jesus never existed

Has anyone seen this site? I thought it to be very interesting.
jesus never existed

I am a man of faith, so I am not convinced. I will say that I usually am more sympathetic and open-minded when I read something that was written to appeal to the intellect. As in a bad poker player, the author of this site displays a number of 'tells' that make me question not only the premise but the motives.

"Christian Godman"
"The Jew Story"

These headlines are offensive, designed to be offensive, and detract from the weakness of many of the arguments. It is easier to rouse anger or sympathy than to present a reational, reasoned argument. Invective is the lowest form of self-expression, and arguments that toss out provocative buzzwords is often the hallmark of a limited intellect or a weak argument.

I question the strengths of the arguments postulated as well. This site is little more than a Christian hate site that has warehoused a lot of tired old aphorisms and tried to tyie them together into a gestalt. The site tosses the word syncretic around quite a bit. Well, it seems to be doing this as well.

Where in the name of reason do we see any evidence that early Christians saw Christ as a sky/Sun god? Similiarities - or attempts to link similiarities to mystery cults like Sol Invictus and Mithraism are another tired old saw. I saw a lot of this and that being tossed around as 'proven facts' - examples lie on a page dealing with orthodoxy and the legitimacy of Paul's letters - but no proof.

A scholarly work may have detractors but at least provides the evidence from a number of sources that the reader can evaluate. The authors of this site are doing what they accuse religion of doing - trying to fleece the gullible and ignorant into buying into their 'anti-faith'.

I do wonder who is behind this very slick, polished, and comprehensive propaganda campaign. That's the REAL conspiracy......

Im with you..... This site doesn't cut it for me

Most xians and many others believe the Judeo/Christian Bible to be the word of "God." In truth, nearly everything within the bible was stolen from other religions that predated Judeo/Christianity by hundreds to thousands of years. The god "Yaweh/Jehova's" name was inserted, replacing the names of many other Gods. "Jehova" is fictitious. The name "Jehova" was stolen from the Roman God "Jove."

THE CREATION/GENISIS:
The Enuma Elish predated the bible by a minimum of 1,000 years and is presumed to be much older. The tablets are now in the British Museum.

The Atrahasis Story predates the biblical Genisis account by over 1,000 years or more.

Both of these creation accounts predate Christianity and the Judeo/Christian Bible by centuries. Both reveal there were "GODS" not "One God."

Genisis Chapter 1, verse 26 reads: "And God said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness...."

THE FLOOD
The Flood Story from Gilgamesh predates the Christian account by well over 1,000 years or more.

THE TOWER OF BABEL
The Bible claims that "Yaweh" confused the languages of the people's constructing the Tower of Babel. This is not so. AGAIN, the Christian Bible screws up and evidence of more than one God is plain to see:
Genesis Chapter 11; verse 7:
"Let us go down and there confound their language that they may not understand one another's speech. AGAIN, more than one God is involved.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
The Old Testament laws and the Ten Commandments were stolen from:
The Code of Hammurabi

And The List Goes On. . . .

As we can see from the above, this religion is based upon stolen material that has been twisted, warped and distorted to manipulate, confuse and incite fear into humanity. CONTROL

[edit on 25-3-2007 by Mr.Giggles]

I dont know either way. It was a site that i came across while surfing around. I didnt know where to post it really, for i know nothing really about the bible. just thought some folks would find interesting, if anything a nice debate.

Im going to have to shy away from controversy here. And, although I am Christian and have faith, I'd rather not be grouped into the "mindless" follower based on my ego among other things. Therefore, merely from a scholastic viewpoint this idea has merit...... I believe the problem we are encountering here is to what degree and the quality of what has been offered.
I personally require more than has been given to blindly throw my faith (which has been earned by the way by various miracles in my own life) away given upon a few different perspective objections and unprovable circumstances. To be honest I think it is great that people are challenging the staus quo.
My personal viewpoint is not of importance here. But if I may give it: I am not changing my views based upon this. However I am impressed by the post! Good Post, And, Good job finding it, Keep it up!

I dont necissarly agree with the website, just thought it to be a diff spin on things. I dont normally look twice with anything to do with religion. either side of it. this just kinda caught my attention so i figure'd good enough to post. thx for stopping by.

Xians believe the Nazarene to be perfect, a peaceful, loving, healing and understanding being. Most are too lazy to read the facts. The bible may be the most purchased book, but it is the least read.

What happened to honor thy father and mother? Here, the nazarene is placing himself above the family members of his followers, indicating pride and extreme arrogance:

Matthew 10: 37
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. This is also the sin of ENVY- he is so jealous of anyone who might share their love for another.

The nazarene calls other human beings "dogs" and "swine," indicating they are way beneath him:

Matthew 7: 6
6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

The nazarene is forever condeming, insulting and threatening others:

Matt. 23:33
33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

Mark 3: 5
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, "Stretch forth thine hand."

Mark 9: 19
19 “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me.”

The nazarene makes it plain he comes to bring war on earth and conflict, hatred and enmity among family members; breaking up the family unit and home:

Matthew 10: 34-36
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

The nazarene preached celibacy for his followers, but being the hypocrite that he is, he did not apply these teachings to himself. Both men and women put out sexual favors for him as did others in the way of food, shelter and other needs.

Luke 8:1-3
1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

There are deleted passages in the gospel of Mark. The nazarene had intercourse with one of his disciples while the others slept in the garden before his crucifixion.

The nazarene advocated and encouraged MURDER for selfish reasons:

Luke 19: 27
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

The nazarene not only ADVOCATED SLAVERY, but encouraged and condoned the abuse of slaves:

Luke 12: 47
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

He was one of the worst hypocrites that ever lived.

Matthew 5: 19
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Why would it be a problem if he never existed?
Would it mean man is cut off from God and redemption?
or would we just have to realign our ideas about God and salvation in general?

Faith has its virtues, but if God really intended man to be saved from Damnation, would he really allow his message to be victim to such conjecture and uncertainity?

Im thinking if an all loving God was that concerend about our salvation, then he would have made his message ,and the keys to it, crystal clear and beyond doubt, and not place it in the hands of falliable humans........

Prayer groups and such put forth psychic energy. Christians are told to "have faith." Having faith is necessary for any spell or directed working of the mind to succeed. This is not any "miracle" but only the power of the mind.

The Christian is warned never to ask any questions, as this represents “a lack of faith” and is a “sin.” Christians are taught not to think, only to “have faith.” He/she is a sitting duck just waiting to be manipulated by those who possess occult knowledge and power.

Greetings,

Yah,
that's not a particularly great site.

Here is a much better one arguing for a mythical Jesus:
home.ca.inter.net...


Iasion

Don't forget to review past discussions here such as the following thread:

Did Jesus Exist?

The nazarene? hmmmmph. Even place names deserve a capitization. Isn't that 'title' from some big-budget, low-brow movie? If it isn't, it should be - some big, tatooed, hulking leather-clad fiend snarling 'nazarene' with menance.....

Now onto some serious apologetics. Many people own bibles, few read them, fewer read them with critical inquiry, reflection, and discernment. Mores the pity.

Matthew 10:37 - This is a challenge to the Disciples. Christ is telling them that they will have to choose the hardest road. Crucifixion, persecution, or martyrdom was to be the fate of many early Christians. In fact, in Matthew 10:16, He is telling them that He is sending them out 'like sheep before the wolves.'Those who chose to follow Christ would have to love His ministry, His message, and us all more than they loved their own family. It goes without saying that most people would sacrifice themselves for family. How many would do so for strangers? That requires a love deeper and more profound. As Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah, He is asking the disciples to love not Him personally but the mission. Envy? One could read it this way. One could also read it to mean that Christ called upon the disciples to serve in a way that few are called. The sacrifices and discipline (as in disciples, see?) that He called for would result in great rewards. Any father would be very critical of the man who would marry his daughter - he would expect this man to be worthy. People in positions of trust and authority are called to a higher standard then most - the worth issue again. Damned inconvenient, isn't it? Christ is calling on people to eschew their families. He is calling on those who would serve Him in difficult times to put the love of Christ - the love of God - before all other loves. As Christianity teaches that in loving God, we love all...but then I hope we have the picture.


In this same chapter, Christ is telling his disciples that in doing His work, the disciples would find themselves in the center of turmoil and upheaval. If one were to read the Bible CAREFULLY, one would see that Christ taught in parables - he often illustrated greater themes using language more understood. The American Civil War was not always a war of 'brother against brother' - but the allusion is made because we were a nation at war with itself - get it? One family fighting amongst itself. Indeed, the message of Christ was a source of trouble. His works advocated change. Change always pits those who embrace the old against those who embrace the new. Christ is warning the disciples that in accepting their charge to go forth and preach in Christ's name they were risking alienating everything that they had known before, that the structures they had taken for granted their entire lives could be swept away.

Again, staying related - Matthew 10:34-36. Allusion? Look it up if unclear. As alluded before, Christ is warning those who are about to take a limited commision of ministry that they will not be well-received. Christ's mission is one of change -sweeping change.

Matthew 7:6. The dog was considered an unclean animal in Jewish tradition; Christ - in His typical parable-based teaching style - was an allusion to the scoffers, the critical, the unbelievers, those who would react as dogs do when threatened...they snarl, bristle, snap, and growl. Pealrs before swine - again an unclean beast - is an allusion to throwing something of value before those who would not accept it. The pearls are 'pearls of truth' if you will. Who among us would advocate continuing to instruct those who refuse to learn, to listen to reason? Christ is saying to the disciples that it is our job to teach, to preach, and to offer help BUT that there is a time to use common sense and not waste our efforts needlessly.

Matt. 23:33. Christ directed this to the Pharisees. He was indeed upset with them. They were the learned, the ones who should have understood the chain of prophesy that was realized in the life of Christ. he was warning them that their venom, their invective against the Gospel was turning their face from God. The pharisees were endangering themselves and poisoning those who would blindly follow tradition over the Gospel could never hope to achieve salvation.

Mark 3:5 - left something important out? Context much?
1 And he entered again into the synagogue, and there was a man there who had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him whether he would heal on the sabbath days; that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand: Stand up in the midst. 4 And he saith to them: Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy? But they held their peace. 5 And looking round about on them with anger, being grieved for the blindness of their hearts, he saith to the man: Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his hand was restored unto him. (Douay-Rheims bible)

Sure Christ was angry. He had a man suffering and asked if blind tradition should be the only reason to keep from doing good. There were enemies waiting to see if He would 'violate' the Sabbath by healing a man who - once healed - would be whole of body and able to support himself. This is a bad thing?

Mark 9: 19. Once again, Christ is chastising the disciples for lack of faith. Parents, teachers, coaches say similiar things to their charges who consistently fail at a task that they should have mastered. Doesn't mean that they aren't loved. Later, Christ actually uses a child to attempt to tell them that faith is as simple as a child's love - total, unwavering, absolute and perfect. Many of the disciples had tried to cast the demon out of the boy - they failed because the put their faith in power and not in faith.

Luke 8:1-3 - substance is MONEY! Sheesh. mind in the gutter much?

Luke 19: 27. Thsoe whom receive great gifts are expected to do great things. Those who spurn what is offered will receive the fruits of that choice. Those who do not love Christ - that is to accept the Gospel - will be one day brought before Him in judgement. In - like - Heaven, y'know? Enemies of the Good News are those who refuse to turn their face towards God. As we all have free will, we choose to love or not love God. If we choose the latter, Christ - having offered us the gift of the Gospel - will judge us on the merits of our choice.

The rest in the next post - ran out of space.......

A few last exercises in exegesis - thanks to those who are still reading.

Luke 12: 47. Again a parable. Slavery was - and according to the news - still is a fact of life. In Christ's time, it was universally acceptable. Some translations use the term 'servant', but that really doesn't matter. This is an example of applying contemporary values and prejudices out of historical context - an argument for another missal. Christ is talking about those who are not prepared - do not work to live according to the Good News - will find themselves called to a harsh awakening when called before their 'master' - one could use the word 'judge' and not be incorrect. The discussion on the meaning of this parable as a metaphor for the Second Coming has gone on for quite some time - and likely will until the Second Coming....

Matthew 5: 19. This is the sermon on the Mount - the Beatitudes. The commandments given in the Beatitudes are compassionate and gentle in the extreme. All Christ is saying is that those who live by them will receive the greater reward for their service. In a well-run business, those who work harder get bigger raises, don't they? Is there anything hypocritical in that?

I find the remark about the sexual interlude with a disciple in the garden to be crass, unmerited, and without merit.


I have no problem with those who question the existence of Christ - that's your choice. God believes in you even if you don't believe in Him. I don't have a problem in discussing this topic candidly, respectfully, and cordially with those who are in turn respectful and cordial. I have little use or tolerance for those who scavenger hunt the bible, take a snippet here and there, quote it all out of context and call it 'proof'.

I used the term exegesis earlier. This is a process of critically evaluating the bible, of 'drawing out' meaning. This is something that takes patience, focused reading, and extensive reflection. It also really requires context. One can't easily take a phrase or two and hope to draw out anything significant. The homily or sermon is an exercise whereby the priest or minister 'breaks open' the bible reading for the congregation. The Homilist - or at least a good one - will not dwell on a phrase - he or she will build meaning of the whole from each verse. Just like a building is made of many bricks, a strong understanding - for or against Christianity - requires the construction of an argument that uses many 'bricks' to make their case strong.

The thread is 'Did Christ Exist'. I apologize if I spent quite a bit of space - and your time, if you are still reading - on something that is off the thread. I do believe that Mr. Giggle's post deserved a reasoned response.

As to the charge that Christians are compelled to be automatons, nothing could be further from the truth. Christianity - like many religions - encourages the acquistion of knowledge. Some of the greatest thinkers, philosophers, and writers were Christians. I am a Roman Catholic. My religious tradition embraces intellectuals such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. CS Lewis, a 20th century writer and devout Catholic is another great example. If you saw or read the Chronicles of Narnia, you were reading literature in the Roman Catholic intellectual literary tradition.
Christians are like anyone else. Some are smart, some are not. Some are educated, some are ignorant. To have the audacity to say that every Christian is mindless is as ludicrious as saying every person of Arabic descent is a member of the Taliban or Islamic Jihad. That's pretty outrageous, no?

Thanks all - God bless you all.

In response to the site, I really don't see how people can think like this, they would believe there is such a thing as an E.T. (not saying there isn't, just an example), then they come around and say Jesus never existed. Jesus existed but the problem we are seeing is that people have huge difficulties believing in something that happened a couple 1000 years ago. There is enough evidence for people to hunt through if they would just drop the act and "look". Before I would believe in it I needed to see it for myself. As claim to Jesus' existence, He caused a big enough stir in Israel for an army of Jewish high priests and pharisees to want Him beaten, put down and then after He went through agony, murdered. If people would go through so much to kill a single man, why think He never existed? I've never really understood why, when faced with enough evidence, people would even deny His existence, people that run that site and other things I have noticed have so many flaws, aside from looking at it once, I wouldn't bother with it in any way. If anyone could explain or link me to an explanation as to why people think in this way, please do tell me, it would be appreciated.

Greetings,

Originally posted by XS
As claim to Jesus' existence, He caused a big enough stir in Israel for an army of Jewish high priests and pharisees to want Him beaten, put down and then after He went through agony, murdered. If people would go through so much to kill a single man, why think He never existed?

No they didn't.
The Jewish records show no notice of Jesus until centuries later.
You are simply repeating the stories IN the bible as if they prove the stories in the bible are true - circular reasoning.

The actual historical Jewish comments about Jesus include :
* he was a black magician
* he was a bastard son of a Roman soldier
* he was conceived during menstruation
* he was stoned to death in Lydda.

Do you think those Jewish "records" of Jesus are accurate?

No historican or writer of the period recorded Jesus at all (e.g. Philo, Justus, Seneca and more.)

The alleged "evidence" for Jesus is all late and/or corrupt or not about Jesus at all.

Originally posted by XSIf anyone could explain or link me to an explanation as to why people think in this way, please do tell me, it would be appreciated.

Well,
I gave a link above doing just that -
Did you read it?
home.ca.inter.net...

That explains the Jesus myth theory very well.


Iasion

Iasion, how could a widespread belief spring up about a man over a short period of time after his alleged death if he never even existed in the first place?

Greetings,

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Iasion, how could a widespread belief spring up about a man over a short period of time after his alleged death if he never even existed in the first place?

Firstly - here is a modern example :
William Tell - almost every Swiss person believes he existed.
So do many others.
But the facts are clear - he did not exist.
How could people come to believe it?
People often believe false things, especially if it supports their ideas.

Anyway -
A century and a half is NOT a "short time"
The Gospel stories were still growing until late 2nd century and afterwards.

The argument about whether Jesus was a phantom or not lasted for over a CENTURY - not a short time at all.

And - this was a period which covered much upheaval, which I keep pointing out, and readers keep ignoring - this period saw :
* two wars with the Romans
* Jerusalem razed
* the Temple destroyed
* the Jews dispersed or killed
etc.

There were no records or people left - who could disprove anything

Consider our own times :
how many myths do we have from the US civil war? Such as Molly Pitcher - a MYTH who some people now claim was real - exactly the same sort of thing.


Let me quote from the other post :

Paul made that rare journey and came back with an idea - in each of us we have an image, a reflection, a spark, or piece of God - our soul, which gives us life - it's an offshoot of God, the son-of-God.

Paul called it IESOUS CHRISTOS.

This soul, an actual part of the immortal divine is said to DIE our life, It (Iesous) is crucified on the cross of physical matter - nailed to our body by the passions, as Plato said. This soul (Iesous) is freed at our death, it lives again - it is RAISED.

I don't think Paul for one moment even HEARD of the concept of a person Jesus of Nazareth.
He was talking a different language.

(Read Paul as if you had never read the Gospels - Jesus of Nazareth cannot be found - except for a tiny handful of controversial snippets, nothing definite in Paul. The creed - inserted; born of woman - WHICH woman? in Paul the woman is the heavenly church; all the so-called historical references are as weak as water; and Paul never quotes Jesus explicitly and directly, never mentions the trial, the triumphal entry)

LATER,
a nother Great Visionary mind, one of the great writers of that age, crafted a grand new book.
He crafted several threads together -
* the characters in Paul
* the mileiu and figures and dramas of the Old Testament
* the key spiritual themes of the day (the son-of-god)
* themes from literature (e.g. the empty tomb scene)
* Homer (of course)
into a book about a magnificent new hero, a new hero for his times, the human he wanted to be, the person that all persons could aspire to.

He called him Iesus Christos

LATER still, after
* TWO wars lost to the Roman juggernaut
* which erased Judea from the map
* and razed Jerusalem - till it was knee high, some say
* and totally destroyed the Temple and it's records
* and foreably dispersed the Jews from Jerusalem
* that's the few Jews who were left alive
we start to see other people liked the Jesus book so much, they COPIED it - soon, there were a dozen or more Gospels, with a handful of main favourites.

LATER
we start to see a few people (from Jewish circles mostly) claim
"Jesus, oh yes he was real"
(a Jewish hero set in the Jewish world, set just before the Jews lost everything - no surprise there.)

Meanwhile elsewhere, all sorts of other Jews Christians are developing all sorts of other beliefs -
* black magician Jesus
* supernatural Jesus
* phantom Jesus
* illusion Jesus
* magic mushroom Jesus

Finally,
CENTURIES later after many huge arguments, some consensus develops, a strong leadership takes charge, they get the stories straight, eject anyone who rejects the new story, and of course burn the books of their opponents.


It all took a LONG time.

Not a short time at all.


Iasion

"Read Paul as if you had never read the Gospels - Jesus of Nazareth cannot be found - except for a tiny handful of controversial snippets, nothing definite in Paul. The creed - inserted; born of woman - WHICH woman? in Paul the woman is the heavenly church; all the so-called historical references are as weak as water; and Paul never quotes Jesus explicitly and directly, never mentions the trial, the triumphal entry"

I would like you to demonstrate why you believe that Paul thought the mother of Christ was the heavenly church. Also, have you considered the possibility that Paul spent little or no time on the details of Jesus' earthly life because he considered them mundane and/or familiar to his readers, who were most likely highly educated, philosophical, head-in-the clouds Greeks or Hellenized Jews?

Finally, were there any early anti-Christian critics that used an alleged non-existence of Jesus as an argument?

[edit on 1-4-2007 by uberarcanist]

Since a lot of people don't trust the scriptures, what about this?
Resurrection
Taking note of:

Paul was inviting people to check out the facts.

I personally find it interesting how the disciples wanted people to ask others about it being truthful that Christ was who He said He is. If Jesus is a myth, then why would the disciples want people to ask others? It would have made more sense to keep it quiet. As a side note, I've read what makes people think Jesus was/is a myth, but it just doesn't add up for me.