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

I thought all the information regarding this topic made it clear that Christ is a title, description, of what can be under the circumstances of full actualization.

Even Priests would fight, put to the test, anyone that ever attempted to claim the title. and they created the title.

the resistance would be formidable to the point that no one would ever take the title and hold it.

and in the event the someone did take the title, then they must be in fact the owner of it.

long story short...arguing about such a thing is illogical.

true believers would fight harder than non-believers in disproving the existence of something they created.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Geez, all ya gotta do is ask!

Nazareth –The Town that Theology Built

And, yes, I've been schooled. I've been studying this stuff for over 4 decades!

Kenneth Humphrey, the author in your above link wrote a 500 page book (Jesus Never Existed) to prove what is being discussed in this thread.
500 pages, Really? If Jesus ranks up there with Santa and his elves I would think just a few paragraphs would do.

To me 500 pages shows me this mans insecurities in his decision to not belive, he needed 500 pages to justify his lack of faith.

Why is there so much work to prove Jesus non existence? Are these athiest writers really have our best interest in mind trying to free the "inslaved minds" of the believers, or are they cashing in on people like you who already agree with their conclusions, and will regurgitate anything that is anti Jesus.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Mr Mask

Once you show me the evidence that "an entire field of academia" has solid scientific evidence then I will not be arguing about anything. But I already know that you have nothing to back up this claim, except for a wikipeda page and a few christian websites claimng proven frauds as evidence.

Your free to have all the faith you want, but unless you can supply solid evidence that disputes the claims made in the article in the OP then your claim is nothing more than blind faith. The scientific evidence clearly supports the claim that jesus never existed.

That is the funny part about history. What "solid scientific evidence" is to you, is probably something dynamic, ever shifting with your goal posts.

I find it comical that someone who claims to be on the side of reason can't even admit that a man named Jesus (Yeshua) walked the earth 2000 years ago whom the New Testament was based on. You aren't even expected to believe in the miracles he was said to have performed (as many secular historians do not). Yet here you are, claiming there is no evidence, asking someone to show you where there is evidence for academia being in support of a historical Jesus when it is not only right in front of you in this very thread, it is at your very fingertips.

Confirmation bias. You have it.

a reply to: Observationalist

Kenneth Humphrey, the author in your above link wrote a 500 page book (Jesus Never Existed) to prove what is being discussed in this thread.

How many pages are there in the Bible? How many pages of contradictory and forged evidence is there in the Old and New Testaments to debunk? How many pages does it take to Break the 2000 years of brainwashing done at the end of a sword?

Why is there so much work to prove Jesus non existence? Are these athiest writers really have our best interest in mind trying to free the "inslaved minds" of the believers................

I was raised a Christian and I'm hear to testify, "Christianity doesn't promotes a healthy mind and soul". So.......anything I can do to help...............it's my duty. Your welcome!

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Where is yours? Why do you keep making straw man arguments instead of investigating the claim? Two can play at that game.

I asked for specific sources for a couple of grandiose (and in one instance, obviously unlikely) claims you made. Your response was to divert via an irrelevant and long winded monologue. Obviously you can't supply your poll of historians worldwide and I knew you couldn't (I only used it to point out your claim was an assumption/ hot air), though I still would like to see your sources (as originally requested) for the claims you made re early christians.

If you ask for sources for any similar specific and unlikely claims, I will at least either try to supply them or tell you I have none.

No, many secular historians give an excellent case for why there was most likely a historical Jesus. Your bias is shining brightly here.

"In your opinion". This isn't like science where we can check the maths.

Wrong again. Take my challenge and review the evidence for yourself. Refute the evidence that has been put forward in this thread, for instance. Instead of doing what everyone else who shares your opinion has done thus far in this thread, why don't you prove to us why historians are wrong? Why don't you tackle the issues? Your first retort is that I have used an appeal to authority and then you offer up a red herring?

The fact that I disagree doesn't mean I haven't reviewed anything. What are we talking here...Josephus? Tacitus? Specify your claim and we'll go from there.

You will need to further clarify your point here. Because there are many historians who give credence to a historical Jesus. Yet again you are muddying the waters much like many mythicists do, by adding the caveat that he must specifically be the Jesus of the gospels (i.e the miracle working son of god) instead of addressing the issue of a historical Jesus.

There are also quite a few who double as clergy and who believe the magic, wholeheartedly. Which would be like a physicist with a starting point that a magical race of fairies is responsible for gravity. Unlikely to be objective.

When the object of your study forms the core of a pre existing belief in magic…that you also base your version of reality on…and when it would cause a massive personal crisis to cast doubt on it…it is unlikely to be studied objectively (which is what has happened historically and largely still happening).

Is that so? Perhaps you could point them out to me? I have pointed out secular scholars who support the idea of a historical Jesus.

Historically this area of "scholarship" was the sole domain of the church and clergy. It is still largely that way today (particularly in the 1st world's last fundamentalist religious state - the US) where believers are trained (ie. brainwashed) in Christian institutions and often still double as clergymen. That's a bit like expecting practicing Scientologists, trained at the Hubbard school of dianetics, to be objective about their belief. Unlikely.

Have a look where many of the following "professors" were trained, where relevant and how many double as clergy. Seems quite a few. The area of "biblical studies/history" is not only rife with delusionals who have formed the majority of this area of "academia" (the entirety of this area historically...the dissenters were put on the rack) and always has been, regardless of whether secular historians also participate.

That some secular scholars (Earman lol) think there was probably a real jesus doesn't by default mean they are right.

theologydegreesonline.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Thats not quite true either, is it? Christians themselves were tortured enmasse. Thats a fact too, isn't it? A fact you've conveniently glossed over, and now we're right back to your emotional appeals, as opposed to talking about whether or not a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago whom the NT was based on....

The claimed persecution by the Romans is a myth. This is not an unpopular conclusion even amongst historians. A very useful myth for the church. At it's core, this type of us/them persecution mentality/complex is a psychological ploy very common to brainwashing cults in general.

Candida Moss, a Professor at Notre Dame University and practicing Catholic, has written a book that tackles the “myth of martyrdom in the Christian faith.”

Sunday school tales of early Christians being rounded up at their secret catacomb meetings and thrown to the lions by evil Romans are mere fairy tales, Moss writes in a new book

www.miskeptics.org...

Now perhaps you could demonstrate that the crusades, the inquisition, the persecution of people like Galileo never happened? Could you show that, historically, the church was tolerant of those claiming the whole thing was a fairy tale?

Gee, I wonder why? Maybe you should investigate that fact? Or perhaps you could investigate the history of the issue so that you would be educated on the subject? If you had, you'd know that Christ mythicism is not new, and was actually the prevailing theory among secular academics until advances in both archaeology and ancient texts pretty much put it to bed?

Lol. Do you live in a bubble? Of course Christ as myth is not a new position. Can you give a reliable source to show when it has ever been the "accepted view"? Could you also point out some of this "archeology" that supports jesus as a real person?

No, it's really not. Secular people who are capable of separating their emotions from their desire to investigate history are still just as interested in Jesus and the rise of early Christianity today as they were 50 years ago. I know you wish religion would die, but this question has nothing to do at all with the religion you hate, does it?

Yes, it really is.

There is no possibility of doing anything other than "assuming" jesus existed, for obvious reasons. I really couldn't give a rats whether another 1st century rabbi existed. The truth is, nothing directly supports this notion and there is plenty that is overlooked (not just in the historical sense) that makes the story an obvious myth.

There are also very good reasons (to do with sociology, the study of myths, anthropology etc.) why John Frum was probably based on a real person and why jesus wasn't. In fact, jesus would be about the only one that follows this myth pattern that is regarded as historically real by many people at all (though many...Romulus etc were considered real by the faithful, at one stage). When I get some spare time I'll further explain it.

We might spend some time looking at what is left when we remove the miracles and begin to dissect the "historicity" part. Remove everything that is impossible (miracles) and then remove what is not only completely implausible in any historical sense, but also entirely unsupported ...is there anything left?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Mr Mask

Once you show me the evidence that "an entire field of academia" has solid scientific evidence then I will not be arguing about anything. But I already know that you have nothing to back up this claim, except for a wikipeda page and a few christian websites claimng proven frauds as evidence.

Your free to have all the faith you want, but unless you can supply solid evidence that disputes the claims made in the article in the OP then your claim is nothing more than blind faith. The scientific evidence clearly supports the claim that jesus never existed.

That wiki page has over 300 references to works of study and academic research. The Wikipage you so easily wave off has much information telling you were you can become educated on why ALMOST ALL historians think Jesus was real.

And you are here saying that "The Church" is destroying careers of nameless researchers and historians that prove Jesus wasn't real and that's why we don't hear about them.

That is bonkers and baseless. The Church has no influence or control over science. The Church is not this powerful boogie man you think it is. In fact, its a joke to most people in academic circles.

And there is more evidence for Jesus than there was of Caesar's existence.

Don't ask me to link you to hundreds of historic accounts on a forum. Go find them yourself (star with that wikipage you laughed at...it will help educate you). And please...stop saying "The Church" is secretly controlling then flow of history. That is just silly and no longer possible.

Its clear your hate for religion has driven you to accepting nonsense like "The Church controls science". That sorta makes you as silly as all those religious people telling others that invisible people are watching and controlling the human race.

Thanks for your time.

MM

originally posted by: Mr Mask

ALMOST ALL historians think Jesus was real.
MM

Where can I see this claim backed up...genuinely? Where are the numbers...how many historians consulted...from which countries...the specifics of the survey/poll etc..?

originally posted by: Mr Mask

And there is more evidence for Jesus than there was of Caesar's existence.

MM

This can only be the result of a failed education system. The genuine advocates of "historicity" are done no favours by this type of nonsense (as much as I disagree with their view, I feel sorry for them when reading stuff like this).

Where can I find jesus own writings? Archeology? Coins such as this one struck in 44bc by Caesar himself celebrating his 4th appointment as dictator? Or some of these?

Caesar, however, was the first Roman to put his portrait on Roman coins during his lifetime. Generally regarded for their nominal value, coins also carried a message about economics and political power that was easily read by all, even the illiterate.

History simply can't be reconciled without Julius Caesar as a real person, it simply doesn't work. Removing jesus makes about as much difference to genuine history as removing Krishna, Romulus or Osiris (ie. none). In fact, it makes more sense.

There are things that historians discount regarding Caesar (and other historical figures) for good reason. When you place the jesus claims under the same scrutiny, there is nothing left. It is consistent with mythology.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Mr Mask

And there is more evidence for Jesus than there was of Caesar's existence.

MM

This can only be the result of a failed education system. The genuine advocates of "historicity" are done no favours by this type of nonsense (as much as I disagree with their view, I feel sorry for them when reading stuff like this).

Actually, no it was a mistype at a sleepy hour. I meant to say Alexander the Great. But thank you for saying I was uneducated or badly so.

Anyways...mind explaining to me why your educated self seems unaware that almost all historians think its very likely Jesus existed? Mind telling me why your educated self is unaware of that simple fact?

While you are at it smart guy...mind telling me why you can't find evidence of that when it is easy to find and a well known to anyone even attending the first two years of modern high school??

Thanks.

MM

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Mr Mask

ALMOST ALL historians think Jesus was real.
MM

Where can I see this claim backed up...genuinely? Where are the numbers...how many historians consulted...from which countries...the specifics of the survey/poll etc..?

You don't need numbers to learn this basic fact.

You need a high school education. Or google.

Do you have either? They can help you get up to speed on this issue.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

Well, if I'm just to stupid to find this undeniable credible evidence you talk about, then why not just provide a link and prove to me how ignorant I am from not being able to find it myself? lol.

Since so far the only kind of evidence you've really provided is your pure blind faith.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Mr Mask

Well, if I'm just to stupid to find this undeniable credible evidence you talk about, then why not just provide a link and prove to me how ignorant I am from not being able to find it myself? lol.

Since so far the only kind of evidence you've really provided is your pure blind faith.

That right there is the problem with you "new atheists". You assume anyone who says something that doesn't outright spit on every single Christian thing is a theist.

Just as you are wrong about the conclusions of almost all modern historians- you are also wrong about my faith.

I do not think there is a God.

Silly man.

The majority of all historians think it is likely that Jesus was a real living man. End of story.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

Jesus was a common name in the 1st century. Josephus mentions over a dozen Jesuses. So yeah, a real Jesus did exist. But Jesus Christ? That's whole 'nother story, isn't it?

a reply to: Mr Mask

So I'm just supposed to take your word for it simply because you claim "everybody says so"?

I seem to be having a bad case of deja vu of my christain upbringing for some odd reason.

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Mr Mask

ALMOST ALL historians think Jesus was real.
MM

Where can I see this claim backed up...genuinely? Where are the numbers...how many historians consulted...from which countries...the specifics of the survey/poll etc..?

You don't need numbers to learn this basic fact.

You need a high school education. Or google.

Do you have either? They can help you get up to speed on this issue.

MM

= full of hot air?

a reply to: Spider879

There was a real person who came as the real emissary of the Light or world beyond our prison grid. He made it through intact and retained his memory. He didn't care what his name was because that wasn't important but imparted Keys and truths to us to help us break out of the prison. He was the genuine example of a human who reached supreme activated Being and managed to like Neo break through the matrix that binds us.

He was very real but his name wasn't Jesus. The Archontic/reptilian powers hijacked this man's teachings because they were powerful indeed and designed to aid us through all the ages. They took his words and changed them even to incorporate their tools of control which were largely religion and politics.

They gave him the name of a god and created a story to lure people far and wide.....made him into a bloody sacrifice which appeased the parasites that feed from that and our devouring of his flesh. It was perfectly designed to accomplish an even deeper level of imprisonment and invasion. It was a masterpiece strategy which effectively destroyed the original true message given by this true emissary that had escaped the grid. It obscured the real keys so as to escape our grasp and keep us forever in the dark worshiping hideous gods that are nothing but usurpers in this corner of the universe.

The real emissary with the keys never cared about religion, names, ego or power and nor did he come to create a 'religion' out of sacrifice and blood. In fact he stood for everything that was the opposite of what 'they' did to him and with his message. Everything he came equipped with was stolen and manipulated to serve the underworld and to imprison us inside the falsehoods of entrapment in guilt, blood, sin, shame and hell. There was no likeness in the end to the original message that this real being came here with to give us but if you look closely you will see still some keys remain for even 'they' couldn't destroy everything.

Mr. Mask is right, the majority of scholars do believe Jesus Christ was a historical figure. Where there is much disagreement is when it comes down to the theological claims made about him. e.g. virgin birth, the Son of God, the miracles, the resurrection, etc. Don't take my word (or his) for it. Go do the research yourself. Find out why scholars believe he was a historical person. If you still disagree, then fine. So you have a differing opinion on it. Personally I'm going to trust the scholars (especially the secular ones) on this one since I'm not in a position to go reading through tons of old manuscripts etc.

Just want to add that it's funny to see this back and forth that has gone on between people and MM. Usually it's the creationists and the inerrant Bible types ignoring scholarly consensus. I'm seriously waiting for Rod Sterling to show up.

ETA: My position is subject to change as I explore the reasons scholars believe Christ existed. Shame on me for not digging deeper before posting the comment "I'm going to trust the scholars", and making the silly joke above, if I find their evidence for JC to be on un-solid ground. The comment below is what gave me the kick in the pants to do what I told other people to do! "Go do the research yourself." Kind of embarrassing but I don't care, I will just be more scrutinizing with what I say next time and do my homework.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
For the most part I view this area of scholarship as quasi academia. So infested with religious believers that it is largely biased and belief based pseudo scholarship.
...
Not to mention the negative effects of centuries of enforced Christianity that still linger. It should never be the default that jesus existed until proven otherwise (it's difficult to prove a negative). This itself is massively biased. It should be the very opposite, as there simply is nothing convincing to indicate that.

I remember hearing that Martin Luther said it was acceptable to lie, if the lie was for Christ. And I have no doubt that he would be the first to do so. So while scholars believe Christ existed, their evidence could be bunk anyway.

Well regardless of anyone's view on science or religion our notion of time is dictated by an event that was important enough to warrant its beginning in the year zero. For 2000 years we have used BC and AD to dictate historical events.

originally posted by: Mr Mask
Actually, no it was a mistype at a sleepy hour. I meant to say Alexander the Great. But thank you for saying I was uneducated or badly so.

You could be forgiven if this wasn't equally as ridiculous, but you aren't because it is. There is an enormous amount of genuine historical info on Alexander the Great sourced from 1st hand contemporaries (such as his own generals) as well still extant mention from others. Not to mention a wealth of archeology, contemporary inscriptions and contemporary coins.

Anyways...mind explaining to me why your educated self seems unaware that almost all historians think its very likely Jesus existed? Mind telling me why your educated self is unaware of that simple fact?

For the most part I view this area of scholarship as quasi academia. So infested with religious believers that it is largely biased and belief based pseudo scholarship. It is to history, what creationism is to science. Not all of it, obviously, but it seems overwhelmingly so in this particular area. It is like saying that almost all of these historians are devout Christians and that almost all believe jesus was a real person, as if it would be a surprise or that it means anything.

Not to mention the negative effects of centuries of enforced Christianity that still linger. It should never be the default that jesus existed until proven otherwise (it's difficult to prove a negative). This itself is massively biased. It should be the very opposite, as there simply is nothing convincing to indicate that.

While you are at it smart guy...mind telling me why you can't find evidence of that when it is easy to find and a well known to anyone even attending the first two years of modern high school??

Thanks.

MM

Would you mind telling why you constantly make grandiose assertions and refuse to back them up with anything (apart from using even more empty assertions)?

a reply to: Maxpower0001

Well regardless of anyone's view on science or religion our notion of time is dictated by an event that was important enough to warrant its beginning in the year zero. For 2000 years we have used BC and AD to dictate historical events.

Nope. Different JC.

1. The original goal of the Gregorian calendar was to change the date of Easter. In 1582, when Pope Gregory XIII introduced his Gregorian calendar, Europe adhered to the Julian calendar, first implemented by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C. Since the Roman emperor’s system miscalculated the length of the solar year by 11 minutes, the calendar had since fallen out of sync with the seasons. This concerned Gregory because it meant that Easter, traditionally observed on March 21, fell further away from the spring equinox with each passing year.
www.history.com...

As far as the use of AD, BC and BCE

This dating system was devised in 525, but was not widely used until after 800.
en.wikipedia.org...