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

a reply to: Observationalist

You got any historical documentation for the 2000 years of brainwashing.

You're kidding right? How about the Spanish Inquisition?

Why did they feel the need to abandon their existing brainwashing of the Jews at the time?

Who was brainwashing the Jews? The early Roman Catholic Church demonized the Jews and made Judaizing illegal.

a reply to: Harvin

How did Jesus come out of the blue hundreds of years later?

John 1:1 turns Jesus into Philo's LOGOS. Philo's LOGOS was conveniently called Joshua, or Yoshua, the High Priest. Philo, a Hellenized Rabbi and Jewish Philosopher expanded on Plato's and Pythagorean LOGOS. en.wikipedia.org...

I posted this earlier. I guess you missed it!

a reply to: Mr Mask

Yes...anyone chasing the "mythicism" train is chasing a story that is almost 100% disputed and rejected by all history experts today. Most historians will rush to say that mythicism is not only laughable but easy to debunk.

Get it?

No. Mythicism is ONLY WAY to explain the biblical Jesus.

a reply to: Spider879

I am sure that someone on ATS did research on the Piso family.

I'm pretty sure autowrench did, yes.

originally posted by: windword


No. Mythicism is ONLY WAY to explain the biblical Jesus.

Oh my lol. Hahhahaah. I see you have no regard for the standing conclusion of almost all historians.

Mythicism is not accepted or respected by scholarly experts. Its just too easily debunked and frankly its juvenile pseudo history. Really- its just flat out wrong and laughed right out of all venues of academia.

One thing you seem to not understand- How can Mythicism stand in the face of the fact that not one single source contemporary (mainly those greatly against Christianity) stood up to deny the existence of Jesus as a historical person?

Not one. Out of hundreds.

And that would have GREATLY helped their cause.

Every single contemporary is silent on this. Not one Pharisee or Roman governor thought of denying that Christ existed...why?

No really...why? This one fact alone is enough to cause almost every scholar to agree Mythicism is not only broken as a theory, it also rests on a laughable foundation of pseudo history and lack of scholarly research.

There is much evidence for Jesus, and some of it is from outside the bible (while most remains within it), as you have been shown three times- yet you still deny seeing evidence while you continue to ask for it.

You have been shown time and time again why Mythicism has died a hard death as a joke in the eyes of most scholars and historians. You have also been shown the evidence that convinces almost all historians on the existence of Historical Jesus.

But you want to cheer for the loser of the debate...go ahead. I rather understand history and support the popular (and most probable) answer. Methodism is not legitimate history...its a broken mess and a joke.

Jesus was most likely real.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

Every single contemporary is silent on this. Not one Pharisee or Roman governor thought of denying that Christ existed...why?

No really...why? This one fact alone is enough to cause almost every scholar to agree Mythicism is not only broken as a theory, it also rests on a laughable foundation of pseudo history and lack of scholarly research.

If he existed, then WHY is "every single contemporary silent on" THAT? They didn't include him OR deny that he existed.

He isn't mentioned. Period.
Except in the Bible.

a reply to: Mr Mask

There is much evidence for Jesus,

No. Nope! There isn't.

and some of it is from outside the bible (while most remains within it)

The Bible does not count as "evidence for Jesus."

So - what are your other sources? (The ones outside the Bible?)

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Spider879

I am sure that someone on ATS did research on the Piso family.

I'm pretty sure autowrench did, yes.

Autowrech's Excellent Thread: The Origins of the King James Bible and the New Testament, and the Forgery, and Pagan influences

a reply to: Mr Mask

If "mythicism is broken as a theory", how do you explain the virgin birth, raising the dead, walking on and turning water to wine, dying for the sins of the world and then rising from the dead, only to fly off in a cloud?

a reply to: Mr Mask

One thing you seem to not understand- How can Mythicism stand in the face of the fact that not one single source contemporary (mainly those greatly against Christianity) stood up to deny the existence of Jesus as a historical person?

Not one. Out of hundreds.

What are you asking me? Why did none of Jesus' contemporaries say he didn't exist? How do you know that 3rd century pagans didn't reject the man of myth? How many natives were forced to choose to accept Jesus as their savior or die, and chose death?

Besides, did any of "those" people who didn't question whether or not Jesus was a real boy, also question Hercules or Adam and Eve's existence as real people?

ETa: The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

The Bible does not count as "evidence for Jesus."

Oh but it absolutely does. Across the board you will find no real historian disputing hundreds of biblical references to be valued as trusted historic evidence.

That's the problem with supporters of pseudo history. You people think the bible is to be thrown out as 100% garbage. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The bible contains much historic writing that is unanimously considered legitmate and indisputable by mainstream historians and real scholars.

Example- Epistles of Paul.

The Epistles of Paul (or most of them) alone are enough to give good reason to accept Jesus as being real since they are written 40 years after the death of Jesus and notably considered accurate by almost all historians.

The Romans destroyed and burned the whole of Jerusalem and most of Israel (entire cities reduced to ash) in A.D. 70. Most people ignore this fact and seem oblivious to what that would do to writings of the day.

The first-century Roman Tacitus is considered one of the most accurate and trusted historic sources of the ancient world. He wrote of Christians and Christ (Christus).

Flavius Josephus (the most famous Jewish historian of Antiquities) plainly speaks of meeting the brother of Jesus. Neither saying Jesus is fake...weird.

Julius Africanus quotes Thallus (both accepted and seen as legit sources of real history) about Jesus Christ.

Lucian of Samosata, Pliny, The Talmud, Mara Bar-Serapion, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection...the list goes on and on.

There is evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history is a landslide that is much more convincing and solid than the BS nonsense of Mythicism.

There is a reason Mythicism is laughed out of all academic circles while the majority of all historians in the world support the existence of Jesus.

And yes...an abundance of that evidence is also from outside the bible.

You really need to come up with a single good reason why thousands of learned scholars much smarter than you and me combined (along with the rest of the people posting here), with degrees and research behind them, are laughing at your pseudo-history that has not a single leg to stand on.

MM

originally posted by: windword


Besides, did any of "those" people who didn't question whether or not Jesus was a real boy, also question Hercules or Adam and Eve's existence as real people?

Back to bringing up magic that is absolutely not supported by a single real historian eh? didn't take long.

I so see how you ended up flocking towards the laughable pseudo-history. It supports you unabashed hatred for religion. Why not just fess up and say the truth- You hate Jesus and he angers you.

Nothing will change the fact that Mythicism has been destroyed and debunked by historians as being silly.

it is very silly btw.

MM

originally posted by: windword


No. Mythicism is ONLY WAY to explain the biblical Jesus.

Hahahah. You do know we are not talking about magical jesus right?

Historical Jesus was not magic in the eyes of history. Faith based views do not agree here of course.

MM

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Observationalist

You got any historical documentation for the 2000 years of brainwashing.

You're kidding right? How about the Spanish Inquisition?

Why did they feel the need to abandon their existing brainwashing of the Jews at the time?

Who was brainwashing the Jews? The early Roman Catholic Church demonized the Jews and made Judaizing illegal.

What does the Spanish Inquisition have to do with what was happing 2000 years ago between the Romans and the Jews

Who was making the call 2000 years ago to to come up with the Jesus myth to control human behavior?

I know the stuff about Constantine and Nicea, but who set the early church in motion, there were Christians before the Spanish Inquisition right?

a reply to: Mr Mask

The Epistles of Paul (or most of them) alone are enough to give good reason to accept Jesus as being real since they are written 40 years after the death of Jesus and notably considered accurate by almost all historians.

Paul never met Jesus and says that ALL of his understanding of "Christ" and his "Way" come from revelation. In other words, a voice inside his head.

The first-century Roman Tacitus is considered one of the most accurate and trusted historic sources of the ancient world. He wrote of Christians and Christ (Christus).

Tacitus never mentions the name Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the son of Joseph. We already know that there were MANY zealots claiming to be "The Christ" who were put to death by the Romans, many of them were before Pontius Pilate. That's what he did.

Flavius Josephus (the most famous Jewish historian of Antiquities) plainly speaks of meeting the brother of Jesus. Neither saying Jesus is fake...weird.

A proven pious forgery.

Julius Africanus quotes Thallus (both accepted and seen as legit sources of real history) about Jesus Christ.

JA lived in the 3rd century. He speaks of an impossible eclipse, that couldn't have happened.

However, no eclipse could have taken place at Passover, when the crucifixion took place.Modern scholars see the darkness as a literary creation rather than a historical event.

Thallus (historian)
Thallus: An Analysis

The Talmud? Only if you think that Jesus was the son a Roman Soldier. Christians ordered the Jewish community to remove all references to Jesus, as it was not reflective of the biblical man of myth! The Jewish council claimed that their Talmud didn't mention Jesus Christ at all.

The Talmud contains passages that some scholars have concluded are references to Christian traditions about Jesus. The history of textual transmission of these passages is complex and scholars are not agreed concerning which passages are original, and which were added later or removed later in reaction to the actions of Christians. Scholars are also divided on the relationship of the passages, if any, to the historical Jesus, though most modern scholarship views the passages as reaction to Christian proselytism rather than having any meaningful trace of a historical Jesus.
en.wikipedia.org...

Pliny?

Pliny survived the persecution of the Stoic opposition during the reign of Domitian (81-96). The emperor actually made him a senator, even though several of Pliny's Stoic friends were executed. Subsequently Pliny went on to become consul, state priest, and finally, governor of Bithynia-Pontus.

Curious, is it not, that such a well-placed, well-educated Roman grandee, directly and intimately involved in the Roman judicial system at the highest levels, and a friend of historians Tacitus and Suetonius, should – in the second decade of the 2nd century – remain so ignorant of Christians and the persecution of them – unless, that is, they were nothing other than an obscure, and insignificant bunch of fanatics and the "persecution" is a fable?

"Having never been present at any trials concerning those persons who are Christians, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them."

Non-Christian Testimony for Jesus?

As we have already established, many people claimed to be a "Christ" and many had cult followers. Additionally, the initiates of the Elysian Mysteries, called each other "Christs" and Christians.

The early followers of Paul didn't call themselves Christians, as that was an insult to them. The called themselves, followers of "The Way", or Nazarene.

If modern believers were truly sincere in their desire for a more intimate relationship with the Lord, they would immediately want to know and question why "early believers avoided" using the name Christian? When it is realized that even the very name Christian was in use prior to the time of Jesus, we truly begin to grasp the Pagan connection. The name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate, and understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Thus, the early followers of Jesus refused to be called Christian, and call Jesus the Christ, because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans and their gods.

CHRISTIANITY EXISTED BEFORE BIRTH OF JESUS

Also, there were a the Gnostic cults, that worshiped Jesus as the LOGOS, not as a flesh and blood figure.

a reply to: Observationalist

There's quite a bit of speculation that Plutarch is responsible for the Book of Luke and the Act of the Apostles. Plutarch talked about the need for people to believe in deities and gods. After the destruction of Pompeii and the destruction of Jerusalem and Jewish temple, I guess people needed to believe in the LOGOS, and it seemed good.

Plutarch later named, upon becoming a Roman citizen, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (c. AD 46 – AD 120),[1] was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist, known primarily for his Parallel Lives and Moralia.[2] He is considered today to be a Middle Platonist.
en.wikipedia.org...

Plutarch is another contemporary historian that is silent on Jesus of Nazareth Christ.

Nobody, in my opinion, explains the Christian mysteries better that Plutarch does in his (5 part) essay on Isis and Osiris.

penelope.uchicago.edu...*/A.html

a reply to: Mr Mask

I repeat:

If "mythicism is broken as a theory", how do you explain the virgin birth, raising the dead, walking on and turning water to wine, dying for the sins of the world and then rising from the dead, only to fly off in a cloud?

Are those NOT examples of myths?

a reply to: windword

Everything you just replied to the standing and widely accepted evidence of Jesus was either overly wrong, misunderstanding of the facts or irrelevant.

The links to nonsense sites that are bargain-basement bottom of the bucket sources? Not impressed.

So far I have shown you towards evidence that the majority of the educated scholars on the subject accept as trusted twice.

And again you shrug it off with nothing but saying its all lies and not worth respect.

While almost all historians say you are wrong.

I think this is not going well for your pseudo spreading hacks who lack proper education on the matter.

MM

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Mr Mask

I repeat:

If "mythicism is broken as a theory", how do you explain the virgin birth, raising the dead, walking on and turning water to wine, dying for the sins of the world and then rising from the dead, only to fly off in a cloud?

Are those NOT examples of myths?

OMG here we go again. This is the 12th time I have asked you to stop returning to magical nonsense that no historian trusts or spreads as "truth".

Really dude? Are you gunna keep going to ghosts and goblins when the subject is history?

Your hate for religion makes it impossible to have an adult conversation about the history that almost all historians are telling you about.

Its clear you are focused not on learning, but on supporting any and all claims that spit on some dogmatic idol you hate with all your passion.

You don't want history. You want a second crucifixion.

So sad.

Sorry man. I'm educated. I am not a golden goose chaser. And I surely am not a follower of non-historian hacks that the entire academic world laughs at.

Enjoy your comic books that say Jesus was not a real man. Me? I''m far to educated and reasonable to go throwing away the whole of historic study to go following a moron selling a book of stupidity just so I can get my kicks kicking on a dead man.

Enjoy ignorance. I rather deny it.

Seriously...you have been destroyed in here. Your entire way of thinking on the matter is the butt of a joke in all historic circles. You keep returning to magic claims in a debate about REAL HISTORY...no dude...I can't deal with it anymore. I'm tired of explaining (and watching others explain to you) real history as defined by real research.

Enjoy your funny lil book and the dozen or so loons who are not historians nor archeologists supporting your "unsupported ideas".

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

Your continuous plea to authority is of no use. You continually insult me personally and reject my sources,based on the fact that I, and they disagree with your point of view.

You really should attack the information, not the source. That's what intellectually honest debaters do.

Don't forget:

If you post on ATS as a political fool engaging in gratuitous ideological insults, you will find no favor or sympathy from our staff. www.abovetopsecret.com...