Jesus Never Existed. End of story.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It certainly is if there is a reasonable expectation of evidence were a given premise true. Everything we call knowledge, except for definitional knowledge, is ultimately rooted in the absence of falsifying observations, i.e., the absence of evidence.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I agree, there is a glaring absence of contemporary documentation to support the historicity of Jesus, his disciples, family, followers, and Nazareth. That list you posted could apply to all of those people as well.

The people perhaps, but a whole city!? Particularly when you consider this absence exists even among early Christian writings. This just doesn't make any sense. Anyone here who says "I believe in a historical Jesus", yet can not explain this absence among the earliest Christian writers should really ask themselves how supportable their position is.

"Maybe Josephus just forgot about the city supposedly just a mile and half from where he once lived", "Maybe Nazareth was a laughing stock and omitted on purpose", "Maybe Paul never mentions anything about the humanity of Jesus because he just forgot", "Well, we can't know why they didn't write about him, so it's not a valid objection", "Maybe Nazareth is on the moon in an area known as Galilee in moonese, and everyone knew that when they were writing lists of cities and that's why they didn't include it."

All of these are worthless speculation based on nothing but a desire to ignore these obvious catastrophic problems.

It is a perfectly reasonable expectation that someone contemporary to Jesus would have made mention of Nazareth, given that Jesus was important enough to spawn lots of writing about him and to spawn a new religion that already had multiple churches as early as 50CE. Paul writes page after page of emotional arguments regarding proper behavior, when all he had to do was reference the teachings of Jesus - if they existed at the time! Yet he never once refers to a quote from Jesus to resolve these disputes, nor does he even say anything like "Jesus taught ....". He is totally oblivious to everything the gospel writers would later invent.

The best hope of rescuing a historical Jesus is to throw out from the NT everything older than Paul's writings. If you do that, you now face the dilema of explaining why even Paul's writings say nothing at all about Jesus the man, other than a few statements about being crucified for our sins. Paul never attributes anything he teaches to Jesus, he never refers to Jesus' geneaology, or where he came from, or when he lived. Paul claims that he himself was chosen to reveal these things! What Paul!? How could you have been chosen to reveal a hidden mystery when Jesus was a historical figure who lived just 20 years or so before you started writing? The argument that Paul was referring to a mystical christ is as air tight as any case can be. That being the case, you have to throw Paul out as a witness to a historical Jesus as well, since he did not view Jesus as a historical fleshy human.

So we thorw out Josephus, we throw out the Gospels and later writings based on them, we throw out Paul, ... what's left that leads us to believe there was a historical Jesus, when the earliest Christians clearly knew nothing about him?

The best evidence for a historical Jesus are groups such as the Essenes, Ebionites, and gnostics, who viewed Jesus as a virtuous teacher of wisdom, and nothing more.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
It is not unheard of for later power figures to try to erase people out of history.

It is also not unheard of for later power figures to totally invent facts that help sustain their power. Who had control of these records for almost the entire past 2000 years? There is clear evidence of tampering within Josephus regarding the single paragraph that talks about Jesus. Indications are that it is either highly interpolated or an outright forgery. Even most Christians scholars acknowledge this.

'It is a perfectly reasonable expectation that someone contemporary to Jesus would have made mention of Nazareth, given that Jesus was important enough to spawn lots of writing about him and to spawn a new religion that already had multiple churches as early as 50CE.
So we thorw out Josephus, we throw out the Gospels and later writings based on them, we throw out Paul, ... what's left that leads us to believe there was a historical Jesus, '
spamandham

'What else is there from that period that confirms that a single character in the NT existed, besides the prominent names which can be found in lots of books. Herod, Pilate, Caesar..... supported.
Jesus, disciples, family, friends, acquaintances, enemies, eyewitnesses, Nazareth, etc. ........ not supported.' post 1951910

' If it was fiction, Josephus is the top suspect. As I posted earlier, not one of the characters in Jesus' circle of disciples, family, friends, or followers has been found in any other record from his time. Two books I read declare that.' post 1964242


zip, like i said
cheers

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

Okay, I HAD to chime in a few more times here. The present argument is "Did Nazareth exist, muchless Jesus?" Allow me to answer this way.

How many settlements Today are not listed as cities on our present day maps? Answer: Tons! I live in California and can vouch for this. There are farming Co-ops across the state only a nut job might consider a city. Nonetheless, they exist, and yes, they have names. Would you consider a Housing Development a separate city? Of course not! They're usually attached to the nearest municipality, or are considered "unincorporated" in the county...until they decide to become a city. A perfect example is the Housing community of Mather, right here in Sacramento county.

Originally posted by Toelint
Okay, I HAD to chime in a few more times here. The present argument is "Did Nazareth exist, muchless Jesus?" Allow me to answer this way.

How many settlements Today are not listed as cities on our present day maps? Answer: Tons! I live in California and can vouch for this. There are farming Co-ops across the state only a nut job might consider a city. Nonetheless, they exist, and yes, they have names. Would you consider a Housing Development a separate city? Of course not! They're usually attached to the nearest municipality, or are considered "unincorporated" in the county...until they decide to become a city. A perfect example is the Housing community of Mather, right here in Sacramento county.

Be that is it may, it still doesn't prove that Jesus or Nazareth existed at the time.

G

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by Toelint
Okay, I HAD to chime in a few more times here. The present argument is "Did Nazareth exist, muchless Jesus?" Allow me to answer this way.

How many settlements Today are not listed as cities on our present day maps? Answer: Tons! I live in California and can vouch for this. There are farming Co-ops across the state only a nut job might consider a city. Nonetheless, they exist, and yes, they have names. Would you consider a Housing Development a separate city? Of course not! They're usually attached to the nearest municipality, or are considered "unincorporated" in the county...until they decide to become a city. A perfect example is the Housing community of Mather, right here in Sacramento county.

Be that is it may, it still doesn't prove that Jesus or Nazareth existed at the time.

G

Ah, but the Number One point of the doubters in this thread has been, "Hey, Josephus didn't list it in his list of cities. Ergo, it didn't exist."

Well. I've personally logged info on this thread as proof that:

A. People did live on that plot of land recognized today as Nazareth as far back as 900 BC.

B. Josephus certainly was capable of making mistakes, as he did with the years he listed concerning Herod becoming Governor of Galilee, and at what age he attained that position.

Appearently, a lot of other people missed listing Nazareth as a city too. Do I have to prove all of them inept as proof? Of course not! My above example is certainly proof enough, just because Nazareth doesn't appear on their lists, that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Toelint]

Originally posted by Toelint

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by Toelint
Okay, I HAD to chime in a few more times here. The present argument is "Did Nazareth exist, muchless Jesus?" Allow me to answer this way.

How many settlements Today are not listed as cities on our present day maps? Answer: Tons! I live in California and can vouch for this. There are farming Co-ops across the state only a nut job might consider a city. Nonetheless, they exist, and yes, they have names. Would you consider a Housing Development a separate city? Of course not! They're usually attached to the nearest municipality, or are considered "unincorporated" in the county...until they decide to become a city. A perfect example is the Housing community of Mather, right here in Sacramento county.

Be that is it may, it still doesn't prove that Jesus or Nazareth existed at the time.

G

Ah, but the Number One point of the doubters in this thread has been, "Hey, Josephus didn't list it in his list of cities. Ergo, it didn't exist."

Well. I've personally logged info on this thread as proof that:

A. People did live on that plot of land recognized today as Nazareth as far back as 900 BC.

B. Josephus certainly was capable of making mistakes, as he did with the years he listed concerning Herod becoming Governor of Galilee, and at what age he attained that position.

Appearently, a lot of other people missed listing Nazareth as a city too. Do I have to prove all of them inept as proof? Of course not! My above example is certainly proof enough, just because Nazareth doesn't appear on their lists, that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Toelint]

As I say it still doesn't prove that Nazareth or Jesus existed. Ok there might have been a small hamlet or whatever, does that mean Jesus came from there? Was it called Nazareth at that time? There were two Bethlehems at the time as well, which one was he born in?
There are too many if's, and's or but's in this story.


G

Wow this Thread just keeps on going and going! A lot of good points made by many various people! What I find the most interesting is that the "In-Accurate Translation" Bug has struck again (I have found that Religion is VERY MUCH linked to Language & Cultures - these change & Mutate over time - as does Religion) - so "Ressurected" really comes out closer to "Re-Vived" huh... figures! Oh as for the post above - Jesus was reffered to as a "Nazorean" - this did not have anything to do with a town, but rather a certain *Tribe of Jews* that had trademark long hair. Yet another example of Bad Translation! When you are trying to essentially create a New Religion a good Tactic would try to be to Hype things up as much as possible (& that is just what happened).

Perhaps Jesus (or Yehshuha - what ever works for you) was simply just an "Enlightened Man" - in that case not all that Unique because there are PLENTY of Enlightened Spiritual Masters throughtout History. Perhaps we should take Jesus' advise & try to become Enlightened ourselves. To Manifest the "Christ" within us all! Isn't that the whole point of all this stuff (why get wrapped up in Dogma?) - to practice the Path of Righteousness as did Christ. This isn't easy (I don't think that it was meant to be) there are PLENTY of "Tempters" in this Modern day & age - just as there must have been back then! No, it is not easy - it is easier to say that Existance is Pointless & that we should all just act like Animals! Or maybe we can Evolve into Enlightened/Spiritual Beings!

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

Perhaps Jesus (or Yehshuha - what ever works for you) was simply just an "Enlightened Man" - in that case not all that Unique because there are PLENTY of Enlightened Spiritual Masters throughtout History. Perhaps we should take Jesus' advise & try to become Enlightened ourselves. To Manifest the "Christ" within us all! Isn't that the whole point of all this stuff (why get wrapped up in Dogma?) - to practice the Path of Righteousness as did Christ. This isn't easy (I don't think that it was meant to be) there are PLENTY of "Tempters" in this Modern day & age - just as there must have been back then! No, it is not easy - it is easier to say that Existance is Pointless & that we should all just act like Animals! Or maybe we can Evolve into Enlightened/Spiritual Beings!

"Be perfect, as God is perfect." I believe is what Jesus said. Although you said it very well too!

As I say it still doesn't prove that Nazareth or Jesus existed. Ok there might have been a small hamlet or whatever, does that mean Jesus came from there? Was it called Nazareth at that time? There were two Bethlehems at the time as well, which one was he born in?
There are too many if's, and's or but's in this story.

Well, if Jesus was born in "The City of David", it would be THAT Bethlehem. I know that sounds "flip", but this still true.

Now, as for Nazareth, Let me say this: Anyone who wants their mail delivered in the Housing area of Mather needs their incoming mail marked for Rancho Cordova. The residences call it Mather...but even the Post Office says it's just Rancho...a little farther out. Perhaps the same was true with Nazareth.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Toelint]

How does anyone know what jesus really said? The gospel's weren't written untill after his supposed death and jesus and comrade's never wrote anything of his teaching's down while he was alive. Really, all your doing is reading something people think they remember this supposed jesus had said many years after his death.

Let's see a show of hands... who's played telephone here before?

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Produkt]

Quote: "If you wish to claim that an oridinary man named Jesus lived in that time period as an itinerant preacher, you have to explain how all the mysticism and fantastic aspects of the Bible Jesus came to be grafted to him."


Please allow me to try and answer this with my thoughts on the subject. Now as most of us have come to understand, Christianity is a Blending together of various Judaic beliefs/doctrines/ideas & various Pagan beliefs/doctrines/ideas. It has been stated & shown that there are various types of "ChristianitieS" (i.e. PLURAL) in Existance. Some lean more on the Judaic side of things & some on the Pagan side of things.

Lets start with one side of the equation - could it be possible (& more than likely even) that this Radical figure of Jesus considered himself a Jew, but was also exposed to other (perhaps Eastern) theologies/teachings? That he was unsatisfied with what he saw as a Corrupted Judaism & wanted to Reform it as well as take it to the next level. All this is VERY Political (why he had enemies on both sides of the equation plot to Kill him)! Maintain the Law but also show Love & Compassion? My Kingdom is not of this World? Women are equal to Men? Some people have a hard time with this TODAY - never mind 2000 years ago - the Mainstream Hebrews probably thought that he was from another Planet! Could this be why he is still remembered 2000 years later? Heck, it wasn't what kind of "Messiah" they were expecting at the time - but now it sure looks good from the perspective of looking back in time!

Now for the other side of the equation. Paul/Saul was certainly a Genius in one Particular sense - he knew that if this thing were going to Survive & take off - that he would have to bring the Gentiles into its ranks (& he was CORRECT in that assumption as History shows). Only this wasn't going to be easy - the Gentiles would have resisted to getting Circumcized & other such Judaic Rules & Regulations. So he *COMPROMISED*! The early Church also realized that they would not be able to entirely eliminate the Worship of Pagan gods & Pagans theologies - therefore they Compromised as well & blurred the line to boot (After all wether it was Latin or Greek or whatever - the Priestly Casts were the ONLY ones that knew how to Read & Write back then - the Average peasant was Illiterate - this made it much easier for them to be controlled)!

The title "Christ" then went from its Original Meaning of "Annointed Messiah" to (wait for it) - "Christ our GOD" (or Sun God if you want to throw Astrology in there). In no time flat they were Combining the attributes of Various Pagan gods like Apollo & Hercules & Horus & Seraphis - only now attributing them to "Christ - the Son of God". You know who else turned Water into Wine -> Dionysus!

So there you go - it is very much possible (more than likely even) that as time progressed throughout History - that the MAN Jesus & the Mythological Christ were *CO-JOINED* into a Deified entity known as "Jesus Christ"!

Even when one thinks Jesus did not exist, the man from the bible didn't walk on this earth, for all that which is talked about on him, is YOU.

Therefore not believing he existed, the man named Jesus christ and all the things he has done, is therefore not that big a shame, but denying all things said about Him, is just denying your true self.

So anyhow, one believes in him, even though the person himself denying this, he is in fact a christ, underneath of him, or him being that which he is, a christ is he or is in him.

You were Him, and much more. Do you want to be him, you rebelious satanic beast, still unknown of your wicked actions, trapped in your black whole, acting blasphemous on your fellow men, your behavior not better than that of a jackal. Get out of your shell and become a man.

Originally posted by Iasion
Mara Bor[sic]

Possibly in mid-late 2nd century Mara Bar-Serapion, wrote: "What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished."

It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.

Just curious...where in Jewish History (perhaps I should say The Old Testament.) have Jews executed their own king? That Jesus was a King came more in the form of a comment from Pilate.

The above quote could only have been made by a non-Jew willing to acknowledge Jesus as a Jewish king. There are no other possibilities.

Jesus Never Existed. End of story.

Does that mean Christmas is cancelled?

No Easter eggs for you, stupid boy.



All the best,

Roger Pearse

Here's a previous post that I posted on ATS a few weeks ago.
For those of you who question Jesus' existence:

-Here is a quote from a professor at Manchester University.

"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Ceaser. It is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-myth' theories."
- F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at Manchester University.

-This quote is from a famous Roman Philosipher, who is relied heavily on by historians who need information from the Roman era.

Cornelius Tacitus (born A.D. 52-54):

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for thier enormities. Christus, the founder of the name was put to death by Pontious Pilate, procurator of Juedea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischeif originated, but through the city of Rome also. " Tacitus, Annals XV, 44.

-This is a letter from a famous Jewish war tactician to his friend.

Josephus, a Jew who commanded a force during a Jewish revolt against Rome and who after defeat wrote a history of Israel twice mentions Jesus. Josephus had no reason to be a friend of Jesus, writes this

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising facts and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He was over many Jews and many of the Greeks . He was the Messiah.
When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.
On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him, and he has still to this day not disappeared"

-This is from an enemy of the Christians who himself acknowledged the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Lucian of Samosata

A second century satarist, who spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians. He connected them with the synagogues of Palestine and alluded to Christ as: "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world ... Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that cruicified sophist himself and living under his laws." - The Passing Peregrinus

-In the bible, Jesus is accused of being "The King of the Jews":

A historical artifact in the British Museum has a letter written by Maraben Serapion who wrote about the Jews who executed "their wise king".

-The Encyclopedia Brittanica which has irrefutable information.

"No serious historian would doubt the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. On occasions some have tried but only by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that supports the existence of Jesus. These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries" - Encyclopedia Britannica

I hope that clears a few things up.

There is NO PROOF whatsoever that jesus did or did not exist. That is the only true answer. The fact that he is mentioned in several books does not constitute as evidence for a historical man. There is only one way to prove the existance of a physical jesus is to have bodily remains that can be verified (Which will never ever happen).
Therefore whether jesus did or did not exist doesn't really have any baring on religion or christianity as a whole. It makes no difference to the religious teachings of christianity.


G

quite a bit of this debate would be simpler if we seperate the references to "Nazereth" and "Bethlehem" from the issue of whether or not there was this man.

The reference to Nazereth is, according to all I have read (and that is quite a lot) simply a scribe's mistake and/or the auther of one or more of the gospels in attempting to retrofit OT prophecies to the story. The prophecies state that this messianic character would be a Nazerite - that's a particular sect that was around during the times of the prophecy. It was never a reference to a location.

Same with Bethlehem, more or less. Bethlehem was a reference to a person who was the leader of a Jewish tribe. Again, the reference was never to geography.

These are simply mistakes and they have no bearing on whether there was an historical Jesus. The problems come with people try to claim that "Jesus of Nazereth" who was born in Bethlehem is a real person because you're actually making 2 (or more) claims at the same time and the geographical "place name" references are pretty well proven to be incorrect.

Originally posted by shihulud
There is NO PROOF whatsoever that jesus did or did not exist... The fact that he is mentioned in several books does not constitute as evidence for a historical man.... There is only one way to prove the existance of a physical jesus is to have bodily remains that can be verified

So historical documents from all over the world that state a person clearly exists is not evidence? That's just plain ignorance. Here's a question, do you believe that Julius Caesar existed? We have no body nor any forensic evidence that he once existed (Roman tradition was burning the body to ashes). The only thing that proves Julius Caesar existed was the documents and written evidence, and there is just as much evidence that supports the existence of Julius Caesar as there is Jesus Christ (look at my first quote in my previous post). And by the way, have you ever heard of the "Shroud of Turin"? There's some physical evidence for ya.

The existence of jesus is in many books, not just the bible, Especially the Koran.

And by the way, have you ever heard of the "Shroud of Turin"? There's some physical evidence for ya.

Wooohooo! You've really opened a can of worms in which I am very well-versed. The question for you is: Do you know enough about this issue to discuss it? I'm ready whenever you are. My guess is that you aren't going to like the evidence very much. You won't be able to refute it (unless you are better versed than the Vatican's representatives) so, get ready for a very bumpy ride.

first, begin here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Al Davison]

Originally posted by llfrequencyll
The existence of jesus is in many books, not just the bible, Especially the Koran.

There are lots of Jesuses in those books - which one did you wish to discuss?