First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Jesus was not a real person
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/24/09 , edited 7/24/09
heard the one about Cornelius Tacitus's letter and it doesn't stand-up to scrutiny.

Its references to Jesus are 99% likely to have been added subsequently.

In other words the bit about Jesus was not written by the same scribe

Another obvious give-away these references to Jesus etc are false and introduced in this letter is the use of Christianos(for Christians) when the original author had been using the terms Chrestiani & Chrestians in other sections.

Christianos was not a part of the original writers known language.

There are references to Christians in the second ‘Pliny’ reference but - not one mention about anyone called Jesus.

So these are not convincing evidence and would not stand-up to any scrutiny.

More to the point, The Tacitus letter points to fraudulence.



if Jesus did even half of what the Bible said he did. Then we should be deluded with outside sources of his actions. Where are all these sources? Where are the written transcripts of the 500 witnesses Paul speaks of. Why did no one talk about the zombie uprising that happened during Jesus' death except for the author of Matthew.


Just thought I'd put this in perspective. Here is a short list of Jewish and Pagan writers that were around during the time of Jesus.

Apart from the forged Tacitus writings, there is no mention of a holy Jesus Christ.

Apollonius
Appian
Arrian
Auls Gellius
Columella
Epictetus
Damis
Dio Chrysostom
Dion Pruseus
Favorinus
Florus Lucius
Hermogones
Italicus
Josephus
Justus of Tiberius
Juvenal
Lucanus
Lucian
Lysias
Martial
Paterculus
Quintilian
Quintius Curtius
Persius
Petronius
Phaedrus
Philo-Judaeus
Phlegon
Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Younger
Plutarch
Pompon Mela
Ptolemy
Seneca
Silius
Statius
Suetonius
Tacitus
Theon of Smyran
Valerius Flaccus
Valerius Maximus

Makes you wonder.


10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/09 , edited 7/24/09



I’m afraid that your list is incorrect. Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus, Lucien, and Celsus are all historians who wrote about Jesus. More than one of them is on your list. And there are others. Pliny wrote about Christians but made indirect references to Jesus in doing that. Similarly, Origen also makes in direct references to Christ saying, “The Jews that followed Christ are called Ebionites.”


Also, I still argue that the New Testament books are historical evidence of Jesus Christ themselves. Even if you don’t acknowledge everything you read in them they still evidence Christ. Again, some of our other major historical sources have talked about giant ants trained to mine for gold, and about shape shifters, and about prophetesses predicting the falls of empires. The NT is actually better than these sources because they're first hand accounts.

EDIT: In fact I just showed you that Josephus mentioned Jesus which leads me to think that your beleif in his inexistence is simply willed ignorance, believing what you want to be true.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/24/09


Lucien
From this satirist and playwright of the second century, we have two quotes from a play entitled "The Passing of Peregrinus." The hero of the tale, Peregrinus, was a Cynic philosopher who became a Christian, rose in prominence in the Christian community, then returned to Cynicism. Lucian's attack is not so much on Christianity, but on the person of Peregrinus, who took advantage of the Christians' simplicity and gullibility. [Alli.Luc, 99]

The first quotes tells of Peregrinus, who learned "the wondrous lore of the Christians," became one of their leaders and was revered as a god, lawgiver, and protector, "next after that other, to be sure, whom they (the Christians) still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world." [Harm.Luc, 13]

The second quote, regarding these same Christians: "Then, too, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers...after they have thrown over and denied the gods of Greece and have done reverence to that crucifed sophist himself and live according to his laws."

Jesus is not mentioned by name in these citations, and there been evidence of many people claming mericals in the name of the cult at that time people not named Jesus.



Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus


Pliny the Younger: never said Jesus, Remember, the term "Christ" simply means a Messiah. This quote tells us nothing about a historical Jesus and is not evidence of his existence.


Celsus Is the only real witness to Jesus, and He said Jesus was just a con-man. SO even if that evidence is true its not favorable for Jesus being A man or a god. I have to look into this person more. For his Information seems a little to modern to be legitimate sorce.
Edit: after a deeper look into Celsus there are some deep seeded doubts that Celsus even made the clames using Jesus name, but It might of been someone 100+ years later. In other words this clame of Jesus might also be a fake. (the name Jesus was added into it.) I look into it deeper, Feel free to do the same. Tell me what you come up with.



10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/09 , edited 7/24/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



Lucien
From this satirist and playwright of the second century, we have two quotes from a play entitled "The Passing of Peregrinus." The hero of the tale, Peregrinus, was a Cynic philosopher who became a Christian, rose in prominence in the Christian community, then returned to Cynicism. Lucian's attack is not so much on Christianity, but on the person of Peregrinus, who took advantage of the Christians' simplicity and gullibility. [Alli.Luc, 99]

The first quotes tells of Peregrinus, who learned "the wondrous lore of the Christians," became one of their leaders and was revered as a god, lawgiver, and protector, "next after that other, to be sure, whom they (the Christians) still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world." [Harm.Luc, 13]

The second quote, regarding these same Christians: "Then, too, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers...after they have thrown over and denied the gods of Greece and have done reverence to that crucifed sophist himself and live according to his laws."

Jesus is not mentioned by name in these citations, and there been evidence of many people claming mericals in the name of the cult at that time people not named Jesus.



Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus


Pliny the Younger: never said Jesus, Remember, the term "Christ" simply means a Messiah. This quote tells us nothing about a historical Jesus and is not evidence of his existence.


Celsus Is the only real witness to Jesus, and He said Jesus was just a con-man. SO even if that evidence is true its not favorable for Jesus being A man or a god. I have to look into this person more. For his Information seems a little to modern to be legitimate sorce.
Edit: after a deeper look into Celsus there are some deep seeded doubts that Celsus even made the clames using Jesus name, but It might of been someone 100+ years later. In other words this clame of Jesus might also be a fake. (the name Jesus was added into it.) I look into it deeper, Feel free to do the same. Tell me what you come up with.



Christ was also a Greek a word, so if the Roman’s were simply meaning to say “messiah,” then they would’ve used their own word; but they weren’t. They were talking about a specific individual. Pliny the Younger did say Christ, he said when he said that the Christians were followers of Christ. He mentioned him again when he said Christians were cursing Christ whenever they were being persecuted by Roman law. He mentioned them again by explaining the reason that they were persecuted was because they called Christ a god. Even ignoring all of this, you have yet to refute the evidence listed in my first and second arguments. In addition to this we still have the New Testament books and you have yet to provide a good reason for me to discredit these. Then you have the Gnostics, the apocryphal texts, and the Jewish texts.

And if the information we have about Christ is true, then the only logical conclusion is that he was the messiah. In addition, you have yet to reveal any real blatant forgery. You simply point at that there were things added, such as the name Jesus, but the rest of the document still stands.

Also, the term didn't mean messiah. It meant, "The Anointed." Although I did find an interesting book on this whole topic.

Origen and Celsus also agree on a lot of the information, so unless both sources were corrupt they actually affirm each other; moreover, Celsus’ mention of Jesus was certainly not a forgery. After all, he claimed that Jesus was born from adultery and he was heavily critical of him. But if you look at the real forgeries you’ll discover that the Christians never slandered Christ, only praised him in their fraud.
1200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / USA
Offline
Posted 7/24/09
I believed someone created us, but I dont fully believe in God.
^ Science goes against religiong.

Religion~ "God made the animals and Adam and Eve first, yadaayadda."
Science~ "The dinosaurs were the first to roam the earth."

So..?
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/24/09

amandaluvsyou wrote:

I believed someone created us, but I dont fully believe in God.
^ Science goes against religiong.

Religion~ "God made the animals and Adam and Eve first, yadaayadda."
Science~ "The dinosaurs were the first to roam the earth."

So..?


'I will report you if you do not fallow the rules to this thread. It is not debating Religion. Its debating if Jesus is a real person in history or not.
1200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / USA
Offline
Posted 7/24/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


amandaluvsyou wrote:

I believed someone created us, but I dont fully believe in God.
^ Science goes against religiong.

Religion~ "God made the animals and Adam and Eve first, yadaayadda."
Science~ "The dinosaurs were the first to roam the earth."

So..?


'I will report you if you do not fallow the rules to this thread. It is not debating Religion. Its debating if Jesus is a real person in history or not.


uh whatever.
2121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Usa
Offline
Posted 8/27/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

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.


My furry friend according to this guy (Tenoko) ur going hell beware of bible whores.
Posted 8/27/09 , edited 8/27/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


amandaluvsyou wrote:

I believed someone created us, but I dont fully believe in God.
^ Science goes against religiong.

Religion~ "God made the animals and Adam and Eve first, yadaayadda."
Science~ "The dinosaurs were the first to roam the earth."

So..?


'I will report you if you do not fallow the rules to this thread. It is not debating Religion. Its debating if Jesus is a real person in history or not.


A simple "Please go back and read the red part of my post." would suffice. You don't have to threaten people just because they make a little mistake that can be easily fixed. >_> So yah.

Anyway, I don't have anything to say about the actual post, so if you're gonna report anyone, you should report me right now. I KNOW what the thread is about and I'm not even talking about it. What I have to say is regarding some of the people posting here.

You guys keep telling him he's gonna go to Hell. =_= You should respect the fact that not everyone believes in Jesus. If people of different religions believe in different beings (existent or nonexistent,) then it should be fine for someone who may as well lack one to not believe in Jesus just as they might not. Trust it or not, some DON'T think they'll go to Hell just because they don't believe in the same "people" you do. And I'm tired of you guys not being able to recognize that other people believe in what they believe in just as strongly as you believe in who you do. You can stand by your beliefs, but do not say things that imply you trying to force your beliefs on others.

Wow I said "believe" a lot. You might wanna see if you can follow it anyway. Make a game out of it.

4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 8/27/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

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.


go post your sources in your OP before I bash you pl0x. In fact do it for all of the post you have done and will do. It always pisses me off when you don't because I'm afraid sometimes that you might be making this up. If these are you conclusions you still need to cite sources that inspired you to think that way.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/28/09

crunchypibb wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

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.


go post your sources in your OP before I bash you pl0x. In fact do it for all of the post you have done and will do. It always pisses me off when you don't because I'm afraid sometimes that you might be making this up. If these are you conclusions you still need to cite sources that inspired you to think that way.


You find the information is really easy to come by so it be just as easy for you to do a quick search. As for me I am on vacation and have not been home for a week, I have 1 more days of girls in skimpy outfits and great old fashion lake Parties. I tell you all about it, after I get back home. Internet sucks at this place, so this will be my first and last time on the computer wile I am at this get-together party with my friends at the lake.

Posted 8/28/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

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.


go post your sources in your OP before I bash you pl0x. In fact do it for all of the post you have done and will do. It always pisses me off when you don't because I'm afraid sometimes that you might be making this up. If these are you conclusions you still need to cite sources that inspired you to think that way.


You find the information is really easy to come by so it be just as easy for you to do a quick search. As for me I am on vacation and have not been home for a week, I have 1 more days of girls in skimpy outfits and great old fashion lake Parties. I tell you all about it, after I get back home. Internet sucks at this place, so this will be my first and last time on the computer wile I am at this get-together party with my friends at the lake.



you can't disprove that man named Jesus existed 2000 or more years ago as much as you can disprove that my ancestors where part asian.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/29/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:





you can't disprove that man named Jesus existed 2000 or more years ago as much as you can disprove that my ancestors where part asian.



All I need would be a blood sample then we see who your Ancestors are. and How far back we have to go to trace any Asian blood line in you. But yes we all come from the same place so it be pointless to Disprove your not related to some bloodline. In the end all the races of humans on earth started out the same and over time they change through the slow process of evolution to make up all the races of humans today. So I can prove that we all come from the same background.

Posted 8/29/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:





you can't disprove that man named Jesus existed 2000 or more years ago as much as you can disprove that my ancestors where part asian.



All I need would be a blood sample then we see who your Ancestors are. and How far back we have to go to trace any Asian blood line in you. But yes we all come from the same place so it be pointless to Disprove your not related to some bloodline. In the end all the races of humans on earth started out the same and over time they change through the slow process of evolution to make up all the races of humans today. So I can prove that we all come from the same background.



lol that's what i was trying to say i do have asian in me did a minority blood test and well yeah o.o
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/29/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:





you can't disprove that man named Jesus existed 2000 or more years ago as much as you can disprove that my ancestors where part asian.



All I need would be a blood sample then we see who your Ancestors are. and How far back we have to go to trace any Asian blood line in you. But yes we all come from the same place so it be pointless to Disprove your not related to some bloodline. In the end all the races of humans on earth started out the same and over time they change through the slow process of evolution to make up all the races of humans today. So I can prove that we all come from the same background.



lol that's what i was trying to say i do have asian in me did a minority blood test and well yeah o.o


But thats the point you can prove it. So to compare Jesus to you blood line does not work, because if you do, then your saying yes we can prove it. And so if you can prove it, its up to you to show the real evidence, DNA , or Records from more than 2 sources non-religious who do not know each other, and some other type of evidence to go with it would be nice as well.
I can Prove My great great great grand father was captured by Chines Pirates and had to work for them as a pirate till he paid them off to get back his freedom. He was a captain of a naval ship for England till he ran in the Chines Pirates.
But its odd I can not prove Jesus was real using evidence. (And for someone who was so great you think there be a mountain of evidence for him.)

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.