Exposing the tragic fabrication of a saviour of the world

Okay, folks, I had NEVER EVER heard of this guy....
and I did an ATS Search for him....the last one was seven years ago.....the member checked out in 2009....

I realize that s/he got zero stars and only a handful of responses...expecting more traffic. And that was reasonable. I think that despite the "then" respondents who said it had been "done numerous times", it deserves to be brought up again. This fella, Kenneth Humphreys, has kept his website updated past the OP cited above....

and.
AND....
until I came across it, I was still "no, I believe he existed, and had a great message"....but now, thanks to ATS members' links....and quiet study....
I'm beginning to doubt that he existed at all.

I would like to open a dialogue about this man's theories...his dozens of sources....his view of things.

Maybe it has been done before, but those members are gone or dormant now, and artistpoet has mentioned it recently. In my opinion, it needs to be revisited.

Do you really think it all began with a sanctimonious Jewish wonder-worker, strolling about 1st century Palestine? Prepare to be enlightened.

Jesus – The Imaginary Friend

Christianity was the ultimate product of religious syncretism in the ancient world. Its emergence owed nothing to a holy carpenter. There were many Jesuses but the fable was a cultural construct.

The nativity yarn is a concatenation of nonsense. The genealogies of Jesus, both Matthew's version and Luke's, are pious fiction. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs.

With multiple authors behind the original gospel story it is no surprise that the figure of "Jesus" is a mess of contradictions. Yet the story is so thinly drawn that being a "good Christian" might mean almost anything.

The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin, that idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses. The pagan world knew all about virgins getting pregnant by randy gods: The Mythical "Virgin Mother".

Welcome to Enlightenment

Perhaps the member 7 years ago should have "camouflaged" his/her link. But, folks, this is really pertinent stuff. Those of you who pay attention to the random stuff I say on these boards know that I had opinions....and now, I totally feel like (due to the Enlightenment of those others on ATS) I knew even less than I thought I knew!!

I would like to reopen this dialogue re Kenneth Humphreys' website. I think he makes very good sense.
Cheers, all...
wild

reply to post by wildtimes

Christianity was the ultimate product of religious syncretism in the ancient world. Its emergence owed nothing to a holy carpenter. There were many Jesuses but the fable was a cultural construct. The nativity yarn is a concatenation of nonsense. The genealogies of Jesus, both Matthew's version and Luke's, are pious fiction. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs. With multiple authors behind the original gospel story it is no surprise that the figure of "Jesus" is a mess of contradictions. Yet the story is so thinly drawn that being a "good Christian" might mean almost anything. The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin, that idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses. The pagan world knew all about virgins getting pregnant by randy gods: The Mythical "Virgin Mother".

The above is, of course, based on one person's interpretation/opinion of the Christian gospels and other various in-paths to the story of Jesus Christ. This person is entitled to their opinion... they have a right (in my opinion) to spread their own version of that aforementioned gospel.

Moreover, it is currently trendy in a cultural sense to slam Christianity. One must expect this kind of thing.


Cheers.

Thats a jumbled website.

It looks like hes saying some things from Archaya S and Gerald Massey. If this topic interests you, you should search for some of Archaya's work.

reply to post by redoubt

The above is, of course, based on one person's interpretation/opinion of the Christian gospels and other various in-paths to the story of Jesus Christ.

Well, it seems to me to be based on extensive study, and includes 200 years' worth of authors questioning the authenticity of the Gospel accounts. It' not just "his interpretation".....and I feel that his numerous sources (to which page on his site I can direct you) indicate he's done his homework. And his sources make sense to me....a "spiritual seeker."

I am not herein dismissing or condoning his work...like I said, I would like to reopen the dialogue that he shows very well is pertinent and timely.

Perhaps this person did exist. I think he may very well have, but unfortunately the historical ( read hysterical) documents have been so blown out of proportion with who Jesua Ben Joseph was that now he's a mythical figure. This man was supposedly from Nazereth, but that place didn't exist for another few hundred years after his death. He was a Nazarine, which ment he was a person learned and trained in medical assistance to the poor. Nazerines didn't cut their hair, didn't wear clothes with stitches. They knew the arts of healing and more from the ancient ways of Egypt and other places, and practiced their work for no money. They did it because it needed to be done. He tended to the wounds of the soul as well as the body, and mended broken dreams with words of wisdom and hope. His personality was quiet, I'm sure. Someone who has avowed themselves to such a selfless task wouldn't be a glory hound. He saw things that were wrong, and called them out, namely priests who were growing fat on the suffering of their flocks. He would be considered a tree hugging hippy, a socialist, a heretic today because he isn't what the so called holy church made him out to be. Here in Texas, we have tall tales. There in Jerusalem, they call it Christianity. Yes, Virginia, there is a Jesus. But the person he was was slain by his own followers to make a more rockstar, kickbutt, miracle slinging supergod to overawe and overwhelm the ignorant masses. The real deal was far better.
I turned my back on the religion as I learned what a farce it was. I don't think that this is what Jesua had in mind when his fan club started. If he knew what atrocities have been done in his name, how everybody is made to feel like a pariah if they don't join along in the popular kids' cult, he'd not only puke, he'd probably slap the crap out of everyone who does it.

reply to post by KidOK

search for some of Archaya's work.

I have seen and looked at her work. I have used her as a source for some of my threads here....
but this guy has oodles of sources that seem to me to be legit.

So, I'm hoping to reopen a dialogue about his findings.

The OP is correct.

Chistianity was created because it was conveinient, and its creators built it on much older religons, mainly paganism...just look at the Catholic Church and Constantine for an example.

I watched an awesome documantary the once that showed you how everything in Chritianity stemmed from all religions, the basic idea, the symbology, locations, you name it, they stole it.

I think you've just inspired me to create a thread to show how these religions came to be, and how closely related to older religions they are.

It really is one huge scam.

I have read some of this mans claims, but as of yet, I haven't had time to vet any of them. Or go through his whole site. But it looks interesting.
I'm already in the middle of trying to vet another book. "The true authorship of the new testament" by Abelard Reuchlin.

Both sides of this issue have plenty of "facts" until you start running some of them down. Then they both fall short. However, I must give the edge at this point to the heathens.

There's too much history and evidence, IMO, that points to one of the greatest stories ever told. (Pun intended)

reply to post by volafox

They knew the arts of healing and more from the ancient ways of Egypt and other places, and practiced their work for no money. They did it because it needed to be done. He tended to the wounds of the soul as well as the body, and mended broken dreams with words of wisdom and hope. His personality was quiet, I'm sure. Someone who has avowed themselves to such a selfless task wouldn't be a glory hound. He saw things that were wrong, and called them out, namely priests who were growing fat on the suffering of their flocks. He would be considered a tree hugging hippy, a socialist, a heretic today because he isn't what the so called holy church made him out to be.

This is the point, totally. I believe(d) that he survived the crucifixion, was an Essene (knowledgeable about the Eastern mysticism tenets), and his friends and 'family' of followers helped out with his recovery. I believe(d) that he existed, that his lessons were important, and they (nothing more than the Golden Rule) were spread via whoever spread them.

Nevertheless, my faith that he did exist has been shaken, and as a critically thinking individual soul, I would like to discuss the subject. Cool?

Originally posted by Sinny
The OP is correct.

Chistianity was created because it was conveinient, and its creators built it on much older religons, mainly paganism...just look at the Catholic Church and Constantine for an example.

I watched an awesome documantary the once that showed you how everything in Chritianity stemmed from all religions, the basic idea, the symbology, locations, you name it, they stole it.

I think you've just inspired me to create a thread to show how these religions came to be, and how closely related to older religions they are.

It really is one huge scam.

-Christianity

+All religions

----

Somewhere down the line I'm sure there is are actual source stories that it all stemmed from, but it could of been bedtime stories for all we know.

Way cool, my dear. Way cool.

reply to post by wildtimes


It's history... plain and simple and since none of us were there in the flesh, interpretations... our personal interpretations and the opinions formed from them, is all we have.

What I find unfortunate is that there are those who use these opinions to attack and deride the beliefs of complete strangers. We see the same behavior from those who not only disbelieve in UFOs and other paranormal subject matter, but who them also attack those who do believe. The character assassinations go on year after year for no good purpose. It is not enough that people can just disagree... there must be this horrible cloud of negativity cast upon their opposites.

Speaking for myself, I generally avoid any author or speaker who steps beyond offering their opinion and their evidence and casts stones upon entire masses of total strangers based on nothing more than a belief or a faith.

It just seems like such a waste of the human experience.

reply to post by Sinny

Chistianity was created because it was conveinient, and its creators built it on much older religons, mainly paganism...just look at the Catholic Church and Constantine for an example.

Thanks, Sinny. I agree with you....
I had long ago thrown out my "upbringing" in the "Church of England" and have studied Wicca, Buddhism, the Urantia Book....and several other doctrines....
but I had still maintained that the guy DID exist. Now, I'm wondering.....
there is SO MUCH to learn, and SO LITTLE TIME!

reply to post by wildtimes

Wildtimes, if you want to take a look at the book I'm going through, which also calls into question the existence of Jesus, among others, you can dowload it here free

Thanks for reminding me of this site. S&F.

reply to post by Klassified


Thanks!
Yeah, I saw that download when autowrench posted it....
very interesting. I think, Klassified, that you would enjoy this guy's website. It had me mesmerized for hours today...I had no idea how many scholars and historians had covered this subject before.

Hence, I'd like to discuss its merits and flaws!

reply to post by cavtrooper7

Will all muslims kindly note christians aren't cutting this person's head off.

Do who in the what now??
I'm only asking for dialogue....

reply to post by wildtimes

What pagan goddess was a virgin ... lots of people say it but there is no such thing.

reply to post by troubleshooter

What pagan goddess was a virgin ... lots of people say it but there is no such thing.

I agree with you....like I said...studied Wicca....believe in the Goddess...and I believe the pagan religions had just as much truth as the "Christians" do (if not more...way more).....

There is no such thing.as virgins giving birth (unless we want to go with Ancient Aliens, which I have totally NOT dismissed)....but...
yeah....
of course, over my lifetime I've realized that I don't know jack.....which is why I keep looking!.......
the more I learn, the more I realize I DON'T KNOW....!!!
Right?? You know what I'm saying?

reply to post by wildtimes


The is a Christian historian by the name of Kamal Salibi whos scholarship I have respect for. You may find some of his books interesting, even though he is a Christian. here is one called "Who Was Jesus: Conspiracy in Jerusalem" " books.google.com... _A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nG-oT6HyLYix6QH8h5CZBA&ved=0CG8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Kamal%20Salibi%20historical%20jesus&f=false

He wrote many books, this particular one I have not read, so I am offering a blind recommendation based on my knowledge of his scholarship and accuracy in other works. But I highly recommend you read all the books by him you can, as they are all very interesting to say the least.