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

a reply to: RickinVa
you know He only comes for the sick right?

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth John5

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance Matthew9

Meanwhile,All the things Jesus warned about is going on in the middle east and with Israel.

a reply to: ParasuvO

I take this post as ample evidence that you are approaching the issue of Christ's historicity from an emotional place. It's pretty clear that your issue is with religion, and you have allowed your own emotions to cloud your judgement on whether or not Jesus existed as a human being 2000 years ago. Pointless arguing with someone who is incapable of rational discussion.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: sheepslayer247

There's a huge difference between a MAN named Jesus and the son of GOD named Jesus.


There most likely was a MAN named Jesus. Everything else is pure conjecture.

or pure prophetic fulfillment in this generation

Hebrews 12 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

this literally happened

1 Thessalonians 4 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first

just as it was written how long ago and the odds?

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Which Jesus? Jesus who? There were LOTS of men named Jesus 2000 years ago. Many of them were religious figures and some of them got themselves killed.

We can't agree on the historicity of Jesus because we can't agree on who he was, when and where he was born, who his parent were.......

The Gospels don't help.

There is no record of a worldwide census as stated Luke having been made in the last decade BCE. If one had been conducted, it would have been so disruptive that its effects certainly would have been recorded at the time in many Roman documents. A local census was taken by Quirinius during 6 CE, but that would have been when Jesus was about ten years of age. Also, it was held in Judea, but not the Galilee where the Gospel of Matthew said that Joseph lived.

Archeological evidence:

Perhaps the most important reason to suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke is that Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE when Jesus is believed to have been born. Archaeological studies of the town have turned up a great deal of ancient Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 BCE 7 and lots of material from the sixth century CE, but nothing from the 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE.
www.religioustolerance.org...

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: VVV88
a reply to: booyakasha
"Believing in Jesus gives you an excuse to be a bad person because you can just ask the priest to absolve you of your sins. "

Funny...i don't know a single Christian that believes that. I guess we travel in different circles.

If you don't mind me asking what denomination are you.

I'm Non-demonitional.

a reply to: windword
That video is a take by a group of atheists of another video about another group of Christians and there outtake on things. Both are equally stupid. This may be off topic, because it has nothing to do with Jesus and if he existed or not, but it has everything to do with various groups and there interpretations and agendas on things. So this just becomes a question of whose interpretation on things is stupider.

In all what am I supposed to watch or care for every single silly thing some retarded groups believe and like to spread around? I think not...However people are free to interpret and misinterpret anything they want. It just so happens that humanity on a whole likes the more crazier and illogical and even plain not healthy or good for them outlook on things.

Its why pretty much anybody can start a cult, and the chances are the more silly and ridiculous it is, the more converts they would get. Look on the internet about all the wackos who started successful cults, a lot of which are still around, and you will come to the conclusion that it just may not be religions fault for things, but something more inherent in every single human. After all cults and mass religions are merely outlets.

a reply to: windword

We both know which Jesus we are talking about here, Jesus of Nazareth, whom the New Testament is based on. The fact it was a common name in the region at the time does not somehow mean that the Jesus of the NT was fictional.

Lets address a couple of your criticisms:

There is no record of a worldwide census as stated Luke having been made in the last decade BCE. If one had been conducted, it would have been so disruptive that its effects certainly would have been recorded at the time in many Roman documents. A local census was taken by Quirinius during 6 CE, but that would have been when Jesus was about ten years of age. Also, it was held in Judea, but not the Galilee where the Gospel of Matthew said that Joseph lived.

There is no record of a world wide census being ordered in the New Testament, either. The King James states this:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Do we have records that everyone in the roman empire was to be taxed? Yes! We do! In fact, that isn't even questioned, is it?

Perhaps the most important reason to suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke is that Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE when Jesus is believed to have been born. Archaeological studies of the town have turned up a great deal of ancient Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 BCE 7 and lots of material from the sixth century CE, but nothing from the 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE.

So because the archaeological finds in Bethlehem are sparse from 550BC to the 6th Century AD, that must mean that nobody lived there? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, people claimed Pilate never existed, yet the NT was vindicated in 1961 with the discovery of Pilate's stone? That is nearly 2000 years after the time of Christ before there was a corroboration in archaeology.

Further:

www.patheos.com...

If one digs enough, you will find that Bethlehems very existence in ancient times was called into question by biblical critics until archaeological finds corroborated it. What does this tell us? That criticising a text because limited information to date has been uncovered in the field of archaeology is not grounds for dismissing the information those texts contain altogether.

Your source also makes unfounded assumptions like this:

In 1st century Judea women "...were considered second-class citizens, akin to slaves." 3 Only Joseph would be required to register with the authorities, because "the husband was the spiritual and legal head of the house." 3 The presence of his teenaged fiancé or wife would be redundant. Mary would hardly have made the 100 mile trip while about 9 months pregnant unless it was absolutely necessary. Joseph would have traveled without Mary, and probably in a group to give better protection from bandits.

Where does Luke state Mary was 9 months pregnant? The text in question states this:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

I fail to see how any of these criticisms outweigh the evidence in favor of a real Jesus of Nazareth...

Even your own source seems to speculate on where he thinks Jesus was born:

Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, says, 'There is surprisingly no archaeological evidence that ties Bethlehem in Judea to the period in which Jesus would have been born'."

" 'If the historical Jesus were truly born in Bethlehem,' Oshri adds, 'it was most likely the Bethlehem of Galilee, not that in Judaea. The archaeological evidence certainly seems to favor the former, a busy center [of Jewish life] a few miles from the home of Joseph and Mary, as opposed to an unpopulated spot almost a hundred miles from home.' In this Bethlehem, Oshri and his team have uncovered the remains of a later monastery and the largest Byzantine church in Israel, which raises the question of why such a huge house of Christian worship was built in the heart of a Jewish area. The Israeli archaeologist believes that it's because early Christians revered Bethlehem of Galilee as the birthplace of Jesus. 'There is no doubt in my mind that these are impressive and important evidence of a strong Christian community established in Bethlehem [of Galilee] a short time after Jesus' death,' he says.

a reply to: windword
Saw the vid in full just now his argument is tight matter of fact learnt something about the socio-religious mood of that era
thanks for posting.

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: windword
Saw the vid in full just now his argument is tight matter of fact learnt something about the socio-religious mood of that era
thanks for posting.

Did you watch this one too?



I'd like to hear your thoughts on it as well...

a reply to: DeadSeraph
Will check it out and compare the two.

I'm not going to read the entire thread to see what you all have been saying, but Paulkovich is undoubtedly correct that there are very, very few texts that mention the historical Jesus, spiritual founder of Christianity. This is no revelation, no surprise, and certainly no definitive end to the argument either way of the historical existence of Jesus - it is just yet another rehearsal of long understood circumstance.

As I said in another thread:

He was one of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of faith healers and miracle workers wandering the countryside. He had no significance one way or another to any one in a position to be able to record his existence. Jews were farmers and fishermen, living outside the cities. They had no use for scribes or histories. The Priests did of course, but why would they record anything about one more lunatic would-be reformer telling them how to do their job?

Paulkovich's conclusion that all of these contemporary writers would surely know about this person of such great importance is the arrogance of historical hindsight. How would anyone in say, 25 CE or 35 CE or even 50 CE, have any idea that some poor lunatic carpenter would spawn a religion that would capture the imagination of millions for thousands of years to come? Its ludicrous on the face of it.

It is extremely unlikely that the biography found in the New Testament resembles the biography of the actual historical trouble-making faith-healer miracle-worker named Joshua (Jesus in Greek). That is actually not the point of Christianity (IMO). That his followers invented much of that biography to elevate him above his contemporary rival faith healers and miracle workers is pretty much beyond doubt. What matters to Christianity (again IMO) is the structure and belief system that Paul formalized around that biography that enabled the story to galvanize the imagination of people.

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

Personally, I consider it quite a stretch to compare any form of Catholicism to Christianity.

Christians do not typically worship a display of Christ's dead body hanging from the cross!

We do recognize an empty cross though...Because, "He is Risen"!

Huh. Yes, Protestant Christians use the symbol of an empty cross to emphasis "He is Risen"; while Catholic Christians use the symbol of Christ on the cross to emphasize that He died for our sins.

In what universe does that distinction disqualify either approach as inauthentic. Does not Protestantism also recognize that Christ died for our sins? Does not Catholicism also recognize that Christ is Risen?

Your remark strikes me as a self-justification for your personal bigotry. There are more fruitful places to look for Psuedo-Christians than in minor disagreements on symbols and psychological focus on one aspect of the story or another.

It would be, in my opinion, much more fruitful to examine the hypocritical utterances of folks that call themselves Christian and then use that declaration to justify their adamant belief in capital punishment, persecuting the disadvantaged, the poor, and the 'not like us'. Call out the charlatans that claim to know when the second coming is, or that an earthquake is God delivering punishment to people.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

We both know which Jesus we are talking about here, Jesus of Nazareth

The Gospel accounts don't add up my friend.

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. - See more at: www.jesusneverexisted.com...

You can say that Super Man existed because Clark Kent is real. But, if Clark Kent wasn't really adopted, was a librarian, not a reporter, didn't have a secret identity that could fly faster than a speeding bullet and couldn't leap tall building in a single bound, then your argument is invalid because we are talking about the history of, at least, two different people.

The historicity of the Biblical character of Jesus has NOT been verified by evidence.

a reply to: windword

That's because it's not Jesus of Nazareth. It is Jesus the Nazarene. IMHO

The Sect of the Nazarene's

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: windword

I see. So you can use Josephus as evidence that Nazareth didn't exist at the time (because he doesn't mention it), but not as evidence that Jesus existed (despite the fact he mentions Jesus, John the baptist, Jesus brother James, and Pilate executing Jesus).

Additionally, you can claim that Nazareth didn't even exist in the 1st century despite evidence to the contrary. I think you might be cherry picking.

a reply to: Tedgoat

That's right. You hit the nail on the head. It is all about "CONTROL".

The whole jesus story was concocted up to help control the masses. I thought it was a political decision at the time as well, as at that time the Roman Hierarchy were the "politicians" in charge in that era. I could be wrong though!

originally posted by: DrunkYogi
a reply to: windword

That's because it's not Jesus of Nazareth. It is Jesus the Nazarene. IMHO

The Sect of the Nazarene's

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, I agree. If Jesus did exist, he was Jesus the Nazarene, of the Mount Carmel Nazarenes.

originally posted by: Skyline74
a reply to: Tedgoat

That's right. You hit the nail on the head. It is all about "CONTROL".

The whole jesus story was concocted up to help control the masses. I thought it was a political decision at the time as well, as at that time the Roman Hierarchy were the "politicians" in charge in that era. I could be wrong though!

Please, explain to me who "concocted" the story of Jesus to control the masses. Also, if you could, tell me when they did it, and why. Bonus points if you can explain to me how the Christian religion helped control masses of people in Judea and Rome, and why both of these peoples chose to persecute Christians via torture and execution for hundreds of years if this religion was authored by "The powers that be" for control of said populations.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Spider879

Fortunately most scholars disagree with his findings...

Actually most SCHOLARS do not disagree with his findings. Most BIBILCAL SCHOLARS, though, certainly would.

I would think a biblical scholar would have the preferred opinion over a scholar from another field...

Historical scholars and biblical scholars are mostly agreed that Jesus was in fact a real person...

Even Non Christian scholars of both history and religion pretty much share that opinion... unless of course they're on a mission to prove something or trying to sell a book

And it has nothing to do with what has been claimed about him