It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4).
Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.
Josephus knows nothing of Christians
It was the around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to investigate the sects among the Jews. According to the gospel fable this was the period of explosive growth for the Christian faith: " the churches ... throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria ... were edified... and ... were multiplied." – Acts 9:31.
This is also the time of the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" when supposedly Paul regaled the brothers with tales of "miracles and wonders" among the gentiles (Acts 15.12).
And yet Josephus knows nothing of all this:
"When I was sixteen years old, I decided to get experience with the various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said many times, the first, that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Saduccees, the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all. Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the three groups." – Life, 2.
Josephus elsewhere does record a "fourth sect of Jewish philosophy" and reports that it was a "mad distemper" agitating the entire country. But it has nothing to do with Christianity and its superstar:
"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.
They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord ...
And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy." – Antiquities 18.23.
Jesus of Nazareth' supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity the first century of the Christian era yet not a single non-Christian source mentions the miracle worker from the sky.
All references including the notorious insertions in Josephus, stem from partisan Christian sources (and Josephus himself, much argued over, was not even born until after the supposed crucifixion). The horrendous truth is that the Christian Jesus was manufactured from plundered sources, re-purposed for the needs of the early Church.
It is not with a human being that the Jesus myth begins. Christ is not a deified man but a humanised god who happened to be given the name Yeshu. Those real Jesuses, those that lived and died within normal human parameters, may have left stories and legends behind, later cannibalised by Christian scribes as source material for their own hero, but it is not with any flesh and blood rebel/rabbi/wonder-worker that the story begins. Rather, its genesis is in theology itself.
The name Jesus is actually a 16th century creation.
'Whether Jesus ever actually existed has long been debated. The argument (very well documented) is that there is absolutely no corroborating evidence of his existence in documents other than highly suspect Christian sources.'
Many elements of the 'Passion' make no sense historically.
But of course if the 'Passion' were really a pageant of a re-born sun-god it makes perfect sense that the 'sacrificed' actor be taken off-stage, subsequently reappearing in a later act, 'reborn'…
Certainly, Jesus Christ never existed.
Then no other persons of antiquity existed either. Because the same data used for persons of antiquity is the same that is used for Jesus.
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.
Jesus, in a way, was a founder of a religious movement. He founded, through his apostles, the sect of the Nazarenes within Judaism. The sect did not last more than four centuries. It was another religion, Christianity, which claimed him not only as its founder but also as God incarnate. It was something the historical Jesus would have probably been shocked to hear, as we can vouched from the reaction of the Nazarenes to it. The sect he founded dwindled and disappeared form the face of the earth. One man, Paul, took his name and expounded his own theology that developed the heretical doctrine which was called Christianity. The historian Hugh Schonfield summarized the situation thus:
It is to the Nazarene records that we ought chiefly to look for our knowledge of Jesus, and we must regard Nazarenism as the true Christianity. As the Nazarenes throughout the period of personal recollection and down to the third generation, that is to say at least seventy five years after the death of Jesus, denied his deity and his virgin birth, we must recognize that these are alien doctrines subsequently introduced by a partly paganized Church, as Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century more or less admits. The Church which received them had no other course open than to belittle the Nazarenes and denounce them as heretics. The historian here has no difficulty in detecting the real heretics..
And do you expect to see any proof of your existence in a few hundred years?
There is more historical evidence for the Bible than any other ancient literature.
They knew about Jesus being born to a virgin because Jesus was sinless.
I'll ignore the 'pun', but again -- the birth circumstances and maternal conception would be CONSISTENT if there were any truth to it. AND, where was he during his youth? Hmmm? Just picking his nose for almost 20 years?
There is nothing wrong with them not writing down the nativity scene. They didn't write down if Jesus was picking his nose. Don't be so picky.
It's not a tale. It is fact. Jesus was sinless, born of a virgin.
Died and was buried
.. and rose from the grave according to the scriptures which includes prophesy of Him.
It is logical and rational.
It's because Jesus, probably didn't exist outside of religious doctrine.
At the very least his origins were completely fabricated and nobody can argue this. Just look at the 12 or more identical stories regarding 'gods and saviors' that come much better the time of Jesus.
Because he don't exist. Some old fool made up a convincing story, so now everyone believes it to be true. He's a myth.
Considering the amount of tampering that must have occurred to the christian bible
I don't really care about the person
I don't really care about the person, I care about Jesus' message, and it was and is beautiful and profound, one path to enlightenment/salvation. Idol worship serves no one. Whether or not he lived the message ascribed to him is one to me that makes sense and seems to be the best way to live your life, but this of course is just my own opinion.
Worshiping Jesus, praying towards a cross IS idol worship
I'll have a go at Demolishing the historicity of Jesus:
The obvious answer is obvious. Jesus never existed outside of the bible. It speaks volumes of our species' intelligence and progress that people still vehemently believe in religious figures without any solid evidence of their existence.
What is even more telling is our acceptance of a deity that is a bumbling, jealous, wrathful, maniacal murderer who created hell for most of us.
I am just a nonbeliever and when I see these people preaching, collecting money, passionately. I just almost, think their crazy.. I just don't understand. (meaning no disrespect) I can hardly believe it. I equate it to believing in Santa Clause. I have tried, really hard to believe. I just don't think I have/Had it in me ever.
No there is not. Evidence and reference are two distinct things. How many references there are to Hercules even portraits and statues (even more contemporaneous) that doesn't signify he was a real person