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

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Please show me where Josephus' account of the Roman sieges and campaigns have been contested by scholars. Everything that Josephus wrote isn't negated because of the well known and easily spotted 4th century pious forgeries. Josephus gives us a wealth of insight into the 1st century workings.

This whole thread is pointless.... neither side will convince the other that they are right.

I am not religious, so anybody who quotes scriptures goes right in my loony bin file. You can't use the bible against me, because the bible was written by MEN. Not GOD or the son of GOD... written by men. And some of those men were clearly without a doubt schizophrenic.

If you tell me, as one poster did earlier, that they held an audible conversation with someone named Jesus, I will tell you right up that is a classic sign of schizophrenia. Of course it was audible..to them. Look it up.

If you think you hear "God" talking to you in your head, again you are suffering from schizophrenia and need help. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few things people claim about religion that obviously are schizophrenic in nature... hearing voices that no one else can hear.. hallucinations...etc.

Saying that you hear "God" talking to you is no different from saying that you hear your kids one-eyed three legged hamster named August J. Peabody III talking to you. Either one can get you locked up in your local psych ward.

I got a standing $1,000,000 bet that anyone here who claims they have audible conversations with a religious deity can't produce a recording of what they heard.

Bottom line... God doesn't exist....I got about as much chance of changing the Popes mind about religion as you do of changing mine.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

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.

Quite right DS. I reckon the Romans manipulated the teaching's of Jesus for their own ends. Hence we have the Roman Catholic Church (A continuation of The Holy Roman Empire) and all that goes with it. Jesus is completely blameless. IMHO

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!

Indeed! It was the necessary to come up with a course of action after the Jewish/Roman war, the siege against Jerusalem, and we can't leave out the effect that the destruction of Pompeii had on the psyche of the people in the area.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Here's one link I found, but there is a lot more scholars out there that agree on this.



lcaesarsmessiahdoc.com...

a reply to: windword

Please show me where Josephus writings on Jesus have been contested by scholars outside of the obvious Christian edits. For that matter, please show me where Josephus mention of John the baptist has been contested by scholars.

I can show you where charlatans and snake oil salesmen have questioned the authenticity of Josephus via Joseph Atwill (a conspiracy you were gung ho about until it was shown to be patently false). You have continually used the additions to part of Josephus's writings on Jesus to criticize the historicity of Christ, but never addressed the fact that most scholars think the mention of Jesus was authentic and that the text was edited later to lavish Jesus with uncharacteristic titles. You also never addressed the second mention of Jesus (as well as his brother James) sufficiently. Your only criticism was to state that there were a lot of people named James and Jesus in the region at the time, despite the fact Josephus mentions his previous writings in that particular case, and no modern scholars dispute it's authenticity (to say nothing of his mention of John the baptist). Again, you are cherry picking.

Here's one link I found, but there is a lot more scholars out there that agree on this.



lcaesarsmessiahdoc.com...

Thanks for the laugh. I guess you haven't been following the thread in it's entirety.

a reply to: windword

Josephus
John E. Remsberg, The Christ

Late in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work, “The Antiquities of the Jews,” giving a history of his race from the earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work contain the following passage:
“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” (Book IXVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).


Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian writer. “If it be lawful to call him a man.” “He was the Christ.” “He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning, him.” These are the words of a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith-- the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized, and Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance (360 A. D.) offers the following explanation, which only a theologian could frame:

“If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention.”

Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines.

It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it gives an account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate with great slaughter. The account ends as follows: “There were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.” Section 4, as now numbered, begins with these words: “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.” The one section naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two closely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed; thus making the words, “another sad calamity,” refer to the advent of this wise and wonderful being.

The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted this passage had it existed in their time. The failure of even one of these fathers to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt upon its genuineness; the failure of all of them to notice it proves conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in existence during the second and third centuries.

As this passage first appeared in the writings of the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, as this author openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the church, as he is known to have mutilated and perverted the text of Josephus in other instances, and as the manner of its presentation is calculated to excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been charged to him. In his “Evangelical Demonstration,” written early in the fourth century, after citing all the known evidences of Christianity, he thus introduces the Jewish historian: “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss. if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness” (Book III, p. 124).

Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a reader of Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, in his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but was too honest or too wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision of Josephus, writing five hundred years after the time of Eusebius, ignores the passage, and admits that Josephus has made no mention of Christ.

Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:

“I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother. It interrupts the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus. Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ” (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

Again Dr. Lardner says: “This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist” (Lardner’s Works,

a reply to: infolurker

Actually it's really debatable whether the Tacitus on Christ is authentic or not.
There seems that no original manuscripts of the Annals in existence and the surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, one being from the 11th century held by Benedictine monks who could of copied it using their "own" words or interpretations.

I've read so many arguments for this thread. "I don't understand why they're trying to tear our religion down, wah wah wah.", "Why do they hate god? WAH", "*INSERT BIBLE QUOTE HERE* WAH", blah blah blah.

So i'll clarify a few things now. The reason people try to tear Christianity down, is the same reason you have people knocking on your door at 5AM with a bible in their hands asking "Have you found Jesus?". People, for the most part, want to spread their beliefs. That's. Pretty. Straightforward. And. Not. Difficult. To. Understand.

Just because people who don't believe the same as you question something, doesn't mean they hate it. It's called having a brain. We should question -everything-. That's how advancement happens.

Now, insofar as Jesus...

"He wasn't famous untill hundreds of years after his death" ...Really? So a guy performing miracles infront of HUNDREDS of people wasn't famous? Supposedly he walked on water, raised the dead, cured sickness with a touch, turned water to wine, fed the multitudes, and much much more. It makes absolutely no logical sense that he wouldn't have been famous in his own time period. That argument is completely invalid, and nonsensical.

"Others were stealing from Christianity" ...No ...Just no. There is historical evidence that Christianity, and Catholicism for that matter are relatively new religions compared to other religions. You can't steal something from a religion that doesn't even exist yet. So yes, Christianity/Catholicism DID infact steal several things from other, older religions. Christmas, for example. Easter aswell. These things have been proven, and much more aside from that.

Aside from that, has anyone heard of the Apocrypha? The books kept out of the bible because they didn't fit in with what the 'powers that be' of the time wanted people to believe?

I've read the Gospels. I can fully admit that Jesus, even if he didn't exist, had a VERY good message. Love eachother. It was THAT simple, and that message is something everyone needs to listen to; no doubt. Our world is # right now, because there isn't nearly enough love. I see people of ALL religions observing their holy days in the perscribed manner, then, the next day, acting like idiots and completely disregarding the tenets of their own faiths. Our world is filled with so much hate, and ill-will that it's rediculous. I don't hate any of you. Every single person I meet, every single person I talk to, or interact with, I LOVE. Not because i'll go to heaven. Not because some mythical, possibly real figure from 2000 years ago told me to. Because it's the right thing to do! Plain and simple. Every single person in this world is special in their own way, and should be treated as such. I don't care what a person believes, or, doesn't believe. It makes no difference in how I treat them, because it is irrelevant. We all live on this little planet. We all have our own dreams, desires, and beliefs. That's just reality.

Well, i'm done with my little rant, I guess. I hope everyone has a wonderful night, and a better tomorrow. Blessed Be.

a reply to: coastlinekid

This entire post (if you can call it that, rather, it is a copy and paste) completely glosses over two main facts:

1) Neither Christian Scholars or Secular Scholars dispute the fact Josephus 1st mention of Jesus in "Antiquities of the Jews" was later edited by Christian scribes. BOTH the majority of Christian and Secular scholars contend that only certain portions of that particular passage in book 18 were altered. Most scholars contend that the passage did make a reference to Jesus before it was altered with obviously christian alliterations.

2) The inference that early Christian writers would have referenced Josephus against their Jewish counterparts as evidence for this passage completely misses the mark. These writers wouldn't have bothered referencing Josephus material since their argument with the Jews and Romans wasn't about whether or not Jesus existed, but whether or not he was the Christ (since all 3 parties at the time acknowledged his existence). Given the fact the original translations of Josephus first mention of Jesus do not identify him as the Messiah (being that they were later Christian additions to the text), there would be no reason for them to reference it in any of their writings which primarily focused on early church doctrine, and the establishment of Jesus as being the legitimate Messiah.

So because one man claims Jesus was an "urban legend", now the whole world is supposed to believe it!! He was not there at the time so there is absolutely no validity to what he is saying at all...Oh wait I didn't realize Michael Paulkovich was so special! i mean who died and named him KING! pun intended!!

This is one mans opinion that is it! Anyone of us could have done and said the exact same thing and then made millions when we went public with "the truth according to Paulkovich"! Only, you and I didn't he did! So it is not up to us to prove Christ did exist but it is certainly on this guy to prove he didn't!!

The bible is very clear in stating that God's thoughts are not man's thought's Isaiah 55:8

Man can scarcely conceive of the deliverance which God designs; but God's thoughts are not as man's

or here in Isaiah 55

Though man is made in God's image (Genesis 1:27), yet the nature of God in every way infinitely transcends that of man. Both the thoughts and the acts of God surpass man's understanding.

So ya see this genius can go on and espouse whatever opinion he likes but unless he is GOD he has nothing to back up even his opinion...

Has it ever occurred to him that if God wanted Jesus exhistence to be revealed to man beyond a shadow of doubt then it would be? But perhaps God said "If I give them everything then there is no longer free will"!! And this is where faith comes in!

These types of mysterious will not be unveiled until Christ returns and we are with him.....biblehub.com

As human beings, if we cannot analyze it and prove it then we cant understand it, If we can't understand something then we typically cast it off into the land of make believe.....

Pax

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


It is clear that religion holds absolutely no bearing on modern secular academia, yet the majority of secular historians agree that there is good evidence for a historical Jesus.

Yet you can't name one document referenced by those historians written by someone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.

Well, Paul's writings were written very shortly after Jesus crucifixion, and he met 2 of Jesus apostles personally (including Jesus brother, James, who is also mentioned by Josephus). Paul's writings also reference material in the New Testament (which itself is full of eyewitness accounts).

But I guess we must discard those eyewitness accounts as unreliable, despite the fact some of the information they contain has been corroborated by non-biblical historians and modern archaeological finds?

As has been pointed out adnauseum both in this thread and elsewhere, if the new testament account itself is unreliable to you, then you shouldn't expect any other contemporary accounts from that time period when very few of them exist on far more important figures than Jesus (from a roman perspective). It stands to reason that Romans wouldn't have written about Jesus since He was dealt with as far as they were concerned, and didn't re-emerge as a problem until the rise of Christianity within the Roman empire (which is preciesly where we find extra biblical accounts of him within the historical record).

Further to this, we have other documents authored by ancient historians that are considered historically reliable despite the fact they were written 300 years or more after the events they record (like the material written about Alexander the Great, for instance).

If you feel like it, read this opinion piece by Bart Ehrman: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Ehrman is a very vocal New Testament critic, and not a Christian.

You still have not named a single person who A) lived when Jesus allegedly lived who B) wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.

Bart Ehrman has stated that there is NO EVIDENCE proving that Jesus lived. I don't know how many times he has to say that before someone notices.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


It is clear that religion holds absolutely no bearing on modern secular academia, yet the majority of secular historians agree that there is good evidence for a historical Jesus.

Yet you can't name one document referenced by those historians written by someone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.

Well, Paul's writings were written very shortly after Jesus crucifixion, and he met 2 of Jesus apostles personally (including Jesus brother, James, who is also mentioned by Josephus). Paul's writings also reference material in the New Testament (which itself is full of eyewitness accounts).

But I guess we must discard those eyewitness accounts as unreliable, despite the fact some of the information they contain has been corroborated by non-biblical historians and modern archaeological finds?

As has been pointed out adnauseum both in this thread and elsewhere, if the new testament account itself is unreliable to you, then you shouldn't expect any other contemporary accounts from that time period when very few of them exist on far more important figures than Jesus (from a roman perspective). It stands to reason that Romans wouldn't have written about Jesus since He was dealt with as far as they were concerned, and didn't re-emerge as a problem until the rise of Christianity within the Roman empire (which is preciesly where we find extra biblical accounts of him within the historical record).

Further to this, we have other documents authored by ancient historians that are considered historically reliable despite the fact they were written 300 years or more after the events they record (like the material written about Alexander the Great, for instance).

If you feel like it, read this opinion piece by Bart Ehrman: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Ehrman is a very vocal New Testament critic, and not a Christian.

You still have not named a single person who A) lived when Jesus allegedly lived who B) wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.

Bart Ehrman has stated that there is NO EVIDENCE proving that Jesus lived. I don't know how many times he has to say that before someone notices.

Sure I did. I mentioned 3 people that would have been alive during the same time Jesus was who also wrote about him. I also find it curious you just stated Bart Ehrman claims there is "NO EVIDENCE" that jesus lived, when you also included the link I posted in which he states the exact opposite to what you just claimed. You clearly didn't even bother reading it. What does that say about your intellectual honesty?

"With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. [...] the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground."

—Bart Ehrman

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


It is clear that religion holds absolutely no bearing on modern secular academia, yet the majority of secular historians agree that there is good evidence for a historical Jesus.

Yet you can't name one document referenced by those historians written by someone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.

Well, Paul's writings were written very shortly after Jesus crucifixion, and he met 2 of Jesus apostles personally (including Jesus brother, James, who is also mentioned by Josephus). Paul's writings also reference material in the New Testament (which itself is full of eyewitness accounts).

But I guess we must discard those eyewitness accounts as unreliable, despite the fact some of the information they contain has been corroborated by non-biblical historians and modern archaeological finds?

As has been pointed out adnauseum both in this thread and elsewhere, if the new testament account itself is unreliable to you, then you shouldn't expect any other contemporary accounts from that time period when very few of them exist on far more important figures than Jesus (from a roman perspective). It stands to reason that Romans wouldn't have written about Jesus since He was dealt with as far as they were concerned, and didn't re-emerge as a problem until the rise of Christianity within the Roman empire (which is preciesly where we find extra biblical accounts of him within the historical record).

Further to this, we have other documents authored by ancient historians that are considered historically reliable despite the fact they were written 300 years or more after the events they record (like the material written about Alexander the Great, for instance).

If you feel like it, read this opinion piece by Bart Ehrman: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Ehrman is a very vocal New Testament critic, and not a Christian.

You still have not named a single person who A) lived when Jesus allegedly lived who B) wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.

Bart Ehrman has stated that there is NO EVIDENCE proving that Jesus lived. I don't know how many times he has to say that before someone notices.

Uhm... No

Bart Ehrman wrote a book supporting the fact that Jesus was an historical person...

get your facts straight...

a reply to: DeadSeraph


I actually agree more with this, than Atwill's Book. - Constantine's Invention.



beyondallreligion.net...

originally posted by: Akragon

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

Then you'll be able to name one person cited by these Biblical scholars who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living? Oh, that's right, you can't.

Lots of books have been sold pushing the Jesus myth.

So I take it no one has ever found documentation of Jesus from anyone who had a first hand experience of seeing him.

originally posted by: Skyline74
a reply to: DeadSeraph


I actually agree more with this, than Atwill's Book. - Constantine's Invention.



beyondallreligion.net...

Good for you. If Christianity can be demonstrated to be older than constantine or the council of Nicea, this theory falls apart. Why is it you are willing to take a bloggers word on the subject instead of the established evidence? Are you aware of the fact we have archaeological evidence for Christians (not even including the textual evidence) dating back to as early as 50 AD, a mere 20 years after the estimated date of Christ's crucixition? How is it we have Christians in 30-50 AD if the entire thing wasn't invented until Constantines reign?

I love this sort of garbage. You guys can never seem to agree on which ancient aliens BS you want to present as the truth. History, academia, all disagree with you. But #$&! it. Throw caution to the wind and invent things that are easily disputed. It's not like anyone will argue with you anyways, because *&$! Jesus!

Comical. Not a damned shred of credibility, but comical.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Akragon

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

Then you'll be able to name one person cited by these Biblical scholars who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living? Oh, that's right, you can't.

Lots of books have been sold pushing the Jesus myth.

Maybe you'd like to explain to us all why you claimed Ehrman claims Jesus never existed while quoting my linked article in which he claims the exact opposite?

People keep answering your questions. Curiously, you never answer ours. Seems to be a running theme on this subject.