'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a

a reply to: DeadSeraph

The syriac and arabic translations, do not have those alterations, yet still mention Jesus, and his execution by order of Pilate.

Those are 10th century copies. Hardly definitive.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: TzarChasm

Obama being an alien is silly and can be easily proven not to be true. Bad comparison.

I don't see what is dubious about the existence of Jesus. That's not a silly notion whatsoever.

i can make just as many arguments for obama being an extraterretrial as you can make for jesus existing. or god for that matter.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: TzarChasm

Obama being an alien is silly and can be easily proven not to be true. Bad comparison.

I don't see what is dubious about the existence of Jesus. That's not a silly notion whatsoever.

i can make just as many arguments for obama being an extraterretrial as you can make for jesus existing. or god for that matter.

You can make any argument you want, but there is more evidence to suggest Jesus existed than there is to suggest Obama is an alien. Hell, you can't even prove aliens exist, let alone that Obama is one of them.

God existing is a whole other matter and is irrelevant to the discussion.

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Now, I am no biblical scholar, but it is my understanding that there is plenty of evidence that is accepted by historians that a man named Jesus did exist, and was crucified by the Romans.

Extra-biblical writers such as Tacitus and Jospehus validated some of the things written in the NT, and I believe the Egyptians even wrote about Jesus.

Now whether or not he was the son of god is irrellevant.

You are mistaken. There is zero contemporaneous documentation (and that's the only kind that counts). Tacitus and Josephus were not even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not have witnessed him living. Tacitus simply repeated stories and Josephus never wrote about Jesus. In 400 AD, the church inserted a forgery into his works that mentions Jesus. It was so poorly written that almost no one takes it seriously. It even included language not in use at the time Josephus lived.

SO...who was alive and wrote about personally seeing this building "inserting" said forgery into Josephus' works? You can't have it both ways...Or, are you just using the inclusion of how it was written as your evidence? And, that...Well, that's just ridiculous.

What don't you understand about Josephus not even having lived when Jesus allegedly lived? He could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. How would you go about witnessing the existence of someone who may have lived before you were born? You can't. Do you understand what contemporaneous documentation means?

a reply to: Toadmund

Thanks for helping to make the case! These are the reasons most oral traditions are secret. I mean imagine Pathological Liars getting a hold of your hidden secrets. Pathological liars like ermmm....The Catholic Church. They would subvert them, subvert the true meaning. Killing the holders of the secrets and pretending to destroy the Heretical information, but in a actuality probably holding the Gnosis from humanity. Maybe keeping it stored in a library somewhere, oh! there's a thought, maybe the Vatican library!

originally posted by: sheepslayer247


You can make any argument you want, but there is more evidence to suggest Jesus existed than there is to suggest Obama is an alien. Hell, you can't even prove aliens exist, let alone that Obama is one of them.

Zero is not more than zero.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: sheepslayer247


You can make any argument you want, but there is more evidence to suggest Jesus existed than there is to suggest Obama is an alien. Hell, you can't even prove aliens exist, let alone that Obama is one of them.

Zero is not more than zero.

There is much evidence to suggest he existed. Please do some research. There are writings, other than Josephus and Tacitus, that is available.

And your point of contemporaneous documentation has already been addressed and is incorrect. If we only held certain things to be true if there was first hand information, much of history would be considered false or made-up.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Most scholars agree that the, so called, testimony of Josephus can NOT prove, one way or the other, the existence of an historical Jesus. When there is proof of forgery, I guess its up to individual to choose to continue to accept fragments of said forgery, of one's choosing, here and there, to be true. I, on the other hand, choose to throw out all of it, based on the fact it's not at all trustworthy testimony.

The historicity of Jesus is not predicated on Josephus writings alone, but on the entire body of evidence (which includes Josephus writings).

The sheer volume of new testament manuscripts, The earliest writings of Paul (which contained historically accurate information that was vindicated almost 2000 years later via archaeological finds), Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger and his correspondence with Emperor Trajan, The Talmud, and even Celsus (one of Christianity's greatest roman critics who not once levels the accusation that Jesus never existed), as well as other archaeological finds.

The latter point centers around Pilate. Christ mythicists at one point insisted Pilate himself was a fictional character created by the New Testament authors. That is, until archaeology proved he did indeed exist, just as both the New Testament and Josephus and Tacitus claimed.

The body of evidence as a whole is very clear. It's become obvious to me from my time here that people will reject it anyways. They don't care what academia has to say about it, or that the vast majority of scholars (including non-christian historians) consider Jesus to be a historical figure. They simply go to jesusneverexisted.com and consider themselves educated on the subject without ever reading any of the rebuttals to these claims, or considering the evidence that exists in favor of the historicity of Jesus.

You yourself are legendary around here for not only shifting goal posts on the subject, but even your position. I've seen you argue against a historical Jesus, and then claim that he likely existed, but not the way the new testament portrayed him, and now, that he was a fictional characterture of a number of different real individuals.

I'm not even sure why I bother posting in threads like this anymore, as it seems to be a complete waste of time. I guess I just do it in the hopes that those who are genuinely interested in learning about the subject objectively, are able to see both sides of the argument.

a reply to: Tangerine

Also wanted to add that there is a part of the historical method that does allow for things such as oral traditions to be considered historically accurate, if it meets certain guidelines.

So the idea that only contemporaneous documentation is good enough would be contrary to the process' used by real historians.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: TzarChasm

Obama being an alien is silly and can be easily proven not to be true. Bad comparison.

I don't see what is dubious about the existence of Jesus. That's not a silly notion whatsoever.

i can make just as many arguments for obama being an extraterretrial as you can make for jesus existing. or god for that matter.

You can make any argument you want, but there is more evidence to suggest Jesus existed than there is to suggest Obama is an alien. Hell, you can't even prove aliens exist, let alone that Obama is one of them.

God existing is a whole other matter and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh? I thought jesus was god?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: TzarChasm

Obama being an alien is silly and can be easily proven not to be true. Bad comparison.

I don't see what is dubious about the existence of Jesus. That's not a silly notion whatsoever.

i can make just as many arguments for obama being an extraterretrial as you can make for jesus existing. or god for that matter.

You can make any argument you want, but there is more evidence to suggest Jesus existed than there is to suggest Obama is an alien. Hell, you can't even prove aliens exist, let alone that Obama is one of them.

God existing is a whole other matter and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh? I thought jesus was god?

It's completely irrelevant to whether or not Jesus was a historical figure. Lots of people have claimed to be God. Hell, it wasn't even that long ago that an entire modernized nation (Japan) worshipped their emperor as a living God. Does that mean the emperor was actually God, or that he didn't exist because people claimed he was? Of course not.

The divinity of Christ is a matter of faith, and a religious issue. The historicity of Jesus is not. Why is this so difficult for people to grasp?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

ah gotcha.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Seraph explained it quite well.

There are two separate issues here and the physical existence of Jesus is the matter at hand.

Whether he was divine, God, or the son of God.....frankly, I couldn't care less. I'm not Christian.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Most scholars agree that the, so called, testimony of Josephus can NOT prove, one way or the other, the existence of an historical Jesus. When there is proof of forgery, I guess its up to individual to choose to continue to accept fragments of said forgery, of one's choosing, here and there, to be true. I, on the other hand, choose to throw out all of it, based on the fact it's not at all trustworthy testimony.

The historicity of Jesus is not predicated on Josephus writings alone, but on the entire body of evidence (which includes Josephus writings).

I disagree. The testimony of Josephus is not reliable, just as any witness caught lying, the whole testimony should be thrown out.

The sheer volume of new testament manuscripts,

What? You mean how many time they were copied, like pulp fiction?

The earliest writings of Paul (which contained historically accurate information that was vindicated almost 2000 years later via archaeological finds), Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger and his correspondence with Emperor Trajan, The Talmud, and even Celsus (one of Christianity's greatest roman critics who not once levels the accusation that Jesus never existed), as well as other archaeological finds.

That's a big lump of nothing there. I hate to keep repeating myself, but, "Christians" and "Chestians" existed for hundreds of years before the supposed birth of Jesus. Trying to say that all references to those pagan cults prove the existence of the Nazarene and his followers is invalid.

You yourself are legendary around here for not only shifting goal posts on the subject, but even your position. I've seen you argue against a historical Jesus, and then claim that he likely existed, but not the way the new testament portrayed him, and now, that he was a fictional characterture of a number of different real individuals.

I have argued, again and again, that IF Jesus the Nazarene existed he was an Essene, which is met with an equal amount of vitriol by Christians, by the way. However, I will boldly declare, again and again, that Jesus CHRIST surely NEVER existed.

If that's changing the goal posts to you, so be it.

Two points:
-The whole calendar system revolves One Person - Jesus. So every day that you live is in reference to Jesus' existence. You can't get more proof of a Jesus than that.

-Yet another point (as if the first is not enough) - Just ask Jesus if He existed/exists. Jesus, if He is God at all, will reply to let you know for certain. If you're troubled by the question and are genuinely seeking an answer, Jesus does not want you to doubt His existence or love for you.

That's it. Have fun.

Now, anybody who read my previous post will never have a good excuse as to why they did not take the opportunity to get close to Jesus. When you die- Jesus is going to ask if you tried to get close(r) to Him. You can say this or that, but you can Never say that you didn't know how to, or that you never had an opportunity. You just ran out of that excuse by reading the previous post.

Just sayn'

It doesn't really matter If he existed or not.
The message is a good one I just wish his followers would actually practice what he preached (allegedly).

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: sheepslayer247


You can make any argument you want, but there is more evidence to suggest Jesus existed than there is to suggest Obama is an alien. Hell, you can't even prove aliens exist, let alone that Obama is one of them.

Zero is not more than zero.

There is much evidence to suggest he existed. Please do some research. There are writings, other than Josephus and Tacitus, that is available.

And your point of contemporaneous documentation has already been addressed and is incorrect. If we only held certain things to be true if there was first hand information, much of history would be considered false or made-up.

There is ZERO evidence. Much of what we call history is false/made up. There was a time when the penalty for saying that there was no evidence that Jesus had lived was severe. Until very recently and, in some circles, even now, it meant the destruction of an academic career.

a reply to: MarkJS

"-The whole calendar system revolves One Person - Jesus. So every day that you live is in reference to Jesus' existence. You can't get more proof of a Jesus than that."


That is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I have seen posted on ATS in a long long time.


"Yet another point (as if the first is not enough) - Just ask Jesus if He existed/exists."

They have rooms where they lock people up for talking to imaginary people. Especially if they start answering you. Just sayin.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Most scholars agree that the, so called, testimony of Josephus can NOT prove, one way or the other, the existence of an historical Jesus. When there is proof of forgery, I guess its up to individual to choose to continue to accept fragments of said forgery, of one's choosing, here and there, to be true. I, on the other hand, choose to throw out all of it, based on the fact it's not at all trustworthy testimony.

The historicity of Jesus is not predicated on Josephus writings alone, but on the entire body of evidence (which includes Josephus writings).

The sheer volume of new testament manuscripts, The earliest writings of Paul (which contained historically accurate information that was vindicated almost 2000 years later via archaeological finds), Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger and his correspondence with Emperor Trajan, The Talmud, and even Celsus (one of Christianity's greatest roman critics who not once levels the accusation that Jesus never existed), as well as other archaeological finds.

Give me one example from your alleged "entire body of evidence" that was written by someone who A) lived when Jesus allegedly lived and B) claimed to have witnessed Jesus living.