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

originally posted by: ParasuvO

And what's more, it is clear that whatever efforts this character made, the effects had absolutely NO IMPACT on the world, since the exact same things in the same percentages carry on, and the people still have no real clue as to ANYTHING of what is going on here, or anywhere else.

Shouldn't the majority of the ATS community's bible critics jump on this comment to star and flag it? That's what I usually see when someone posts something that really takes the cake when it comes to ridiculousness and ignorance (ATS seems to have gotten their slogan wrong, the exact opposite would be more accurate most of the time on this site, pardon my criticism if it's too harsh or rude, truth sometimes is, and I can't resist speaking the truth).

'Jesus having NO IMPACT on the world'...., really sigh Why am I still lurking on this site for that one really clever comment I haven't found in years (except for when reading very old threads and comments)? Perhaps because it's equally hard to find them elsewhere on the internet.

There is superior evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for the other ancient names mentioned here, such as Pontius Pilatus (did you know bible critics denied his existence as well? Until new archeological evidence was discovered, now they're suddenly really quiet about it, just like they are about the Hittites, which even the Encyclopaedia Britannica listed as mythological people/fiction, until they were proven wrong yet again when an archeologist dug up the whole civilization. It happens over and over when it comes to the historical facts mentioned in te bible.

The bible vindicated time and time again by real evidence and observable facts, rather than the empty claims embracing ignorance coming from bible critics pretending to be smart (and honest).

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
Personally, I consider it quite a stretch to compare any form of Catholicism to Christianity.

Christians do not typically worship a display of Christ's dead body hanging from the cross!

We do recognize an empty cross though...Because, "He is Risen"!

Shouldn't you be using an empty tomb then instead? He was taken off the method of execution (Greek: stauros = English: upright stake or pole) because he died. I guess tombs weren't so much in heavy use by the Pagans in their worship as the cross was (and the cross of Tau, cross of Tammuz, etc.), so when the cross was adopted into Christendom through the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and later more obscured with the help of Constantine (to please/lure/comprimise with the Pagans) with his decreed changes to the usage of particular terms/words, they never bothered with tombs, full or empty.

Are you aware that the words translated in most bibles involving the english verb "crucify" are translated from the Latin Vulgate (that would be the Roman language and a translation conducted by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, Jerome was appointed by one of the popes for this job to be exact)? The Greek clearly tells a different story than what the Roman Catholic Hierarchy have been teaching all these centuries which has not been reformed by the reformists who exposed the deceptions of the Roman Catholic Church (around the 16th and 17th century) so the Protestants continued this false story of a cross. 2 Timothy 4:3,4:

"For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories."

[so please try not to turn away from this information, the information I just gave you can be verified through various means, even wiki has some truthful information on it, from wiki under "stauros":]

In Homeric and classical Greek, until the early 4th century BC, stauros meant an upright stake, pole,[5][6] or piece of paling, "on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground."[7]

In the literature of that time, it never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone.[8]

...

In A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to The English and Greek New Testament (1877), hyperdispensationalist E. W. Bullinger, in contrast to other authorities, stated: "The σταυρός" (stauros) was simply an upright pale or stake to which Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified, σταυρόω, merely means to drive stakes. It never means two pieces of wood joining at any angle. Even the Latin word crux means a mere stake. The initial letter Χ, (chi) of Χριστός, (Christ) was anciently used for His name, until it was displaced by the T, the initial letter of the Pagan God Tammuz, about the end of cent. iv."[11]

[take note that wikipedia on that page, and perhaps also Bullinger, makes no note of what Constantine did with the usage of terms like "Crux Simplex", "Crux Immissa" and "Cux Commissa", melding them together and getting people to only say "Crux", the "Crux Simplex" was the single upright stake or pole that was used to execute Jesus with, the "Crux Immissa" is the one displayed and used now, the "Crux Commissa" looks like a T, which is also called the Tau Cross and has been used by those who worship Tammuz and the Fransiscan Order, which is mostly Roman Catholic]

I are fine with the scrolls from the 1st and 2rd century concerning Christ's lack of existence because the early church fathers didn't want a gnostic religion as taught by Jesus so decided to get rid of every link they could to Jesus. Recently a historian did a programme where she traced the instructions from the fathers to the monasteries to destroy every record of gnosticism and christ.

What's interesting is the Nag Hammadi scrolls which we know the catholic church did not get its paws on quickly enough to edit so we have the truth for once, not catholicism which common sense and research about the gnostics tells us is not acquainted with the actual truth that christ taught.

Also there were a number of religious men touring the ME with their views on religion such as Apollonius who was well travelled and educated and taught a similar scripture - so there is always the possibility we don't actually have a fully fledged christ, but a symbollic name. Its the teachings that were important because they were used to unite the two roman empires which were fracturing. Politics, politics and yet more politics for power to the few.

I know there is an obsessive need by people to bash Christianity and all, but this does not prove much? Proving something does not exist by claiming there is no prove it exist?

I can just cringe in thinking how many OTHER historical documentation got destroys, even from these Authors, how can we be sure that all their writings were kept safe.

This is just another case of seeing and believing what you want to believe as this proves nothing.

ETA: As a side note, some of those authors had some really bad ass "screen" names: Maximum Tyrius, Demonax, Martial, Juvenal etc.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
This is just pure BS. It has been going on for ages. Christ was not a mythical character. The evidence telling the many stories of Jesus is more accurate historically, then this scholar's contrived garbage.
If you are biased against Jesus existing, then only choose that which supports your claim, or simply create it. Just like people do here quite often.

You are right, he was NOT a mythical character, not a real character, and was not mentioned as anyone believes in the last hundreds of years to have been a character.

And what's more, it is clear that whatever efforts this character made, the effects had absolutely NO IMPACT on the world, since the exact same things in the same percentages carry on, and the people still have no real clue as to ANYTHING of what is going on here, or anywhere else.

The sheer astonishment I have derived since a small child sitting in church hearing these insane stories has been most amusing, and incredibly damaging, but now, we see why this has gone on , and who is behind all of these lies, those who hide the truth are the same ones who claim they know it!

LOL..
Your tired tirade has nothing whatsoever to back up anything you said. Nada.. Just your faith in the true myth you keep telling yourself. In fact, what you are saying relies far more on just faith alone, than what I stated.

What I said has a known high quality of historical documentary evidence to support it.

Yours has nothing.

If the half of you that still believe this Jesus character did exist spent a little time researching the Roman Empire then you would know there was struggle for at least 2 centuries with Christians and the Polytheistic Pagan type worship the Romans traditionally held as 'state' religion.

Eventually Constantine becomes Emperor, and as he was a Christian, decides a good way to join the two divided peoples together would be to create a 'saviour' for Christianity a.k.a Jesus Christ.

It's a well known fact by most historians that Jesus' image was created at least in part by using Sol Invictus one of the Roman's many deities that was popular at the time. This was done so the Roman populace didn't feel like this Jesus was so different/so bad after all.

Christmas day - Christ Mass/Masse is the so called date of Jesus' birth, yet this is also the day that prior to his name even existing, when people worshiped Sol Invictus.

The historian in this story is digging around for publicity, I know this as any University level History student would know about Constantine and how he converted much of a divided Roman population to Christianity by giving the religion a new figure head.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Now, I am no biblical scholar, but it is my understanding that there is plenty of evidence that is accepted by historians that a man named Jesus did exist, and was crucified by the Romans.

Extra-biblical writers such as Tacitus and Jospehus validated some of the things written in the NT, and I believe the Egyptians even wrote about Jesus.

Now whether or not he was the son of god is irrellevant.

Nonetheless, I find their writings suspect. It is well known that 'the record' was kept straight by writing history that summed things up.

The majority of scholarly efforts indicate the bulk of writings concerning Christ occurred some 40 years post-crucifixion. I don't know if I could write a book about anyone who died 40 years ago.

That said, The Bible is very well worth the read, and I would recommend it to anyone who is obviously as mature as yourself. I have been astonished/floored by my personal experiences with certain aspects of the esoteric and confirm they are amply documented there. YMMV ... but whaddaya got to lose ... some time?

-Cheers

I don't outright disagree with the premise/thesis of this thread, as I acknowledge the obvious TRUTH of the glaring lack of evidence of Jesus' existence, but I want to offer an alternative possibility: It's at least conceivable that someone like Jesus, who really DID have some kind of connection with the unknown or unexplained, could have existed. That's NOT to say said connection, if true, was as described in the Bible or probably even close. The reason for the lack of historical mention COULD very easily be simply because of plain old fear of the unknown and its accompanying ignorance, therefore historical erasure. After Jesus' death (if true), as your basic Big Brother disinformation "artists" always do, a fabrication was created only to serve as a political control mechanism.

Think about it: How much is the unexplained ignored and feared TODAY? How beyond-astronomically EASY is it to create lies about something that practically no one wants to address and learn more about in the first place? True, I admit that this is a theory based on a hunch that's based on personal experience, and I hope I'm wrong.

Op. The Holy Ghost is the proof that Jesus existed and died for our sins. Seek personal relationship with Jesus and when that happens, you will have all the proof you need.
Praise The Lord.

The Enemy of Man took the ideals of Christianity, having been in existence since the beginning, and warped them into multitudes of other faiths,

a reply to: Chronogoblin

No, Christianity took from Mithraism which took from Zoroastrian thinking.
Funny how you say "the ideals" being in existence since the beginning of man. Are there any writings of these unnamed ideals that the Enemy took from the pre-existing yet to be called "CHristian" religion of yours?...

Honestly I think you should re-read what you wrote. It doesnt make sense.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

What I don't understand, is why some non-believers are so concerned about "proving" Jesus didn't exist. What's in it for them?

Because Christians worship the Jealous god jehovah, the deimurge as labeled by the gnostics.

Paul wrote letters to different churches talking about how he was there with them to teach them. He also said that he was with James, "The Brother of Our Lord" (Jesus).

This is one piece of evidence pointing to the existence of Jesus Christ.

Sure, December 25th and Easter goes back to Paganism, but the core of the teachings - telling people to love even their enemies to the point of not resisting evil and turning the other cheek - is unique to The Teachings of Christ.

a reply to: Spider879 Dead sea scrolls is a strong indicator that Emmanuel walked among us!

a reply to: Spider879

For decades I assumed Jesus was a mythical figure because I didn't find historical documentation from that time and because Jesus matches the description of so many other sun gods as described in earlier posts. It made sense to me that there was more myth than history in the story of Jesus.

But in researching and writing books comparing various myths and prophecies I eventually stumbled onto several early references to Jesus (the earliest from 49 A.D. and 64 A.D.) which made me realize that someone (regardless of divinity) fitting the description did exist in first century Judea.

Further contemplation brought me to the conclusion that if God were interested in communicating with us, He (who I assume exists above and beyond our confines of linear time and just three spatial dimensions) would probably make use of some greatly reduced 3D "shadow" of His greater self - why not send part of Himself in human form to communicate with us? It began to seem logical to me that IF God exists and IF He wanted to have a discussion with people that human form would be the best way. (Not that this proves anything about Jesus.)

Further research for my prophecy books made me realize that several Bible prophecies have been fulfilled on specific dates, very accurately. There are usually astronomical clues, and if we don't gloss over and blow past them, we can use them in conjunction with modern astronomical software to see when the skies of the future will match the descriptions in the Bible (and other ancient sources in Egypt, Mexico, etc - but the Bible is full of such descriptions.)

I believe that applying "forensic astronomy" to the Bible proves conclusively that certain specific dates have been pointed out far ahead of time for the fulfillment of prophetic events, some passed, most remaining in the upcoming End Times. If anyone is interested check End Times and 2019 - www.amazon.com...=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Because so much Bible prophecy "checks out" on either actually having happened already or at least having multiple astronomical and other clues pointing to the same specific dates, I eventually stopped my mental gymnastics accepting certain prophetic elements as genuine while denying the existence of Jesus. I think it makes sense for God to send His message in human form and I think there was a historical Jesus that, kicking and screaming so as to not commit intellectual suicide while doing so, I have finally accepted as my Lord and Savior.

I wonder if all the famous gladiators were known empire wide? I don't know of one! Of on a tangent, what about Barabas? did he exist?

‘Perhaps the most bewildering "silent one" is the mythical super-savior himself, Jesus the Son of God ostensibly sent on a suicide mission to save us from the childish notion of "Adam's Transgression" as we learn from Romans,’ he says.‘The Jesus character is a phantom of a wisp of a personage who never wrote anything. So, add one more: 127.’

And he claims even the book of Mark in the Bible, which contains the story of Christ’s resurrection, was doctored later on.

‘The original booklet given the name "Mark" ended at 16:8, later forgers adding the fanciful resurrection tale,’ he says.
‘Millions should have heard of the Jesus "crucifixion" with its astral enchantments: zombie armies and meteorological marvels recorded not by any historian, but only in the dubitable scriptures scribbled decades later by superstitious yokels.’

...from source.

A person really needs to watch folks that talk like this under the flag of a scholarly examination of things. Use terms like "scribbled", "fanciful", "phantom of a wisp", "childish notions", "yokels" ect.

This guy certainly has an ax to grind, suffers from academic snobbery.

originally posted by: VVV88

originally posted by: Tedgoat
Saw a lot of info about Jesus not existing and to be honest it all makes sense. Jesus and God being the Sun I have no problem with.

I watched some videos with Santos Boracci. He's a clever guy and all the Roman books he has read in which he quotes they all say Jesus never existed and he was just made up fictional character to help with the controlling mechanism of Christianity!

But what' the point of saying it? Christians are so deluded by their indoctrinated religion that they will never accept anyone saying their saviour has never existed. It's like saying to a kid that Santa Claus is not real. You'll never get anywhere! All you'll get is crying, screaming and tantrums!

I'm an ex Christian by the way! I know what it was like when I was shoved into Church ever SUNday by my parents.

Actually, you can`t be an ex-Christian if you were never one in the first place. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian.

No True Scotsman fallacy

You don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian. That is a logical fallacy.

You know what is funny in all of this is that people who either hate religion or want it gone from the planet or claim Jesus was fake or Muhammad or any prophet, never look at what was said by these wise men. They just dismiss it, getting away with reading 2000+ year old books, holding knowledge far more useful then E=MC2.

The lessons Jesus taught regardless of his existence are gems and should be followed by all. Many repeat that religion is used to control peoples minds, really? So love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, sharing, compassion, understanding, tolerance, servitude, patience, love are all just control tools, I am sorry to hear that you find these virtues to be only useful when you want to control people. Interesting. I can't believe the level of not looking at the message and PARROTING what others are saying I am seeing here.

Nobody can attack the content because they can't, the content of the holy books is soulful, filled with wisdom, teachings of compassion, patience and good behavior. So if you can't attack the message then they attack the messenger. Shame on you.

Please, before you judge a book by its cover or by what others tell you about the cover, read it. For the love of God.

in the movie 'The Life of Brian'... now he could verify that he was always a step behind Jesus...

now if we could ever dig up/find/discover a text from Brian then the Jesus mystery could be satisified
Where is Brian ?





it is my contention that the person Jesus was a member of the Essenes,
and he volunteered to play the role of a suffering Messiah and fight against the powers of darkness by becoming a Maverick Rabbi,
from the school of the Essene radicals rather than the established2 schools of Rabbi's Pharasees/Saducees

who were thought by the Essene community of radical fundamentalists as being damaged by the Forces of darkness vs. the Forces of Light

which was the Essene community Core reason to exist and whose 'mission' was to produce a Messiah-
to create an Anointed One for the redemption of Judea/Jerusalem which was under the yoke of the Roman Invaders

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VVV88

originally posted by: Tedgoat
Saw a lot of info about Jesus not existing and to be honest it all makes sense. Jesus and God being the Sun I have no problem with.

I watched some videos with Santos Boracci. He's a clever guy and all the Roman books he has read in which he quotes they all say Jesus never existed and he was just made up fictional character to help with the controlling mechanism of Christianity!

But what' the point of saying it? Christians are so deluded by their indoctrinated religion that they will never accept anyone saying their saviour has never existed. It's like saying to a kid that Santa Claus is not real. You'll never get anywhere! All you'll get is crying, screaming and tantrums!

I'm an ex Christian by the way! I know what it was like when I was shoved into Church ever SUNday by my parents.

Actually, you can`t be an ex-Christian if you were never one in the first place. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian.

No True Scotsman fallacy

You don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian. That is a logical fallacy.

no, not the same thing.the prerequisite for being a Christian is, you have to confess with your mouth that Jesus is the son of God and that he was raised from the dead. that is plainly stated in the bible, at least once. Romans 10:5-13

Romans 10 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be [h]disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

if you have not done that, you are not a Christian even if you hang out with some that have on Sunday. if you have not accepted him as your personal savior and confessed with your mouth in front of a witness, you are just someone who says they are.