Jesus Christ did not exist!

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by SuperSlovak

 

Again deny ignorance goes astray... Where do these [snip] come from, ever read a book? Try reading Josephus, roman historians and the Jewish history.

I have.
Many of us have.

And many have failed utterly to comprehend what they are reading, mostly because they expect the things they read to play out like yesterday's newspaper.

Case in point:

Josephus is a corrupt passage.

Technically, you are correct. Technically.

But because you STOP reading when you get to this point, you miss a REALLY BIG point that renders your argument moot.

Yes, scholars see the Josephus 2 passage (Jesus is mentioned twice by Josephus) as having been redacted by some medieval scribe. They have never doubted the authenticity of the passage's original authorship, but said that it MUST have been changed because it was hostile to Jesus' claim of messiahhood.

That was UNTIL a copy of Josephus was unearthed in an ancient Coptic library in Saudi Arabia that predated all other known copies by several hundred years. Remember that the Muslims began copying the wisdom of the ancient writers about 100 years before the main body of Christians started, but about 150 AFTER the Copts began creating libraries.

This particular manuscript was NEUTRAL on Jesus' Messianic claims, and show none of the tell tale signs of being redacted. Had you continued your study into this passage beyond merely hearing it had been changed, you would have known that.

The Roman references are merely late repetition of Christian beliefs.

Hardly. The Roman references appear in exactly the timeframe we would expect them to, given the fact Jesus wasn't born royalty, wasn't a war hero, lived in a backwater province in a rural area, didn't come from the proper background that the Hellenistic world deemed necessary to warrent notice, and died a criminal's death. By those standards, we should not have heard of Him at all. There must have been something extraordinary for Him to even get a reference at all. And remember... this was in a world where being a "peeping Tom" was merely being a good neighbor, and rich and powerful people would have sent someone, or gone themselves, to investigate the claims.

As the Jesus "movement" grew it became more noticeable and as such became more "worthy" to write about. We know ALL of the surviving documents from that period ( www.tektonics.org... --- for a thorough B-slap of Remberg's list). The fact we have so much evidence is astounding. We have more and better evidence for the life of Jesus than we do for the existance of Julius Caesar.

And that isn't open for debate.

So your pushback about no contemporary references is a non sequiter - completely irrelevant. We got those references, and a lot of them, right when we would expect to get them.

No-one witnessed it.
None of the NT books were written by anyone who witnessed Jesus.


K.

Wrong again!

Matthew and Mark were almost certainly written by eyewitnesses ( www.tektonics.org... & Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. )Luke was not an eyewitness, but given he was the most Hellenized of the authors and was a first rate historian (not my opinion, but Robin Lane Fox's - probably the 20th century's best historian), he interviewed eyewitnesses.

If you had simply said John wasn't an eyewitness - you would not have an argument from me. John was written by committee in the name of the apostle (a common practice), probably based on his lectures to that community.

And so ends MY lecture....

(shakes head and walks away)

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by jpm1602
How's about the shroud of Turin? Which to this day remains something of an enigma even after exhaustive testing.

No enigma.
It's been proved a medieval forgery.


K.

No, its proven to be problematic, because the sample threads were taken from a portion of the cloth that was restored after a fire in Medieval times.Other analysis efforts have found plant fibers and seed husks that were common in ancient Judea, but were extinct by the time of the supposed "creation" of the Shroud.

However, because of the original findings that you erroniously site as authoritative, the Catholic Church is reluctant to try new C-14 dating. They think it was a set up to discredit the Shroud.

Originally posted by papabryant
given the fact Jesus wasn't born royalty, wasn't a war hero, lived in a backwater province in a rural area, didn't come from the proper background that the Hellenistic world deemed necessary to warrent notice, and died a criminal's death. By those standards, we should not have heard of Him at all. There must have been something extraordinary for Him to even get a reference at all.

Matt: 4:23 - 25

Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them. Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.

Luke 12:1

Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another

Luke 5:15

Yet the news about him spread all the more, so that crowds of people came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses.

Luke 19:47

Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him.

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

We only have one, single reference to Jesus by name and even it is considered to be an interpolation. Either Jesus didn't exist and the bible is BS or he did exist and the bible is still way off.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by papabryant
given the fact Jesus wasn't born royalty, wasn't a war hero, lived in a backwater province in a rural area, didn't come from the proper background that the Hellenistic world deemed necessary to warrent notice, and died a criminal's death. By those standards, we should not have heard of Him at all. There must have been something extraordinary for Him to even get a reference at all.

Matt: 4:23 - 25

Luke 12:1

Luke 5:15

Luke 19:47

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

Your pushback, in fact, helps my case. Remember, now you have to find ONE letter, out of how many documents that didn't survive?

The Romans would have barely noticed Him. They didn't concern themselves with religious movements until they became political problems. And Christianity didn't become a political problem until much later, as it spread outside Judea and began taking root in the cities of Asia Minor.

I'm quite sure Pilate wrote something to report what he had done. And if so he probably mentioned the Resurrection account. To which the Romans would have told him to investigate and take action if necessary. Since this was an internal Jewish religious matter, and he had already gotten in trouble for getting involved in those....

If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

Here you are probably going to feel foolish after I dismantle this argument, but don't... this one gets lots of people.

Bethlehem was a small town filled with farmers and tradespeople. Small towns in Judea would probably have 50-60 families total. Some would be childless, some would have large families - typical of rural settings. At the most 10-30 of these families might have children of the age that died in the Slaughter. Let's split the difference - 20. And lets assume all the kids were boys to make it difficult on us.

Kill 20 children today and you definately make the paper. But Herod cruxified over 5000 people at one time - not once but twice! He killed his own wife and children, as well as anyone he concidered political enemies. He was a murderer on a grand scale. 20 kids? Mr Radar, you just missed Blip.

The Slaughter of the Innocent was important to the Christian community, so they mentioned it, but to the Roman historians 20 dead kids wouldn't have rated a mention. It wasn't important enough. Don't make the same mistake both skeptic and Christian alike make and assume that the Slaughter of the Innocent was a huge killing field.

We only have one, single reference to Jesus by name and even it is considered to be an interpolation. Either Jesus didn't exist and the bible is BS or he did exist and the bible is still way off.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]

Nooooooo. We have numerous references to Jesus in the secular record, each one of varrying reliability. Go read that article at the Tektonics site - it lists them.

As for the Bible not being accurate - we know that the Bible corrects Julius Caesar, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Elder on matters. While there is much that is still silent in archeology on the NT, there has NEVER been a case where archeology refutes the Bible on a matter. As Roman Edward Gibbon noted, were it not for its religious nature, the Bible would never be questioned on matters of history. He relied upon it in helping settle Rome's history.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by papabryant]

Originally posted by papabryant
The Romans would have barely noticed Him.

Do you think that only Romans made records?

Nooooooo. We have numerous references to Jesus in the secular record, each one of varrying reliability.

And of course, every one of them is hearsay, usually written well after the fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know only one piece of historic evidence referring to Jesus by name exists, the one I was referring to before. The one by Josephus Flavius, which is of course debated as an interpolation.

The rest simply refer to Christ, Chrestus [sic] and Christus. Christ, meaning 'anointed' could refer to plenty of people.

www.nobeliefs.com...

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Good Wolf]

Hello all

Can someone direct me to the ledger of every single person that ever lived and the library of ech individuals life please?

Where would faith be if Christ had arived for the first time in the 60's?

the stuff we have "evidence" for now in film,video and audio people still refute it.

too often secular scholars scoff at the bible only to have evidence revealed that supports it.

The arguments for Jesus and the fact there isnt a billion references to him mean nothing. If it is only the written secular word that is required; then then every person in any book has lived. To the same measure, not every person that has ever lived will have their name in surviving documents.

believe or not, the argument is irrelevant as each side argues against their own point.

david

reply to post by drevill


I can see someone is a little upset by the subject matter.


The fact that there are a billion references to him do mean nothing. The fact that there is only one reference to him means something. Jesus is believed to be no ordinary human meaning he deserved mention by someone. To have no contemporary record of him would be like Brittany Spears getting pregnant again and the tabloids and magazines nottalking about it at all. Not going to happen.

reply to post by Good Wolf


hello

ok

in another thread Phlegon is mentione, and yet not correctly

Phlegon was a historian who lived in the 1st century and wrote books entitled "chronicles" and "Olympiads"

Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.

Origen Against Celsus

david

reply to post by drevill


I'm failing to find any reference to Jesus by this man, all I can find is a reference to an eclipse. Can you site something?

There are God, today. Is it no coincidence that there is a mention of the lost eggs of Israel? Which represent the harlots in the book of Kama Sutra. The demonic plan to enherit Iceland, which means, that basically there is going to be massive chicken production based on a fabricated and fraudulent historical account we know as the Disney movies. So basically moon aliens are wishing to get their hats in heads so they can say hello to you. What is even more impossible to explain is this.... why did everybody forget the existence of God? Any ideas? Id like to finish off with a nice little song "God God hallelujah great my Lord Jesus Christ"

Do you think that only Romans made records?

Now THAT one is funny; do you think the Chinese would have noticed him? How about the Polynessians? C'mon guy...

And of course, every one of them is hearsay, usually written well after the fact.

As are every other record of events. All those history books about WWII - written after the fact. The Revolutionary War? Written after the fact. Why, even your newspaper was written after the fact. Unless you count Jeanne Dixon's column.

That is why they call it "history", after all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know only one piece of historic evidence referring to Jesus by name exists, the one I was referring to before. The one by Josephus Flavius, which is of course debated as an interpolation.

Concider yourself corrected; please see the article I have already referenced three times for details. No credible historian doubts these are references to Jesus. Wanting a standard of "they must spell his name right" is simply gamesmanship, on akin to asking "When did you stop beating your wife?".

Your standard of "contemporary" reference would throw out every single historical reference post-Guttenberg we have because we couldn't trust the evidence we have - to much time passed between the copies in our possession and the time of original authorship to be certain the copies were passed down without changes. You DO realize that the copies of the Bible are closer to autograph than ANY other text of the ancient world? The oldest copy of Julius Caesar's History of the Pelopenisian War is separated from autograph by over 1000 years, while we have fragmentary copies of 1 Cor. that date to less than 50 years? And copies of every book and letter in the NT canon within 120 years?

jesus christ was wrong! well no he wasnt cause he actually didnt exist. nither does god. or the devil. its all lies. the bible is a library of lies. they're fairytales written by four random junkies that smoked marijuana and thought they were created by a spirit. a supposed holy spirit that rules our lives and destinys. bull#. not true. theres is absolutly no evidence about this. so why do people believe in it? i dont know just for something to believe in i guess. everyone has their own belif in something but i think god and jesus are the wrong choices. thats my personal beilif. and totally think its true. if god was so great like people say he is then why is everything so #ed up? he supposedly loves us sooo much. why doesnt he help our economy out? make it better oh mighty god! psh. god's a fake.

Well, enough people believe he exists that I guess at this point the whole argument is moot. If enough people believed a Great Purple Walrus existed, lived at the South Pole, and cleansed humanity of Original Sin, and if you didn't believe it they would kill you, it just doesn't matter that GPW doesn't exist. You'd be the same kind of dead.

It's almost impossible to get people to give up their crazy beliefs by rational discussion. Because their beliefs are crazy! The only way they'll do it is if they decide to explore and investigate and make the decision by themselves.

Originally posted by Nohup
Well, enough people believe he exists that I guess at this point the whole argument is moot. If enough people believed a Great Purple Walrus existed, lived at the South Pole, and cleansed humanity of Original Sin, and if you didn't believe it they would kill you, it just doesn't matter that GPW doesn't exist. You'd be the same kind of dead.

What the.... If enough people believed in the Great Purple Walrus and there was no evidence to investigate then they are believing in a falsehood. They are entitled to do so if they wish, but you are under no obligation to do the same. If they would kill you if you believed otherwise, you can either lie, or leave, or chose martyrdom in hopes you might cause change and questioning of an observably false belief.

Now if you are trying to claim that Christianity converted at swordpoint, you are sadly mistaken. (And PLEEEEESSEEE somebody bring up the Crusades or the Inquisition so I can B-slap those tired old canards!)

It's almost impossible to get people to give up their crazy beliefs by rational discussion. Because their beliefs are crazy! The only way they'll do it is if they decide to explore and investigate and make the decision by themselves.

But that doesn't absolve either of us from trying. Until the evidence is presented THEY cannot begin to explore and investigate in order TO make a decision by themselves. The problem is so many people stop investigating when they get to something they HOPE is correct, rather than try to invalidate or verify what they believe. And even then they claim to be acting rational when they stop looking.

Originally posted by papabryant
But that doesn't absolve either of us from trying.

I'm not looking for "absolution." Is that important to you? That's what the question becomes. Why do you feel like it is your responsibility to change or destroy what other people believe? Do you think they will live better, happier lives? Because I don't think you can prove that.

So in the end, as I said before, it doesn't really matter.

It's funny I have read post by folks who believe that we were created by aliens,that 9/11 was a inside job,that planet X is coming in 2012,that there are other dimensions and we are being visited by beings from those places and so on.However those same posters can not and will not entertain the idea that there could be a supreme being that created the universe.

You may not believe that Jesus exists, but HE believes in YOU!!!! Why, does this trouble you so?


Peace,
Grandma

Originally posted by Tricky63
It's funny I have read post by folks who believe that we were created by aliens,that 9/11 was a inside job,that planet X is coming in 2012,that there are other dimensions and we are being visited by beings from those places and so on.However those same posters can not and will not entertain the idea that there could be a supreme being that created the universe.

Is that what we're talking about here? A "supreme being?" What do you even mean by that?

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Tricky63
It's funny I have read post by folks who believe that we were created by aliens,that 9/11 was a inside job,that planet X is coming in 2012,that there are other dimensions and we are being visited by beings from those places and so on.However those same posters can not and will not entertain the idea that there could be a supreme being that created the universe.

Is that what we're talking about here? A "supreme being?" What do you even mean by that?

A creator,an being from "some other place" that is more powerful than we can imagine,God, The Source,something bigger than your self that created the universe what ever you wish to call it.My point being is that people and I include myself can be open minded about some fantastic things but closed minded about others.Not only closed minded but will ridicule others that believe such fantastic things.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Tricky63]

reply to post by Tricky63


I think you are omitting a large group in there who are critical of the notion. Unlike all the conspiracies that we talk about, a God is not a provable or falsifiable concept. This "God" has never left and evidence behind to suggest that he exists, so all we can do is speculate- which is a waste of time.

Ether he doesn't leave behind evidence because he doesn't exist or he doesn't want to leave behind evidence.