, for it said, he was born to a virgin, and since back then, they didn't have artificial insemination, jesus couldn't have existed because he would have just been an unfertilized egg. Since those don't become people, jesus wouldn't have been born. If he did in fact then he was not born to a virgin like the bible said he was. As again unfertilized eggs generally don't divide into people. So if he existed the bible is in fact wrong.



I like to agree with you but that’s fucking stupid. The whole point was that it’s supposed to be a miracle. Which is dumb too, but the point stands.


Miracle or not, the rules of sexual reproduction still apply, and last time I checked, humans can't reproduce asexually, through parthenogenesis or other form. So if jesus's mother was in fact a virgin, then he never existed. I suppose she could have gotten raped, but then she isn't a virgin now is she ?
322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Somewhere you're not
Offline
Posted 7/16/09 , edited 7/16/09

Allhailodin wrote:


Ahaz wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Ahaz wrote:


Real_ZERO wrote:

Do you consider history as a reliable resource?
Who write history?
Isn't history written by the victors?
Wasn't Roman Empire considering Jesus as a rebel?
Didn't they try to kill him and think they succeeded?
Do you expect that they would allow other to write about him?
What about Jesus's disciples? wasn't writing Gospel -which describe Jesus' life - more important to them than writing history?


History is written by what happened and embellished by the victor. So, the accounts of the Romans would favor the Romans sure, but they would still be there.


You know the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and if we've learned anything from history, it's that we've been doing just that, the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, so by definition, humanity is insane.

The romans would have documented jesus doing his thing, being murdered, and his death. But according to the bible itself, jesus didn't exist, for it said, he was born to a virgin, and since back then, they didn't have artificial insemination, jesus couldn't have existed because he would have just been an unfertilized egg. Since those don't become people, jesus wouldn't have been born. If he did in fact then he was not born to a virgin like the bible said he was. As again unfertilized eggs generally don't divide into people. So if he existed the bible is in fact wrong.



I like to agree with you but that’s fucking stupid. The whole point was that it’s supposed to be a miracle. Which is dumb too, but the point stands.


Miracle or not, the rules of sexual reproduction still apply, and last time I checked, humans can't reproduce asexually. So if jesus's mother was in fact a virgin, then he never existed. I suppose she could have gotten raped, but then she isn't a virgin now is she ?


I don’t think you know exactly what a miracle is. Anyway, the term used to describe the mother of Jesus was actually, “young woman,” in the bible.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/16/09

Ahaz wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Ahaz wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Ahaz wrote:


Real_ZERO wrote:

Do you consider history as a reliable resource?
Who write history?
Isn't history written by the victors?
Wasn't Roman Empire considering Jesus as a rebel?
Didn't they try to kill him and think they succeeded?
Do you expect that they would allow other to write about him?
What about Jesus's disciples? wasn't writing Gospel -which describe Jesus' life - more important to them than writing history?


History is written by what happened and embellished by the victor. So, the accounts of the Romans would favor the Romans sure, but they would still be there.


You know the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and if we've learned anything from history, it's that we've been doing just that, the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, so by definition, humanity is insane.

The romans would have documented jesus doing his thing, being murdered, and his death. But according to the bible itself, jesus didn't exist, for it said, he was born to a virgin, and since back then, they didn't have artificial insemination, jesus couldn't have existed because he would have just been an unfertilized egg. Since those don't become people, jesus wouldn't have been born. If he did in fact then he was not born to a virgin like the bible said he was. As again unfertilized eggs generally don't divide into people. So if he existed the bible is in fact wrong.



I like to agree with you but that’s fucking stupid. The whole point was that it’s supposed to be a miracle. Which is dumb too, but the point stands.


Miracle or not, the rules of sexual reproduction still apply, and last time I checked, humans can't reproduce asexually. So if jesus's mother was in fact a virgin, then he never existed. I suppose she could have gotten raped, but then she isn't a virgin now is she ?


I don’t think you know exactly what a miracle is. Anyway, the term used to describe the mother of Jesus was actually, “young woman,” in the bible.


I know what a miracle is, I also know that things that are impossible( a human asexually reproducing without man being the cause of that, through science or something) generally don't happen. So the "Virgin Mary" can't have given birth to jesus if she was a virgin. So these "miracles" you speak of tend to not happen.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.