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

Jesus is precisely how He pronounced it, just as it is was prophesied and written in the New Testament which is obviously exceptionally accurate

And then EHYEH is a revelation of the Covenant God. So that these point to the fullness of the revelation of the GREAT name of Yehshas or Jesus as Creator God, the Blessing God, the Covenant God, and lastly the Saving God. Hence we have here that as the tabernacle and all the symbols and rituals of the Old Testament were TYPES and SHADOWS to be fulfilled and brought to their climax and completion with Christ and the New Testament Church WITH THE REAL, so all the temporary and substitute names and titles of God were only types and shadows of the REAL name of God revealed in Jesus Christ. So that the name of Jesus or Yehshas is not derived from any name of God, but visa versa, they were all derived from and point to Jesus Christ from which they all have their type.

It is a falsehood for anyone to claim the letter “J” and its sound did not exist until the 16th century. Many of our letter sounds come down to us from the Egyptian and Phoenician languages. These are the two root sources of ancient Paleo Hebrew, Greek, and other languages.

The letter "J" arguments against the name Jesus have no weight or validity as the Egyptian language had a "J" sound and image and Paleo Hebrew descends via this language and its Phoenician root.

It is only reasonable then to see that the Paleo-Hebrew "G" and the "I" also carried the same characteristics. Moses used the Egyptian "Je" as in "Jelly" giving the letter "I" the "Jod" or "G - J"

A compound name derived from "Jeh" a contraction of Ehjeh (Exodus 3:14: I AM) joined with "yesha" the Hebrew word salvation (Jeh-yesha); shortened to Jehsha(s) adding the "s" for syntax. Hence Jehsha(s) is transliterated Jesus.

Moses was the first to make a compound name from Ehjeh and Oshea forming Jeh-Oshea or as in the KJV Jehoshua (see Numbers 13:16).

By connecting I AM the meaning of Ehjeh with SALVATION the meaning of yesha, we draw near understanding what the name Jesus means.

Scholars differ on the meaning of Ehjeh asher Ehjeh in Exodus 3:14. It is generally accepted to mean I AM that I AM. Ehjeh was the God of deliverance for the Israelites from Egypt. The name Jesus derived from Ehjeh ( I AM) plus that of Yesha (salvation) reveals the God of the burning bush as DELIVERER but now who has appeared to bring SALVATION (See Matthew 1:23). The meaning of Jesus' name is captured in the words of Gabriel: "thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Jesus is a correct and accurate rendering of the Hebrew Jeh-yesha and the associated names Jeh-oshea, Jehoshua, and JehShua(s). The Iesous spelling in Greek is a Jewish name not a Greek name. On the cross the name Jesus was written in Hebrew as Iehshas, in Greek as Iesous, in Latin as Iesus. The Iesous spelling is found in the 280BC Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (In Greek there is no "sh" sound so the "h" is omitted)...www.benabraham.com...

a reply to: soaringhawk

these are all historical writings written not years and years after Jesus.

Sorry - did you say these are writings "NOT" written years and years after Jesus?
If so - sorry again, but - yes, they are,

Wow. I've been rather scarce here lately - but it still blows me away how members are so convinced by hearsay, ancient texts rewritten innumerable times, and Preacher-speak. How many are so entirely unwilling to listen to research and modern findings!

What are you so afraid of??
It is what it is. It was what it was. Don't you want to know?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Wouldnt in stand to reason that those writings would be the only thing available for skeptics to read though? I mean its not like the internet was around then. I imagine information didnt travel very far and wide in regards to his teachings and what he supposedly meant for the world at the time, and therefore you wouldnt find any contemporary writings until after his death.

Its pretty illogical to base the existence of this man off of whether or not someone else wrote about him. I mean information just wasnt shared back then like it is today, shoot, there was even a 'class' of people that were scribes and scholars because the average man had to focus on work.

Yeah, the OP's whole basis is pretty much meaningless now that I really think about it. It would be like someone saying I didnt exist because my friends and people that knew me didnt write anything about me while i lived. Only so many people back then even had the knowledge to write, let alone to afford the materials, to have witnessed the events, AND to have had a desire to write about them.

Let us also not forget about all of the LOST scrolls, I mean the Library at Alexandria was FULL of historic texts that were lost to time and surely many more writings have been lost with the same fate.

a reply to: phishfriar47

Let us also not forget about all of the LOST scrolls, I mean the Library at Alexandria was FULL of historic texts that were lost to time

Mm hmmm. And by WHOSE ORDERS were they destroyed (and therefore "lost")?

To think that everyone back then was an illiterate dimwit is simply wrong. History is written by the victors.
There WERE historians; people who recorded current events.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Wow, YOU are making assumptions. I just based my thoughts off of published science and facts. Can you show me where there werent people with the specific job of scribes and scholars, usually of the 'rich' class? Can you show me where knowledge was as widespread then as it is now? Can you show me how information was EASILY exchanged back then, when few people could read and write? Can you produce FACTS to back up your claims, and can you see how I made ZERO assumptions, only you did that?

I didnt write that everyone was dumb, you did that.

Also, explain to me the significance of 'them' burning the Library at Alexandria. Many volumes of writing were lost across ALL sections of teachings, so even if their intent was to destroy hidden religious texts, we were also set back in almost every other area of learning from that incident.

Another thing, I am not defending religion, or the existence of Christ. What I am saying is the OP's argument is invalid due to the whole crutch it is based off of.

The OP in no uncertain terms clearly states that Jesus Christ did not exist due to 146 scholarly texts not including him anywhere. What I am saying is maybe the one scribe who witnessed Jesus, just didnt feel like writing about it that day. Or that maybe 50 scrolls, all about Jesus, accidentally got washed away, burnt up, or just dry rotted through time, i dont know? But I do know the premise of the original argument is bunk when they wont even consider the accepted writings of men who did claim to walk with Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Simon, Peter, Paul, Judas, etc. Thats quite a bit of people who walked with him daily, and several of them DID write books or scrolls that talked about Jesus. The logical INfallacy that their word isnt good enough because they were the 'first' christians is bunk.

a reply to: phishfriar47

Can you show me how information was EASILY exchanged back then, when few people could read and write? Can you produce FACTS to back up your claims, and can you see how I made ZERO assumptions, only you did that?

That area of the world/Middle East was a MAJOR trading route. Tribes and statesmen from all over the place met up, and they discussed things. Oral tradition. Grape-vine. Telephone game.

The FACTS are that none of the contemporaries during that time wrote anything about this wandering, barefooted rabbi. If he was that important, they would have written about it.

I suggest you do lots and lots of more research to find those FACTS.

You DID make assumptions. Like windword, I have studied this stuff for decades, and have not closed my mind to the probabilities of 'written' information being both destroyed (shredded, if you will) by those in charge, but also MANUFACTURED (made up, if you will) back then. And since then.

The things that were "hidden" were the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi finds - why do you suppose those were hidden in remote caves, in urns, and no one found them for 1900 years? Why/how could that happen?

Anyway, have a great weekend.

a reply to: phishfriar47

But I do know the premise of the original argument is bunk when they wont even consider the accepted writings of men who did claim to walk with Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Simon, Peter, Paul, Judas, etc.

The thing is, NONE of those people "walked with Jesus." Those Gospels are compiled under names of people that are fictitious. The more compelling texts are the Gospels of Phillip and Thomas, for example.

But it's well established that the authorship of the big 4 (M, M, L, J) were NOT written by people who actually knew him. And the names under which they're written are fraudulent.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I found your post pretty ironic (maybe even a bit funny). I have read research and modern findings... That is precisely why I have drawn the conclusions I have, because research and modern findings side with the idea that Jesus was a historical figure, not with the quacks trying to sell books.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

phishfriar47 said:
But I do know the premise of the original argument is bunk when they wont even consider the accepted writings of men who did claim to walk with Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Simon, Peter, Paul, Judas, etc. Thats quite a bit of people who walked with him daily, and several of them DID write books or scrolls that talked about Jesus.

So, your research has led you to the conclusion that the "Gospels" were written by people who knew Jesus, personally? All of them or some of them? Which ones?

a reply to: windword

You replied to me, but quoted phishfriar47... Who is your question directed at?

To summarize my position, the Gospels were written by people in direct contact with Jesus apostles. Paul is a particularly good example, as he states quite clearly that he met Peter personally, and many of the things he talks about in a number of his epistles were later confirmed to be fact by historians and archaeologists (thus lending some credibility to Paul's personal testimony).

Of the Synoptic gospels, it is widely believed by scholars that Matthew and Luke both sourced parts of their material from Mark, which means Mark was probably writing partly based on eyewitness testimony, and possibly based on other, earlier manuscripts and documents.

So no, the Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, were not written by people who had necessarily met Jesus, but were more than likely written by people who had contact with Jesus disciples/apostles. Paul however, almost certainly DID have contact with Peter, and this is not generally disputed.

Why this should remain a valid criticism of the historical value of the Gospels is beyond me, when we have people who even today write autobiographies about real individuals, using second hand accounts from those who knew the individual in question.

phishfriar47 has also already pointed out a very obvious flaw in the "contemporary writings" argument, but that too is nothing new, and has already been pointed out multiple times much earlier in this thread, with a lack of rebuttals.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

phishfriar47 said, and you agreed, that the premise of this thread is entirely invalidated, because the testimony of all these biblical people (people indicated in the quote I cited), people that phishfriar47 claimed actually "walked with Jesus" is being ignored.

This isn't true. No one knows who wrote the The Gospels, they're ALL anonymous, and date well after the fall the Jerusalem in 70AD.

Paul NEVER met Jesus and specifically made the claim that EVERYTHING he preached and taught about "Christ" was received through revelation directly from "Christ". All Christianity that comes through Paul concerns a celestial Christ.

a reply to: windword

a Celestial Christ that didn't teach what Jesus did while he was alive...

to be clear

a reply to: windword

phishfriar47 said, and you agreed, that the premise of this thread is entirely invalidated, because the testimony of all these biblical people (people indicated in the quote I cited), people that phishfriar47 claimed actually "walked with Jesus" is being ignored.

And I still agree. Much of the New Testament is based on eyewitness testimony. Nothing has changed about that, and the burden of proof is on mythicists to prove otherwise. So far, they have failed to do that to any convincing degree, or the bulk of historians would be siding with them.

This isn't true. No one knows who wrote the The Gospels, they're ALL anonymous, and date well after the fall the Jerusalem in 70AD.

This statement is only partially true. Nobody knows who wrote the original gospels, yes. Even our earliest documents we've found suggest they are manuscripts, and not the original first ever written accounts of Jesus. However, stating that any documentation of Jesus occurred after the fall of Jerusalem is erroneous, as Paul's earliest writings can safely be dated to between 50 and 60 AD, and he clearly indicates that not only did he meet Peter and James (Jesus brother, also mentioned by Josephus), but it's clear from his writings that there were already Christian communities at that time (prior to the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans).

Paul NEVER met Jesus and specifically made the claim that EVERYTHING he preached and taught about "Christ" was received through revelation directly from "Christ". All Christianity that comes through Paul concerns a celestial Christ.

Again, this isn't entirely accurate. Paul never states that he met Jesus personally, but he does not specifically make the claim that everything he taught about Jesus was from "revelation". His initial mystical encounter on the road to Damascus certainly changed his views, and was not a flesh and blood encounter, but he clearly states that he meets with Peter and James, and often refers to being in contact with them, as well as with other church elders to make sure his teaching is in line with those who DID meet Jesus.

We can infer from Paul's earliest writings (which coincidentally are also thought to be the most authentic letters attributed to him) a number of things:

1) Christianity existed as early as 50 AD

2) Paul met 2 of the individuals who the other gospels report were direct apostles of Jesus

3) Jews were already involved in the active persecution of local Christians (yet never seem to deny the man existed, which would probably be the first thing they would do if it were so obvious he was invented)

4) Paul was actively involved in said persecution, and found his own spiritual experience as well as the testimony of those he once persecuted convincing enough to not only convert to Christianity, but ultimately die for it. This would seem to be a strange thing to do if he had not actually met others who had personally witnessed Jesus, especially considering the short time span between Jesus crucifixion and Paul's earliest letters (a mere 20 years).

a reply to: DeadSeraph

And I still agree. Much of the New Testament is based on eyewitness testimony. Nothing has changed about that, and the burden of proof is on mythicists to prove otherwise.

Pish Posh!



ETA: Just for the myth of it!

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars?
Justin Martyr

a reply to: windword

Why are you using this video as a rebuttal when A) Bart Ehrman believes in a historical Jesus, and B) I've already clearly stated that I don't believe the 4 gospels were written by eyewitnesses themselves? What I stated was that they were based on eyewitness testimony.

However, There are a few things Ehrman brings up that are pure speculation, which I'd like to point out anyways:

1) He argues that the gospels were entirely based on oral tradition. There is no evidence for this. The Gospels could just as easily be based on earlier written manuscripts that haven't been found. For instance, The Q Document. There are good reasons to believe this is the case, but it's not something that armchair historians with an axe to grind against Christianity are aware of. The reason this is significant is because it would actually push the authorship of the gospels back a number or years, more than likely to the period of Paul's earliest writings.

2) He argues that the gospels were not based on eyewitness testimony in one place, and then admits that they all agree on 8 key facts of eyewitness testimony. So which is it? Ehrman seems to get his wires crossed here, as he makes the claim the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses (something almost every secular scholar agrees with), but then ignores the fact the earliest authors most likely MET eyewitnesses.

3) Ehrman goes on to criticize the value of eyewitness testimony, which is fine. This however, does nothing to bolster the case of mythicists, as diverse accounts from witnesses of an event or individual lend credence to the idea the event or individual occurred. The purely doctored account that mythicists claim would not have these inconsistencies, as the author would have written it as he or she intended, and wouldn't produce multiple manuscripts with conflicting reports. Further, why does he feel the need to contest the reliability of eyewitness testimony if there were no eyewitnesses? On what then, does Ehrman base his beliefs in a historical Jesus? A link provided earlier by yours truly explains his views more clearly.

So please, Since you are defending the mythicist position, explain to me how an individual who is extremely vocal about his criticisms of mythicism constitutes proof of the mythicist position?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You were the one back slapping and high fiving the ignorance of the poster who's whole argument was based around the fact that, he thought, Paul, Simon, Matthew Mark Luke and John were personal friends of Jesus, when there is no such evidence, outside the Bible. The Bible doesn't prove the Bible.

Bart Ehrman's diatribe about the factual unreliability of the Gospels, and the Epistles was posted in order to put an end to that argument.

How in the world are you imagining an intellectually honest debate, introducing the Q Document, when most posters believe like phishfriar47, that Mark, Matthew, John, Luke, Simon and Paul were the authors AND the eyewitnesses who wrote the Gospels?

And, talk about hucksters peddling intellectual dishonesty to sell a book!

In his latest book, Did Jesus Exist?, Bart Ehrman demonstrates a degree of intellectual and academic dishonesty I cannot remember ever encountering before outside of religious propaganda.

Mr. Ehrman would have us believe, in short, that Jesus was not, as the Gospels describe him, the virgin-born miracle-working son of YHWH who raised the dead and himself rose from death to fly into the sky accompanied by angels — but, on the other hand, that the Gospels are reliable sources that tell us, in his words, that “Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pliate was the governor of Judea.” And he bases his claims on his own unevidenced reconstructions of multiple generations of sources he has declared that the Gospels were based upon.

Yes, you read that right. According to Mr. Ehrman, the Gospels got 99 44/100% of the facts worng about Jesus, but Mr. Ehrman is uniquely qualified to identify exactly the 0.56% that they got right, and that that’s enough to absolutely conclude that “Jesus did exist, whether we like it or not.”

...................

For quite some time, it’s been obvious that the Gospel writers were shameless plagiarists. There are extended passages directly lifted, word-for-word, from each other. However, the copying isn’t exactly linear, and some scholars have performed analyses that have suggested that it’s more plausible that they were instead copying from an older source today referred to as “Q.” Mr. Ehrman uses Q as evidence for an historical Jesus, even though nobody can even say for certain that it even ever existed. Worse, Mr. Ehrman notes that the Gospels and presumably Q were all written in Greek, but his Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. Yet, since there are a couple token words of Aramaic here and there in the Gospels, that means, to Mr. Ehrman, that there must be an entire lineage of written and oral traditions over the years, morphing from Aramaic into Greek, and he cites all of those as historical evidence for his Jesus. And, as if even that wasn’t enough, he has the unmitigated gall to claim that at least one of these phantasms constitutes an actual eyewiness source.

The chutzpah Mr. Ehrman displays with this fabrication is astounding. This is academic dishonesty on the grandest possible scale.

Ehrman's Folly

a reply to: windword

You were the one back slapping and high fiving the ignorance of the poster who's whole argument was based around the fact that, he thought, Paul, Simon, Matthew Mark Luke and John were personal friends of Jesus, when there is no such evidence, outside the Bible.

Please. I already addressed this issue above. If you could kindly point out where I engaged in any back slapping or high fiving, I would like to see it. Did you read anything I wrote when I clarified my position? It doesn't seem like you did...

Bart Ehrman's diatribe about the factual unreliability of the Gospels, and the Epistles was posted in order to put an end to that argument.

Let's just remember this quote, for the sake of other readers that might be watching this exchange.

How in the world are you imagining an intellectually honest debate, introducing the Q Document, when most posters believe like phishfriar47, that Mark, Matthew, John, Luke, Simon and Paul were the authors AND the eyewitnesses who wrote the Gospels?

Where did I state that the authors of these texts were eyewitnesses? I clearly stated above that some of them wrote based on their interactions with eyewitnesses, and provided you with an excellent example in the form of Paul, who met Peter and James.

And, talk about hucksters peddling intellectual dishonesty to sell a book!

This is gold. So Ehrman is reliable when he calls the eyewitness testimony of those who were witness to Jesus miracles into question, but he's a "huckster" when he criticizes mythicists?

Intellectual honesty, indeed.

I will be unsubscribing from this thread. I feel I have thoroughly proven to any rational reader why there is a good case for a historical Jesus and that you have thoroughly proven of your own accord, why mythicists tend to suffer a touch of "intellectual dishonesty".

If you would like to continue the debate with someone else (as I'm sure you will), be my guest. They might be under the illusion you are capable of either learning something new or adding anything relevant to the discussion. I however, am under no such illusion.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

If you could kindly point out where I engaged in any back slapping or high fiving, I would like to see it.

phishfriar47said:
Im just curious, and I may be wrong here, but werent the words of Mattew, Mark, Luke, and John written personally by people that knew jesus? Where are their actual writings, and why werent they included in this 'research'?

I mean their stories are supposedly their telling of when they met and followed Jesus. So whats the deal with that?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your answer: (emphasis bolded, mine)

You are correct. The author cited in the OP discards this fact however (as do all mythicists), because said authors and witnesses were the first Christians, therefore it is assumed their testimony is unreliable.

It seems to me that you'll encourage the premises that agree with your view, even if the reasoning comes from a fallacious place, because the ends justify the means.

I feel I have thoroughly proven to any rational reader why there is a good case for a historical Jesus and that you have thoroughly proven of your own accord, why mythicists tend to suffer a touch of "intellectual dishonesty".

You haven't proven a darn thing. When all else fails, throw rotten tomatoes and sour grapes!

a reply to: DeadSeraph

What I stated was that they were based on eyewitness testimony.

Which makes it all "hearsay" - and 'selected hearsay' at that. I could claim that I was there at some event, and tell people about it, and they might right a blog about "this person said this is what happened" - and make a big splash....

There is NO evidence that it was actually true events being told. Big-Fish stories.