Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 04, 2015 12:30PM

This is a tale of the wail from frantic faithful feel-gooders over a billboard/bus sign (drawn by yours truly) depicting a smiling Santa declaring "Yes, Virginia, there is no God." It proved to be quite a stinker among non-thinkers.

But to set the sinister stage for the unveiling of this Satanic Santa and the meltdown it caused among anti-cartoon Xtians, let's first indulge in a basic history lesson on the pagan roots of this unholy season:

"Solstice Celebrated Long Before Christmas"

by Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF)
Madison, Wisconsin
18 November 2010
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/2698-solstice-celebrated-long-before-christmas

"Long before the star over Bethlehem and the eight days of Chanukah and certainly Festivus, there were solstice celebrations. So why aren't we freethinkers complaining about the War on Solstice and the theft of our winter holiday by religious folks like Bill O'Reilly?

"Maybe it's because we are more forgiving and willing to share than they seem to be so much of the time.

"Some scholars say solstice celebrations tied to the cycle of seasons go as far back as the Neolithic Era (c. 10,000 BCE). Yule or Yuletide was a Germanic pagan festival that Christians eventually expropriated. Once the Catholics and the Protestants saw how much fun the pagans were having, it was time to say "so long, solstice" and start suppressing it.

" . . . As a counterweight, [we should level] the playing field for nonbelievers with . . . solstice displays ('There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world.') next to the babe in the manger.

“'Most people think December is for Christians and view our solstice signs as an intrusion, when actually it’s the other way around,' said Dan Barker, FFRF co-president, a former evangelical preacher. 'People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the natural holiday from all of us humans.'

"Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor [observes that] '[e] vergreen trees, eggnog, eating too much and exchanging gifts with your loved ones are all secular traditions. [Freethinkers] just cut to the chase and skip the religious dogma part.'

"Gaylor noted that the Santa Claus myth has parallels with the ancient god Odin, and that pre-Christian Northern European traditions were incorporated into the Christian Christmas."
_____


--Here's where the non-believer Santa enters the manger scene with a message that rocked the world of Messiah merchants:

"[In 2009, ]the Foundation raised consciousness (along with some eyebrows) with its "Yes, Virginia. . . There is no God" advertising campaign.

"ClearChannel Outdoor took down six billboards saying that in Las Vegas, Nev., shortly after putting them up. Too many complaints, claimed ClearChannel.

"'Tis the season for censorship,' Gaylor said then. 'Who would have guessed there would be such delicate sensibilities in the city known for "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."'

"The artist behind the atheist Santa concept is Arizona Republic cartoonist Steve Benson, the freethinking grandson of the late Ezra Taft Benson, who once headed the Mormon Church. . . .

"'O, ancient drums stop beating,
And superstitions fall!
It's time for Reason's Greetings,
For peace, goodwill to all.'"
_____


--More backstory involving perspiring pushback from an insecure Xtian against a cartoon depicting a mythological Santa telling kids that, truth be told, God's a myth, too.

A frantic believer, besides himself over the sight of a cartoon showing Santa openly declaring that God does not exist, wrote the following:

"Last year I reported on [the] belligerent positive affirmation of God’s non-existence [by the Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation], which read:

“'At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world.Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds. Now they placed ads that state, “Yes, Virginia ... There is no God.'

“'Freedom From Religion Foundation’s co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor again affirmed their “faith”-based dogmatheism in stating, “The main purpose is to express something that's true that doesn't get said very much--there is no god--and it shouldn't be a taboo…If people are mad about it, it's because it's true.”

“Now they placed ads that state, 'Yes, Virginia ... There is no God.'”

Ooooooh. Can't have that, now, can we? :)

The offended Xmas God-pusher strenuously continued:

"Since atheists are not interested in influencing children--wink wink, nudge nudge--'Yes, Virginia ... There is no God' refers to a September 21, 1897 A.D. edition of 'The New York Sun' which included the phrase 'Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.' Thus, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has pictured Santa Clause positively affirming God’s non-existence."

(Yes, that was the historical reference. Perhaps it was too much to assume that readers would already know that).

Divinely distraught that a cartoon has dared depict the fictitious Santa going after the fictitious God, this designer druggist for deity then posted an image of what is heralded as "the true Santa" (*sidenote: I got one of these "true Santas" in the form of a Xmas tree ornament from my former boss, a Christian believer, who gave it to me at work).

("The Freedom From Religion Foundation Again Positively Affirms God’s Non-Existence But Where is the Evidence?," under "Atheism Is Dead," 19 January 2010, at: http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2010/01/freedom-from-religion-foundation-again.html; see also, http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker)


In a "Salt Lake Tribune" article on FFRF's pro-thinking billboard campaign going on in the heart of Mormondumb during the Xmas brain switch-off season, the following is noted about that dastardly Santa doodle:

"[FFRF co-president Annie Laurie] Gaylor said the group had wanted to post another kind of billboard around the country but was largely rebuffed from doing so, including in Utah. That billboard would have included the phrase, "Yes, Virginia ... There Is No God" along with a picture of Santa designed by Steve Benson, an Arizona Republic cartoonist and grandson of late LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson."

("Atheist, Agnostic Group Launches Holiday-Season Billboards in Utah," by Lisa Schencker, "Salt Lake Tribune, 16 December 2011, at: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53132983-78/utah-season-billboard-foundation.html.csp


Indeed, that particular signage of mine (which I had conceived and drawn up for FFRF at their request) has actually been vandalized, threatened with destruction elsewhere and banned from being displayed in Las Vegas, on New York City's Times Square and in other locations. (FFRF has since filled me in on the details, while wryly congratulating me for having managed to stir the thinkless into mindless action).

(as reported under the banner head, "Six FFRF Signs Censored in Las Vegas," by Tina Partel, KTNV Channel 13, Las Vegas, Nevada; and "Ho, Ho, Ho! Yes, It’s Also the Season for Religious Skeptics," in "Freethought Today," Vol. 26 No. 10, December 2009, at: http://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/articles/yes-its-also-the-season-for-religious-skeptics/)


For another, but more up-close, look at the image of the evil God-smacking Santa who has gotten Christian undies in such a Jesus-jumping twist (this time without the on-camera Christians complaining and threatening destruction of the signs), see:

"YES, VIRGINIA... THERE IS NO GOD," Says Atheist Billboard," by Hugh Kramer, 17 December 2010, http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/atheistnews/forum/topics/yes-virginia-there-is-no-god?xg_source=activity; and "FFRF Puts Up New Billboards In Denver: 'Yes, Virginia, There Is No God,"' on "SkepticMoney," http://www.skepticmoney.com/ffrf-puts-up-new-billboards-in-denver-%E2%80%9Cyes-virginia-there-is-no-god-%E2%80%9D/)


The deep-seated unease among the believing masses when openly and brazenly challenged by non-believers (combined with pressures from commerical interests vexed about possible economic boycotts being launched by thin-skinned, enraged Christians) is amazing. In the name of protecting the world from seeing one mythological god knee-capping another mythological god in a cartoon format, free speech gives way to private property destruction and censorship.

God bless the gag order, since he can't handle the truth.



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2015 02:14PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: saucie: My BF bought me anewPC ( )
Date: December 04, 2015 01:01PM

You know I've never told you this before and I don't know why

but thank you so much for being here and sharing with us .

I've learned a lot from many of your posts over the years

so, thank you Steve. I do appreciate it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Human ( )
Date: December 04, 2015 01:03PM

saucie: My BF bought me anewPC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Did he love you enough to buy you a Mac?

I would've.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: saucie: My BF bought me anewPC ( )
Date: December 04, 2015 01:08PM

Hahahahhahaha I like your style Human.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Human ( )
Date: December 04, 2015 01:02PM

Steve, I’m not likely to ever read the American Atheist’s President’s new book. You might, and if you have, could you confirm a few quotes for me?


“Remember, placing someone on a pedestal means the person is constantly looking down on you. I think religion deserves to look up to atheism. If anyone deserves a pedestal, it is those who revere and live by logic and reason.”

“In the history of mankind, *atheism has never had a single moment of failure* (his emphasis).”

“This is why we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.”

“Atheism is perfect. Yes, I know every religion says the same thing about itself, but religions are wrong. (Yes, I know they all say that about atheism, too.) What I mean by this is atheism is so simple that it cannot have any flaws. It is simply a lack of belief in gods, so unless there is a reason to believe in gods, it is a logically perfect position.”


I only have former New Atheist turned atheist muckraker CJ Werleman for a source.

https://mobile.twitter.com/cjwerleman/status/672524580578136066

Would you be able to confirm those quotes?

Thanks,

Human

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 04, 2015 01:05PM

I don't put the imaginary Santa or the imaginary God on a pedestal.

That answers your first question--and applies to all the rest.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2015 01:09PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Human ( )
Date: December 04, 2015 01:06PM

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't put the imaginary Santa or or yhe
> imaginary God on a pedestal.
>
> TYat answers your first question--and applies to
> all the rest.

Okay.

Just thought I'd ask.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 04, 2015 01:11PM

Instead of having me read books on atheism for you, I would suggest you learn to do your own homework.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2015 01:49PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rt ( )
Date: December 23, 2015 07:47AM

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “'Freedom From Religion Foundation’s
> co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor again affirmed
> their “faith”-based dogmatheism in stating,
> “The main purpose is to express something that's
> true that doesn't get said very much--there is no
> god--and it shouldn't be a taboo…If people are
> mad about it, it's because it's true.”

I think they're mad because they know when all is said and done, it comes down to mere faith. They have no reason-based leg to stand on and they know it. Calling them on this is to expose the one fundamental flaw in magical thinking that magical thinkers wish nobody would mention so they can maintain some semblance of sanity.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: scaredhusband ( )
Date: December 23, 2015 10:53AM

The argument on the christian side is that the date marking the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, and attributing it to the story of the son of god, pre-dates the assimilation of the germanic tribes by the Romans. Also pre-dates the "official" worship of Sol Invictus by the Romans.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: presleynfactsrock ( )
Date: December 23, 2015 02:30PM

Interesting, isn't it, that freedom of speech is not as free as it should be in this land of America? I've noticed that even so simple a thing as someone saying Have a Merry Christmas, with my reply, Hope you have a very Merry Solstice, there is often the implied look of that was not necessary nor proper....they have the so-called-god-given-right-to-share, you do not.

Reason is Always in Season except to those who have given theirs over to some cult or other or do not choose to use theirs.

Enjoyed your post.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lovechild ( )
Date: December 23, 2015 02:42PM

Speaking as one among the many Christian Pagans who never pass up an opportunity for a good celebration:

"Y'all are welcome!"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Shummy ( )
Date: December 23, 2015 05:43PM

Well I dunno if the irony has escaped everyone but me that this was Steve's penultimate post right before he painted a black beard on Santa which then drove him to make his final post on RfM.

Options: ReplyQuote
Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Thinking ( )
Date: December 20, 2016 02:29AM

As somebody who has considered himself agnostic for years the hard atheist mindset logically doesn't make sense. It's simple and somewhat nonsensical to prove or disprove the existence of God from ancient tribes and people. Likewise, humans love to close the loop of knowledge and never acknowledge what they don't know. One thing I'm certain about is us humans are not as smart as fancy ourselves - Trump and Hillary prove this fact.

Not sure what Christmas has to do with being Pagan holiday has to do with God? The meaning of the holiday makes sense. Life for humans during the winters was hard, and the winter solstice was a mark that the days were going to longer and warmer. There's hope for better days. All this gets encoded in lore. All that can exist with or without God of creation. Of course thousands of year old stories won't stand up to scientific or literary historicity. We can't even accurately report current events.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Constantine ( )
Date: December 20, 2016 03:16AM

for me to consolidate political power, you wouldn't have all your unoriginal religious holiday trappings for your made-up Jesus. Read your history.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: thinking ( )
Date: December 20, 2016 05:50PM

Constantine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> for me to consolidate political power, you
> wouldn't have all your unoriginal religious
> holiday trappings for your made-up Jesus. Read
> your history.

I've read my history. I would have wrote more and better explained by thinking, but I was on my phone. Rome definitely used Christianity under Constantine to consolidate power. In order accomplish this goal rituals and ceremonies which everyone enjoyed were incorporated into Christianity (the new belief system). Regardless of Christ as a historical figure a change in thinking called Christianity was spreading through the Roman empire. If Christ was a historical figure, regardless of divinity, a paradigm shift in how to view reality spread. The best I can tell is it was a combination of Jewish Monotheism mixed with Greek philosophy. Exactly what was early Christianity is somewhat a guess, but the best I can surmise it upset the existing power structures. People probably started to think for themselves. One thing for certain institutional Jews and Romans both hated it. Power hates it when people start thinking for themselves. That is one constant which has always existed from the being of recorded history.

We know for a fact years later the merging of Greek/Roman philosophical thought heavily influenced St. Augustine when he wrote "City of God." which has acted as a cornerstone of Western thought for centuries.

Now, by proving the non-existence of God by disproving claims of ancient texts from one small area of the world is a suppressed correlative logical fallacy. If a book is written that everyone claims is from God turns out false does that disprove God, or the accuracy of the author? Occum's razor is going to indicate the latter. JS wrote a book which turned out to be inaccurate. In that case does it prove to JS being full of shit or there must be no God? While one or both maybe true there is no direct correlation no matter how hard people want to force the issue or draw a conclusion. The only way to pin down the issue of God is have a complete understanding of reality. Which is a wrote that is far from complete. Theories upon theories postulating grouping for the unknown. Lately, more and more scientists have been coming out of the woodwork claiming reality sure seems like a simulation. These are leading thinkers in some cases, not all crackpots. If that was the case then something intelligent had to design its function, but who the hell really knows.

Also, to note how something is defined turns out false or unlikely ie God is a dude just like us or its the generative power of the universe which animates everything does not mean nothing exists.

So there are some agnostic thoughts.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 20, 2016 06:11PM

went dead.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2016 06:13PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 20, 2016 06:43PM

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Let's start with the acknowledgment that there are those who, in the name of history,claim that Jesus was, in fact, a real person.For instance, pro-Christian apologist and author,
Ian Wilson, claims in his book, "Jesus: The Evidence,"
that “had Jesus been a mere fabrication by early Christians, we should surely expect those Jews hostile to Christianity to have produced a malicious rumor to this effect. From the factthat they concentrated instead on smearing his legitimacy, we may deduce that they had nogrounds whatever for doubting his historical evidence.”

Wilson further argues that, based on accounts from other early Jewish sources (including the historian Josephus), “Jesus did indeed exist.” (Wilson, pp. 62, 64-65)The evidence contradicting Wilson's assertions are many and compelling.


PROBLEMS WITH CLAIMS FOR JESUS‟ HISTORICITY

Even Wilson admits that “it has to be acknowledged t hat hard facts concerning Jesus and his life are remarkably hard to come by.”

He concedes, for instance, that:

--the Apostle Paul, by his own admission, never knew the person Jesus but, instead, based hisentire faith on a vision he claimed came to him about Jesus‟ resurrection;

--the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus;

--the year of Jesus‟ birth is unknown and, based on available evidence, indeterminable;

--there is no historical validation of King Herod‟s supposed slaughter of Jewish children at thetime of Jesus‟s alleged birth;

-- Jesus' ancestry is illogically tied back to King David through Jesus‟ father Joseph;

--the author of Matthew was clearly not Jewish, as evidenced by his mistranslation of Isaiah‟s prophecy of the Messiah‟s virgin birth;

--the overall credibility of the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are seriously in doubt;

--there is no reliable evidence for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus;--the writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus areneither clear or specific;

--the observations of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Plithy the Younger, do not provide reliable evidence of Jesus‟ actual existence; and even

--the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniablybeen adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin. (Wilson, pp. 51, 54-56, 58-60).

On the question of whether Jesus really existed, the record offers an array of formidable realities. Below is an examination of some of the basic evidence against the claim that the man-godof the New Testament known as Jesus actually ever lived.


THE “HISTORICAL” JESUS: A CREATION OF LATE-COMING CHRISTIAN WRITERS

Former evangelical minister Dan Barker points out in his book,
"Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist":

“[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was

supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.” (Barker, p. 360)

Noted religious historian and professor of German at Birkbeck College in London, G. A.Wells, observes in his book,"The Historical Evidence of Jesus," that if one places early Christian documents in chronological order, it becomes evident that “only from approximately 90 did Christians regard Jesus as a teacher, miracle-worker and a near contemporary, crucified under Pilate.”

These documents, Wells declares, are striking in their lack of detail, indicating that the claims of their authors were most likely influenced “by the Jewish wisdom literature they knew well and by traditions they must have known concerning actual crucifixions of living men in Palestine one and two centuries before their time.” (Wells, pp. 216-17)

Wells concludes that “the Jesus of the earliest documents…[was] someone about whose life nothing was known, who had certainly not been a contemporary or near-contemporary of Paul, butwho was later regarded as having lived about A.D. 30 and has having preached in Galilee beforehis death in Jerusalem, perhaps because he was identified with an obscure Galilean preacher of the same name (which after all was a common one).” (Wells, p. 216)

A blow-by-blow summary of the evidence against historicity claims for Jesus is offered byCanadian historian and classical scholar Earl Doherty in his work, "Why I Am Not A Christian":

“1. Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be f ound in Christian writings earlier thanthe Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only in the late first century.

"2. There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in FlaviusJosephus (end of the first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions.

"3. The early apostles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus as a spiritual,heavenly being revealed by God through scripture, and do not equate him with a recent historicalman. Paul is part of a new 'salvation' movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.

"4. Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural /mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as otherfeatures of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.

"5. The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higherworld was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenlycounterparts to earth ly things. Paul's Christ operates within this system.

"6. The pagan 'mystery cults' of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not on earth or in history. Paul's
Christ shares many features with these deities.

"7. The prominent philosophical-religious concept of the age was the intermediary Son, aspiritual channel between the ultimate transcendent God and humanity. Such intermediary concepts as the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom were models for Paul's heavenly Christ.

"8. All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoeverwrote the Gospel of Mark. The Acts of the Apostles, as an account of the beginnings of theChristian apostolic movement, is a second century piece of myth-making.

"9. The Gospels are not historical events, but constructed through a process of 'midrash,' a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs. The story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion is a pastiche of verses from scripture.

"10. 'Q,' a lost sayings collection extracted from Matthew and Luke, made no reference to a death and resurrection and can be shown to have had no Jesus at its roots: roots which were ultimately non-Jewish. The 'Q' community preached the kingdom of God, and its traditions wereeventually assigned to an invented founder who was linked to the heavenly Jesus of Paul in theGospel of Mark.

"11. The initial variety of sects and beliefs about a spiritual Christ shows that the movementbegan as a multiplicity of largely independent and spontaneous developments based on thereligious trends and philosophy of the time, not as a response to a single individual.12. Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of ahuman man as an element of their faith. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical.” (Doherty, pp. vii-viii)


LACK OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ABOUT JESUS' LIFE IN EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

Early Christian writings are noticeably vague about the details of Jesus' life. Wells quotes Gager's observation: 'We know virtually nothing of [Jesus‟] parents, siblings, early years
(childhood, adolescence, early adulthood), friends, education, religious training, profession, orcontacts with the broader Graeco-Roman world. We know neither the date of his birth, not thelengthy of his public ministry (the modern consensus of two or three years is an educated guessbased largely on the Gospel of John), nor his age at death (Luke 3:23 states that he was 'about thirty when he began'). Thus even an optimistic view of the quest (of the historical Jesus) canenvisage no more than a collection of „authentic‟ sayings and motifs devoid of context.” (Wells, p. 217)

Similarly, former evangelical minister-turned-non-Christian Charles Templeton points to the paucity of evidence concerning Jesus‟ life. In his book, "Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith," Templeton writes:

“It may come as something as a surprise to the reader to lear
n that we know remarkably little about Jesus of Nazareth. . . . We don;t know the date of his birth--it was certainly not December 25 in the Year One.

"Nor do we know for certain where he was born, although it was in all likelihood in the city of his childhood, Nazareth- certainly not in a Bethlehem stable.

"Nor do we know the exact date of hisdeath, although it would seem to have been around the year 30 A.D. The great secular historians of that time (Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and others) mention Jesus only briefly,making passing reference to the fact that he preached in occupied Palestine and was crucified by the Roman government.” (Templeton, p. 85)


THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE CHRISTIAN GOSPELS

As Wells notes, “The Gospels are widely agreed to have been written between forty andeighty years after his [Jesus‟] supposed lifetime by unknown authors who were not personally
acquainted with him. And their miracle stories are nearly all couched in general terms, with noindicationof time or place or details concerning the person or persons who benefited.” (Wells, p. 206)

Raising further questions about their credibility, many of Paul‟s letters are obvious “fusions”that were “not written as they now stand.” (Wells, pp. 8-9)

Not only are Paul's epistles composite stories, they are notoriously non-factual. Historian Will Durant observes: “Paul created a theology about the man Jesus, a man that he did not even know, 50 or more years after the death of Jesus, with complete disregard and neglect for even the sayingsthat are attributed to Jesus in the synoptic Gospels. The simple teachings attributed to Jesus become lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's theology.” (cited in Edelen, "Toward the Mystery"[Boise, Idaho: Josylyn & Morris, Inc.], p. 76)

As to the origination period of the New Testament itself, its 27 books have defied repeated attempts at reliable, universal dating. Those portions which can be most firmly dated are, as has been noted, the letters of Paul, which have been determined to have been penned by 60 A.D. (Wells, p. 10)

In addition, none of the four Gospels represent the “original” texts. As Templeton writes, “The earliest Christian records extant are the Pauline epistles, and they were written around 50 A.D. It was another ten years or so before the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were completed. But the names attached to the gospels are pseudonyms--none of the authors were among Jesus’ apostles and it is likely that none of them so much as saw or heard him.”

Moreover, Templeton notes that these accounts “are mutually contradictory, lack authenticity, and are in large part of the nature of legends. The stories of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, his cleansing of the Temple, and his arrest, trial, and crucifixion have about them an aura of reality but, beyond that, the various accounts differ so radically and at so many points that, with all the good will in the world, they cannot be reconciled.” (Templeton, pp. 85-86)

In terms of which Gospel begat which Gospel, that of Mark appears to have been the source for those of Matthew and Luke, based on the virtual identicalness of many passages. Thus, the latter two gospels “are not acceptable as independent testimony.” The Gospel of John gives indications of reliance on phraseology from the other three Gospels. (Wells, p. 11)

Not only are the names attached to the synoptic Gospels pseudo in nature, the authors of the four Gospels remain, as Wells notes, virtually anonymous, with the books offering no proof within their texts of who actually wrote them. Adding to the confusion, present claims to their authorship were not part of the original documents. (Wells, p. 11)

The legitimacy of statements in the Gospels attributed to Jesus are also suspect. For example, teachings supposedly given by Jesus on the subject of women of Palestine divorcing their husbands lack historical veracity, since only men were allowed to divorce. (Wells, p. 13)

The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion are also replete with significant historical difficulties. Luke’s account of the trial is an obvious summary of Mark’s. Mark’s, in turn, is full of imaginary dialogue and scenes concocted by Christian writers who, believing in the Messianic mission of Jesus, invented trial scenes and dialogue in which the Jews condemned Jesus for his status as the Christ. (Wells, pp. 14-15).

Keith M. Parsons, in his Why I Am Not a Christian," summarizes the case against the reliability of the canonical Gospels as follows:

1. The Gospels were written by unknown persons.

“Not only did Jesus himself write nothing, but the attribution of the gospels to his disciples did not occur until the late first century at the earliest. . . .

"'Matthew: Written by an unknown Jewish Christian of the second generation, probably a resident of Antioch in Syria.

"'Mark: [There is] confusion in the traditional identification of the author . . .

"'Luke: Possibly written by a resident of Antioch and an occasional companion of the apostle Paul.

"'John: Composed and edited in stages by unknown followers of the apostle John, probably residents of Ephesus.’ “(cited by Kingsbury, J.D., “Matthew, The Gospel According to,” in Metzger and Coogan, eds., "The Oxford Companion to the Bible" [Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1993], pp. 502-506)

2. The dates of the Gospels preclude them having been written by eyewitnesses.

“. . . New Testament scholars agree fairly closely on a rather late date for the writing of the gospels . . . Generations of New Testament scholarship have produced a very broad consensus that the gospels from around 70 to as late as the early second century.”

3. The Gospels are rooted in unreliable oral traditions.

“Written records of Jesus’s words or ministry were simply not needed or wanted until the end of the apostolic age with the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in 64. The writing of [the] Gospels was a task for second-generation Christians. . . .

“[T]he word-for-word similarities of the synoptic Gospels are very unlikely to be due to the verbatim recollection of the original eyewitness. Oral traditions simply do not form that way. Rather, those precise parallels are much more likely due to common use of written sources. Hence, the synoptic Gospels are not independent eyewitness accounts but textually interdependent syntheses of earlier oral traditions.”

4. The Gospels are theologically biased with an apologetic agenda.

“'[The Gospels] . . . can no longer be read as direct accounts of what happened, but rather as vehicles for proclamation. Such was their original intention.’" (cited in Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives [New York, New York: The Macmillan Company,1971] p. 172)

5. The Gospels contain fictional forms.

“The gospels are clearly not biography in the modern sense . . .

‘Christians have never been reluctant to write fiction about Jesus, and we must remember that our four canonical Gospels are only the cream of a larger and varied literature.’" (cited in Helms, R., Gospel Fictions [Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1988], pp. 11-12)

6. The Gospels are inconsistent with each other.

“A careful study of the four Gospels in comparison with each other will show that there is little agreement among the Gospel writers as to the order in which Jesus said and did what is reported of him. . . .

“A striking discrepancy concerns the accounts in the synoptics of Jesus’s resurrection appearances to his disciples. . . .

“[There is] inconsistency between Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies [of Jesus].”

7. The Gospels are inconsistent with known facts.

“Luke’s nativity story [is] demonstrably false . . .

"‘. . . [T]he Roman census would not have affected Nazareth in any case, as Galilee was not under Roman rule but had its own ruler, the ‘tetrach’ Herod Antipas, son of King Herod.’" (cited in Arnheim, M., Is Christianity True? [Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1984], pp. 10-11)

8. There is no independent support of Gospel claims.

"‘ . . . [P]agan sources do not confirm the resurrection. . . . [T]here is good reason to suppose that [a well-known passage from Tacitus] was written nearly ninety years after the alleged death of Jesus and was based not on historical research but on information provided by Christians of the second century. . . .

"‘Other pagan writers such as Suetonius and Pliny the Younger provide no support for the Resurrection of Jesus since they make no mention of it. . . . Thallus, in a work now lost but referred to by Africanus in the third century, is alleged to have said that Jesus' death was accompanied by an earthquake and an unusual darkness that he, Thallus, according to Africanus, wrongly attributed to an eclipse of the sun. However . . . it is unclear when Thallus wrote his history or how reliable Africanus’s account of Thallus is. Some scholars believe that Thallus wrote as late as the second century and consequently could have obtained his ideas from Christian opinion of his time.’" (cited in Martin, M., "The Case Against Christianity" [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 1991], p. 86)

“’Non-Christian evidence is too late to give any independent support to the gospels. . . .

“’Rabbinic references to Jesus are entirely dependent on Christian claims, as both Christian and Jewish scholars have conceded.’" (cited in Wells, G.A., "Who Was Jesus?" [La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1989], p. 20)

9. The Gospels testify to matters beyond belief.

“The Gospels are full of miraculous tales that, in any other context, would be taken to completely destroy the author’s credibility. What would we think of an alleged witness who swears that he saw Ms. Smith commit the murder and then abscond quickly on her broomstick? Why not regard reports of walking on water or raising the dead in the same light? Religious people often employ a curious doublethink here that permits them to treat reverently stories that, encountered anywhere else, would get very short shrift.” (Parsons, pp. 43-70)


FURTHER LACK OF PAGAN EVIDENCES FOR THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS

A favorite pagan source cited by Christian believers verifying the life of a “real” Jesus is that of the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote that “Christians derive their name and origin from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”

Ample evidence exists, however, to show that Tacitus was simply repeating what he had been told by Christian informants.

First, as Wells demonstrates, Tacitus identified Pilate by the rank of procurator, which title was a Roman administrative office from the second half of the first century.

Next, Tacitus failed to identify Jesus by name, but merely referred to a person put to death who went by the title of Christ.

Finally, Tacitus was an opponent of Christianity and therefore would have been inclined to repeat the Christian view of the day that Christianity was of recent vintage, given that the Roman government countenanced only ancient cults. (Wells, pp. 16-17)

Barker observes that even if other pagan writers had made reliable reference to Christianity, they did so too late in the game to be considered first-century witnesses. These include the writings in of Suetonius in his Twelve Caesars, as well as the record in 112 A.D. by Pliny the Younger--both of which fail to mention Jesus by name.

Barker notes that also failing to specifically mention Jesus was a second-century Roman satirist name Lucian who wrote of a “man crucified in Palestine,” whose death provided the foundation for the Christian faith. However, Lucian was simply repeating the beliefs of Christians and not presenting compelling historical evidence.

Barker further mentions the Christian believer's penchant for invoking an undated fragment from a personal letter written by a Syrian named Mara Serapion to his imprisoned son, in which the father mentions that the Jews had killed their “wise king.” This purported evidence, nonetheless, contradicts the New Testament version of Jesus’ death, in which, of course, the Romans are blamed for his crucifixion. Even if it is an authentic letter, Barker argues that it most likely refers to someone else, since the Jews had, in fact, killed other religions leaders, including the Essene Teacher of Righteousness. (Barker, pp. 364-66)


ALLEGED HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE MAN JESUS IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS

In his work (circa 90 A.D.), "The Antiquities of the Jews," Flavious Josephus, a messianic Jew and respected Roman historian, supposedly wrote:

“Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Hews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that love him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive against the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him are not extinct at this day.”

Barker dispenses with the claim that this is the authentic Josephus with the following observations:

1. This paragraph about Jesus did not appear until the advent of the fourth century.

The disputed writing surfaced during the time that Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Roman emperor Constantine, was helping to fashion what would eventually become the orthodox version of Christianity. Barker notes that it was Eusebius who had argued it was justifiable for Christians to, in effect, “lie for the Lord” and that it was he who was the first person known to have cited this alleged Josephus account. As Barker notes, many Bible experts have concluded, in fact, that Eusebius forged the paragraph in question and then attributed it to Josephus.

2. The paragraph in doubt appears completely out of context.

It is dropped into Josephus’ writings after the historian gives an account of Roman taxation, various Jewish religious sects, Herod’s municipal building projects, the comings and goings of priests and procurators, the planning of seditious plots against Pilate, and Pilate’s construction of Jerusalem’s water supply using religious monies, which led to a Jewish protest, followed by Pilate’s bloody suppression of it. The questionable paragraph then follows, after which Josephus goes on to speak of “another terrible misfortune [that] confounded the Jews . . .” As Barker notes, only a Christian would have regarded this as a misfortune for Jews. Josephus himself was an orthodox Jew and would not have so described it.

3. Not being a believer in Christianity, Josephus would also not have used the language of a Christian convert in referring to Jesus as “the Christ.”

4. Josephus would also not have used the term “tribe of Christians,” since Christianity did not achieve organizational status until the second century.

5. Josephus’ alleged paragraph on Jesus portrays Josephus as having no other familiarity with the alleged Christian Messiah.

Barker observes that the Roman historian thus simply repeats what Christians would have already known, while adding virtually nothing to the Gospel accounts. In fact, Josephus’ supposed brief mention of Jesus is the only reference in all of his expansive writings to Christianity.

6. The paragraph does not reflect the careful wording of a responsible historian.

Rather, says Barker, it is written in the fervent language of a believing Christian and, further, is given with no citation of predictions from Hebrew prophets who supposedly foretold Jesus’ advent. (Barker, pp. 362-63)

Other weaknesses in the Gospel tales which undermine claims to their accounts of an historical Jesus include the following:


NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE VIRGIN BIRTH

Templeton points out that the accounts of Matthew and Luke differ on fundamental points regarding the birth of Jesus. For example, at the time Luke says Jesus was being circumcised and Mary was being purified in Jerusalem, Matthew claims Joseph, Mary and Jesus were in hiding in Egypt, waiting for Herod to die.

Additionally, there is nothing in the historical record that mentions the supposed Herod-ordered slaughter of every male child in Bethlehem. Concludes Templeton, “It seems likely that the birth in Bethlehem was inserted into the story at a later date to validate the clams made by Jesus’ followers that, through Joseph, he stood in a direct line of descent from King David, whose roots were in Bethlehem.” (Templeton, p. 91)

As to the Christian claim that Jesus was God, born of an unwed Jewish virgin who conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost, Templeton bluntly concludes, “If one approaches the New Testament account with an open mind and unflinching realism, the evidence clearly indicates that Jesus was an illegitimate child who, when he came to maturity, resented it and was alienated from his parents and siblings.” (Templeton, p. 93)


NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS' RESURRECTION

Except for the claims made by anonymous Gospel writers, no evidence exists that Jesus ever rose from the dead. In fact, Gospel accounts of the alleged resurrection are, from a realistic point of view, completely implausible.

If, as Templeton observes, Jesus’ resurrection was accompanied by a extraordinary earthquake, the wholesale rending of the Temple veil and a large-group resurrection of the dead witnessed by many, why do these phenomenal events merit but a single sentence in Matthew--and virtually no mention in the other Gospels or in contemporary historical accounts?

Writes an understandably skeptical Templeton: “Let the reader imagine the scene: The astonished spectators, the gathering crowd, the family members and friends, weeping and delirious with excitement. Surely someone would have plied them with questions: ‘What happened as you died?’ ‘Did you see God?’ ‘What is Heaven like?’ ‘Were you reunited with our parents and other members of your family?’ Surely the answers to these and other questions like them would have flashed across Palestine within hours and been recorded somewhere. But there is not one word of it in history. The entire resurrection story is not credible.”

Add to this the fact that the four Gospel accounts of the resurrection not only differ from one another on many major points but are irreconcilably at odds with Paul’s account in I Corinthians on who Jesus supposedly appeared to after rising from the dead. (Templeton, pp. 120-22)


NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF JESUS PERFORMING MIRACLES

Templeton persuasively explains the afflictions suffered by those in the Gospel accounts, which were supposedly healed by Jesus’ miraculous powers:

“Most of the illnesses that afflict humans were beyond the comprehension of the men and women of that day and, of course, beyond Jesus’ comprehension, too. No one at that point in history had even a rudimentary understanding of the causes of physiological or psychological illnesses or of the various other afflictions to which humankind is subject. Most thought of them as punishments from God or the machinations of Satan or other evil spirits.

“When, for instance, epilepsy brought on a seizure that caused the victim to collapse and writhe on the ground as though struggling with an internal enemy, when food poisoning produced a paroxysm of vomiting, when a raging fever led to intense shivering and delirium, or when a migraine attack produced visual aberrations and excruciating pain, it seemed reasonable in that pre-scientific time to interpret such phenomena as the work of an evil spirit. And, when the affliction passed, it was equally reasonable to interpret it as the triumph of a benign spirit over a malign.

“Many illnesses, then as now, were psychosomatic and could be ‘cured’ when the sufferer’s perception changed. Just as today a placebo prescribed by a physician in whom the patient has faith can effect an apparent cure, so, in earlier time, faith in the healer could banish adverse symptoms. With each success the healer’s reputation would grow and his powers would, as a consequence, become more efficacious.

“It would appear evident that this is what happened with Jesus . . .

“It is clear in the text that Jesus was seen by the general populace as a wonder-worker. The stories of his exploits were before him--by word of mouth, of course, and thus subject to embellishing--and when he entered a town the state of heightened expectation would often be close to mass hysteria. As a consequence, the apparently miraculous would happen.” (Templeton, pp. 111-12)

Finally, as Barker points outs, a miracle cannot be considered historical if it is “defined as some kind of violation, suspension, overriding, or punctuation of natural law. . . . In order for history to have any strength at all, it must adhere to a very strict assumption: that natural law is regular over time.

“Without the assumption of natural regularity, no history can be done. There would be no criteria for discarding fantastic stories. Everything that has ever been recorded would have to be taken as literal truth.

“Therefore, if a miracle did happen, it would pull the rug out from history. The very basis of the historical method would have to be discarded. You can have miracles, or you can have history, but you can’t have both.” (Barker, p. 377)


CONCLUSION: POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF THE JESUS MYTH

Various propositions have been advanced to account for the rise of the Jesus myth. Barker lists the following as possibilities:

1. It was “patterned from a story in the Jewish Talmudic literature about the illegitimate son of a woman named Miriam (Mary) and a Roman soldier named Pandera, sometimes called Joseph Pandera.”

2. It “grew out of a pre-Christian cult of Joshua,” originating in tensions between two different Joshua factions.

Interesting in this regard is the fact that “Jesus” is the Greek word for “Joshua." As Barker notes, in Mark 9:38, “the disciples of Jesus saw another man who was casting out devils in the name of Jesus (Joshua).”

3. It was “simply a fanciful patchwork of pieces borrowed from other religions.”

Pagan myths are peppered with their own pre-Jesus accounts of Last Suppers, passion play-outs, crucifixions of sun gods, virgin births and latter-day climatic battles between the forces of good and evil.

4. It followed from “a pre-Christian Jesus cult of gnosticism,” based on since-discovered ancient writings which declare, “I adjure thee by the God of the Hebrews, Jesus.”

5. It could have arisen “as the personification of Old Testament ‘wisdom,'" which did not rely on any historical basis for claims of a pre-existent, literal redeemer.

6. It may have resulted from so-called “self-reflective fiction,” wherein “literary parallels [are drawn] between Old and New Testament stories” through the use of “skeletal templates into which the Jews placed [them].”

In such cases, the tales are similar in not only content, but in structure, as with stories from the Old and New Testaments involving storms, the raising of widows’ sons from the dead, and miraculous episodes of so-called “food multiplication.”

7. It could have found origin in an earlier account of the crucifixion of a Messiah and Lawgiver figure known as the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, who was put to death in 88 B.C.

8. It could have been based on a naturalistic explanation that the resurrection story was essentially historically reliable, “but that Jesus merely fainted, and was presumed to be dead, coming back to consciousness later.” (Barker, pp. 372-76)
_____


Bibliography

-Barker, Dan, "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist" [Madison, Wisconsin: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1992)

-Doherty, Earl, "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?" (Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999)

-Edelen, William, "Toward the Mystery" (Boise, Idaho: Joslyn & Morris, Inc., no publication date)

-Parsons, Keith M., "Why I Am Not a Christian" [Atlanta, Georgia: Freethought Press, 2000]

-Templeton, Charles, "Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith" [Toronto, Ontario, Canada: McClelland & Stewart, Inc., 1996)

-Wells, G.A., "The Historical Evidence for Jesus" (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1988)

-Wilson, Ian, "Jesus: The Evidence" [San Francisco, California: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1984)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2016 06:58PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: thinking ( )
Date: December 20, 2016 08:17PM

Research librarian?

Thanks for the summation on the Pagan Roots, it's good information. The Zeitgeist movie lays it out well too if I remember it correctly. Humans since the beginning of time have been telling tales. Some biased in historical elements, some not, some became tale tells most certainly. What forms normally are archetypal characters and normally some sort of lesson is being taught. People love archetypal characters and stories. There's a reason why the pantheon of the "X-Men" and stories like Harry Potter are popular. Archetypal characters speak to people, creates world views and establishes morals. Notice how most movies end with the good overcoming evil? In the case of Christianity, Jesus is the archetypal character of ultimate good, and hope. Of course people want that to be a true story regardless of whether or not it is. Likewise, it would be great if Professor X and Wolverine were real, but regardless of the fictional nature these characters speak deeply to humans. People fill theaters as if they are churches and dress up like them out of admiration of the traits of the hero.

The hinging of weather or not their is a God of creation judged by ancient man's records from the Middle East seems short sighted. From a global perspective given the history of the worlds religions an even sillier premise. Proving Christianity unhistorical has the same correlation on weather their is a God as proving X-Men are fake. It really doesn't matter how many people believe in something to be real. Look at any cult. It's a false dilemma that will not be sorted out by looking at one tradition of religion. As I said earlier, the only way I believe we can correctly ascertain the existence of or nonexistence of God is when we have reality pinned down. At this point we are wondering around in Plato's cave deciding the 2000 year old story is wrong so there must be no God. I keep an open mind either way.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 04:25AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 10:56AM

You seem to have missed the point.
Lack of belief in a god is a reasonable position based on the total and complete lack of evidence showing there IS a god.

That has nothing to do with the history of religions, what they took from earlier pagan traditions, or the question of the historicity of "Jesus."

Pointing those things out, however, demonstrates to many who simply "believe" what religions tell them that what they've been told is factually false. That if they actually care, they might want to look at what history actually shows us, instead of what some pastor spews from a modern pulpit.

That can serve to get people "thinking." Something one could assume you'd appreciate, given your handle. :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: MandyElle ( )
Date: December 20, 2016 09:37PM

I really think this is where the brainwashing of other religions comes into play. Mormonism's brainwashing is rather obvious, but the other religions hide it better. For example, someone is a great pharmacist and is intelligent to some degree due to having a doctorate. When you bring up Jesus or other religious verbiage, the same regurgitated nonsense is said. Like when Mormons just repeat I know the church is true. They do that too. It's just a different sentence. I really think that it should be illegal for children to be taken to churches or religious meetings until they're 18. If they want to join after that then good for the con artists *cough* religious leaders.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tall Man, Short Hair ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 02:27AM

There's good reason why it took over 1700 years for the first suggestion to arise that Jesus was a mythical creation instead of an actual person. Perhaps this should serve as a cautionary element to this imaginative myth.

Tim O'Neill, atheist, historian:

"The real problem is that the Jesus Myth thesis requires a series of baseless suppositions to prop it up and gets slashed to pieces by Occam's Razor. That's why it only appeals to fringe contrarians and/or ideologues with an agenda."

http://thewrongmonkey.blogspot.com/2014/09/126-writers-who-according-to-michael.html

Lawrence Mykytiuk is associate professor of library science and the history librarian at Purdue University. He holds a Ph.D. in Hebrew and Semitic Studies and is the author of the book "Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E."

"As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33 Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”34

Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: “… [I]f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity … [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person … [T]he rabbis … used the real events of Jesus’ life against him” (Van Voorst).35

Thus his birth, ministry and death occasioned claims that his birth was illegitimate and that he performed miracles by evil magic, encouraged apostasy and was justly executed for his own sins. But they do not deny his existence.36"

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

For a closer look at mythical history with absolutely no evidence to support it, please scroll up to the section titled, "Possible Origins of the Jesus Myth."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 04:26AM

I have also provided further down in this thread the names and statements of other historians, scholars, academecians and scientists who have views on this subject that appear to be decidedly different than yours.

Let go of your "Jesus is Alive! Alive! (at least he was when existed)" ideology. It gets in the way of you preparing for death.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 07:52PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 08:00PM

Coming soon to a Sunday school near you.

The ongoing mission to prove the physical existence of the "Imaginary Playmate."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 04:44AM

"'Jesus NEVER Existed': Writer Finds No Mention of Christ in 126 Historical Texts and Says He Was a 'Mythical Character'"

"Writer Michael Paulkovich has claimed that there is little evidence for a person known as Jesus existing in history
Jesus is thought to have lived from about 7BC to 33AD in the Roman Empire

"However Paulkovich says he found little to no mention of the supposed messiah in 126 texts written in the first to third centuries

"Only one mention of Jesus was present, in a book by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, but he says this was added by later editors

"He says this is surprising despite the ‘alleged worldwide fame’ of Jesus

"And this has led him to believe that Jesus was a 'mythical character'"

By Jonathan O'Callaghan for MailOnline
PUBLISHED: 05:59 EST, 1 October 2014 | UPDATED: 06:48 EST, 2 October 2014

"Historical researcher Michael Paulkovich has claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a ‘mythical character’ and never existed.

"The controversial discovery was apparently made after he found no verifiable mention of Christ from 126 writers during the ‘time of Jesus’ from the first to third centuries.

"He says he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship.

"The claims were made in an article for 'Free Inquiry' called 'The Fable of the Christ' and a book called 'No Meek Messiah.'

"In the article and book, Paulkovich says he found an absence of evidence for Jesus in historical texts.

"And he says this is surprising despite his ‘global miracles and alleged worldwide fame.’

"The 126 texts he studied were all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus, when Paulkovich says they would surely have heard of someone as famous as Jesus - but none mention him.

"'When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not - and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions - I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character,’ he writes.

"‘"Jesus of Nazareth" was nothing more than urban (or desert) legend, likely an agglomeration of several evangelic and deluded rabbis who might have existed.’

"Of the writings he examined, written from the first to third centuries, he found only one book that contained a mention of Jesus - 'The Jewish Wars] by the Roman historian Josephus Flavius written in 95 CE, but he claims it is fabricated.

"Paulkovich says the mentions of Jesus were added later by editors, not by Josephus.

"Even in the Bible Paulkovich says Paul, often credited with spreading what would become Christianity, never refers to Jesus as a real person.

"‘Paul is unaware of the virgin mother, and ignorant of Jesus' nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles, betrayal, trial and harrowing passion,’ he writes.

"‘Paul knows neither where nor when Jesus lived, and considers the crucifixion metaphorical.’

"The 126 texts Paulkovich studied (shown here) were all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus, when Paulkovich says they would surely have heard of someone as famous as Jesus - but none mention him, leading the writer to conclude he is a 'mythical character' invented later.

"Paulkovich says he found little to no mention of the supposed messiah in 126 texts written in the first to third centuries. Only one mention of Jesus was present, in a book by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, but he says this was added by later editors.

"Paulkovich says he found little to no mention of the supposed messiah in 126 texts written in the first to third centuries. Only one mention of Jesus was present, in a book by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, but he says this was added by later editors. Pictured is the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

"He also says that silence from Jesus himself is telling, with no personal accounts being written.

"‘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.’

"He continues: ‘Christian father Marcion of Pontus in 144 CE denied any virgin birth or childhood for Christ - Jesus' infant circumcision was thus a lie, as well as the crucifixion!

"‘Reading the works of second century Christian father Athenagoras, one never encounters the word Jesus (or Ἰησοῦς or Ἰησοῦν, as he would have written) - Athenagoras was thus unacquainted with the name of his savior it would seem.’

"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.’

"Paulkovich’s views will surely prove very controversial, as most scholars do not support the theory that Jesus never existed.

"Most agree that he was a Galilean Jew born between 7 to 4 BC and who died in 30 to 36 AD.

"It is also widely agreed that he was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified on the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html#ixzz4TSncMouV



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 06:30AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 04:51AM

"Did Historical Jesus Really Exist? The Evidence Just Doesn’t Add Up. There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence."

By Raphael Lataster
Washington Post
18 December 2014

"(Raphael Lataster is a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Sydney. He is author of 'There Was No Jesus, There Is No God').

"Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed 'Christ of Faith' (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

"Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called 'Historical Jesus' – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, 'an academic embarrassment.' From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

"The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

"The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

"The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

"Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his 'Heavenly Jesus.' Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).

"Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

"Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

"The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the 'celestial Jesus' theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

"So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

"Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.2c2dd92b0bbe



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 06:28AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 05:03AM

"Jesus Never Existed, After All"

Nigel Barber
Huffinton Post
5 May 2016

"In an earlier post, I argued that the historicity of Jesus was doubtful. Some religion scholars questioned one of my sources. Now, recent scholarship comes as close as possible to settling the issue.

"Personally, I have no ax to grind so far as the historical existence of Jesus is concerned. If anything, I would prefer to believe that the life of Jesus, painstakingly learned in childhood, was connected to history rather than a fiction.

æUnfortunately, much of what one reads on this question is biased whether by religion scholars, and religious believers, who promote the historical Jesus, or atheist writers intent on debunking him.

æRichard Carrier’s 600-page, note-filled tome, On the Historicity of Jesus belongs in the second camp but it poses a challenge that academic proponents of the historical Jesus seem unlikely to overcome.

"Jesus as a No-Show in History

"There are many technical issues that historians must grapple with in determining whether some personage is historical, or fictitious. One is whether the Biblical gospels can be regarded as historical sources.

"In general, historians discount written sources that were committed to paper more than a century after the events they describe. Moreover, they prefer the authorship to be clearly established and for the writer to have a direct connection to what is recorded.

"The Biblical gospels do not cut it as history in these terms. Only St. Paul is thought to qualify in chronological terms. Yet, Paul had almost nothing to say about Jesus as a man and seems to have conceptualized him as a rarefied celestial being.

"For these reasons, most of the weight falls on Roman scholars and historians. Of these, Josephus, and Tacitus are most often cited as providing good documentary evidence for a historical Jesus. Carrier dismisses the two relevant Josephus passages as interpolations, or pieces added in to the manuscript by Christian scribes.

"One passage refers to the execution of Jesus by Pilate (called the 'Testimonium Flavianum'). Carrier (p. 332) comments, “This passage is self-evidently a fawning and gullible Christian fabrication, in fact demonstrably derived from the Emmaus narrative in the Gospel of Luke, inserted into the text at a point where it does not make any narrative sense ...”

"Carrier (pp. 337-8) argues that the second Josephus passage referring to James the brother of Jesus actually referred to James the brother of Jesus ben Damneus who was falsely executed by the high priest Ananus who was removed from office as a punishment and replaced by the same Jesus ben Damneus, He concludes that the phrase “(who was called Christ)” is probably a copyist error.

"The Tacitus reference to ]Chrestians' evidently refers to a Jewish rebel (Chrestus) who was executed but had nothing to do with Christianity. Carrier (pp. 343-4) concludes that a line referring to Pontius Pilate as the official who executed Christ, “is probably an interpolation, and that Tacitus in fact originally described not the Christians being scapegoated for the fire, [in Rome] but followers of the Jewish instigator Chrestus first suppressed under Claudius...” If Tacitus attributed the fire in Rome to Christians, he was the only Roman historian to do so.

"If Jesus cannot be convincingly documented as a historical figure, then where do the New Testament narratives come from? Carrier offers a very detailed working out of the theory that instead of being a historical person, Jesus was a mythical hero analogous to Jason, Hercules, or Oedipus.

"Mythical Jesus

"The hero-type of a divine king was described by scholars Otto Rank and Lord Raglan who established 22 distinctive features that range from virgin birth to death atop a hill and disappearance of the body.

"Jesus has 20 of the 22 features (according to the Gospel of Matthew, 14 according to the Gospel of Mark), compared to 22 for Oedipus, 19 for Dionysus, 17 for Hercules, and 14 for Jason.

"No historical person provides a close match with the hero-type so the close match of Jesus with the hero-type means that he could not have been a real historical person. Despite this, each of the heroes was considered to be historical and placed in history in stories written about them.

"So the theory of Jesus as a myth neatly explains how Jesus did not exist as a historical person yet was inserted into historical narratives by New Testament authors.

"Implications for the Origin of Religions

"In my earlier post, I described how Mormonism sprang from the fertile imagination of convicted confidence trickster Joseph Smith. In the course of time, Mormons lost many of their objectionable doctrines, including polygamy, racism, and 'celestial marriage' (or church-sanctioned adultery) and grew into a respectable world religion.

"I raised the possibility that some world religions begin as deliberate frauds. The Jesus myth provides an altogether different explanation for religious origins. Not all new religions are fictions invented by con men like Joseph Smith. Some are based on longstanding myths that address ancient human psychological needs for order and security."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/jesus-never-existed-after_b_9848702.html



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 07:26PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 05:14AM

"5 Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed" A growing number of scholars are openly questioning or actively arguing against whether Jesus lived."

By Valerie Tarico
AlterNet
22 August 2014

"Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are 'mythologized history.' In other words, based on the evidence available they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity. At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.

"For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historians grounded in this perspective have analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth. Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealot by Reza Aslan and How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman.

"By contrast, other scholars believe that the gospel stories are actually 'historicized mythology.' In this view, those ancient mythic templates are themselves the kernel. They got filled in with names, places and other real world details as early sects of Jesus worship attempted to understand and defend the devotional traditions they had received.

"The notion that Jesus never existed is a minority position. Of course it is! says David Fitzgerald, the author of 'Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All.' Fitzgerald points out that for centuries all serious scholars of Christianity were Christians themselves, and modern secular scholars lean heavily on the groundwork that they laid in collecting, preserving, and analyzing ancient texts. Even today most secular scholars come out of a religious background, and many operate by default under historical presumptions of their former faith.

"Fitzgerald, who as his book title indicates takes the 'mythical Jesus' position, is an atheist speaker and writer, popular with secular students and community groups. The internet phenom, 'Zeitgeist the Movie,' introduced millions to some of the mythic roots of Christianity. But Zeitgeist and similar works contain known errors and oversimplifications that undermine their credibility. Fitzgerald seeks to correct that by giving young people accessible information that is grounded in accountable scholarship.

"More academic arguments in support of the 'Jesus Myth' theory can be found in the writings of Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Carrier, who has a Ph.D. in ancient history uses the tools of his trade to show, among other things, how Christianity might have gotten off the ground without a miracle. Price, by contrast, writes from the perspective of a theologian whose biblical scholarship ultimately formed the basis for his skepticism. It is interesting to note that some of the harshest critics of popular Jesus myth theories like those from Zeitgeist or Joseph Atwill (who argued that the Romans invented Jesus) are academic Mythicists like these.

"The arguments on both sides of this question—mythologized history or historicized mythology—fill volumes, and if anything the debate seems to be heating up rather than resolving. Since many people, both Christian and not, find it surprising that this debate even exists—that serious scholars might think Jesus never existed—here are some of the key points that keep the doubts alive:

"1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

"In the words of Bart Ehrman (who himself believes the stories were built on a historical kernel):

“'What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.' (pp. 56-57)

"2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

"Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the 'Silence of Paul' on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

"Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded.

"Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.

"3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.

"We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began.

"For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are 'signed' by famous figures. The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine. But even the gospel stories don’t actually say, 'I was there.' Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who . . . .

"4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

"If you think you know the Jesus story pretty well, I suggest that you pause at this point to test yourself with the 20 question quizat ExChristian.net.

"The gospel of Mark is thought to be the earliest existing 'life of Jesus,' and linguistic analysis suggests that Luke and Matthew both simply reworked Mark and added their own corrections and new material. But they contradict each other and, to an even greater degree contradict the much later gospel of John, because they were written with different objectives for different audiences. The incompatible Easter stories offer one example of how much the stories disagree.

"5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

"They include a cynic philosopher, charismatic Hasid, liberal Pharisee, conservative rabbi, Zealot revolutionary, nonviolent pacifist to borrow from a much longer list assembled by Price. In his words (pp. 15-16), 'The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time.' John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar grumbles that 'the stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment.'

"For David Fitzgerald, these issues and more lead to a conclusion that he finds inescapable:

"Jesus appears to be an effect, not a cause, of Christianity. Paul and the rest of the first generation of Christians searched the Septuagint translation of Hebrew scriptures to create a Mystery Faith for the Jews, complete with pagan rituals like a Lord’s Supper, Gnostic terms in his letters, and a personal savior god to rival those in their neighbors’ longstanding Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic and Roman traditions.

"In a soon-to-be-released follow up to 'Nailed,' entitled 'Jesus: Mything in Action,' Fitzgerald argues that the many competing versions proposed by secular scholars are just as problematic as any 'Jesus of Faith.'

"Even if one accepts that there was a real Jesus of Nazareth, the question has little practical meaning: Regardless of whether or not a first century rabbi called Yeshua ben Yosef lived, the “historical Jesus” figures so patiently excavated and re-assembled by secular scholars are themselves fictions.

"We may never know for certain what put Christian history in motion. Only time (or perhaps time travel) will tell."

http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reasons-suspect-jesus-never-existed



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 06:32AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 05:44AM

"Although the majority of scholars today believe that a Jesus lived on earth, the reasons for this appear suspicious once you consider the history and evolution of Jesus scholarship. Hundreds of years ago all Biblical scholars believed in God. Considering their Christian beliefs, they would, of course, believe in a historical Jesus. In the last two centuries, the school has loosened up a bit, and today they even allow atheists into their study rooms. But even today you had better allude to a historical Jesus even if you question the reliability of the sources, otherwise, you may not have a job. If, indeed, Bible scholars did allow skeptics of a historical Jesus into their studies, and they presented a convincing case, that could threaten the very branch of Jesus scholarship that studied a historical Jesus. It could very well disappear like that of euhermerism.

"Although some secular freethinkers and atheists accept a historical Jesus (minus the miracles), they, like most Christians, simply accept the traditional view without question. As time goes on, more and more scholars have begun to open the way to a more honest look at the evidence, or should I say, the lack of evidence. So for those who wish to rely on scholarly opinion, I will give a few quotes from Biblical researchers and scholars, past and present:
_____


"When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up."

-Thomas Paine ("The Age of Reason")


"The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life."

-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] ("Modern Thought")

_____


"It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all."

-J.M. Robertson ("Pagan Christs")
_____



"Many people-- then and now-- have assumed that these letters [of Paul] are genuine, and five of them were in fact incorporated into the New Testament as "letters of Paul." Even today, scholars dispute which are authentic and which are not. Most scholars, however, agree that Paul actually wrote only eight of the thirteen "Pauline" letters now included in the New Testament. collection: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Virtually all scholars agree that Paul himself did not write 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus--letters written in a style different from Paul's and reflecting situations and viewpoints in a style different from those in Paul's own letters. About the authorship of Ephesias, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, debate continues; but the majority of scholars include these, too, among the 'deutero-Pauline'--literally, secondarily Pauline--letters.'

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, ("Adam, Eve, and the Serpent")
_____


"We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, ("The Gnostic Gospels")
_____


"Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the 'historical Jesus'. . . and that sorting out 'authentic] material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence."

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
_____



"The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong."

-Randel McCraw Helms ("Who Wrote the Gospels?")
_____



"Far from being an intimate of an intimate of Jesus, Mark wrote at the forth remove from Jesus."

-Randel McCraw Helms ("Who Wrote the Gospels?")
_____



"Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus."

-Randel McCraw Helms ("Who Wrote the Gospels?")
_____



"All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.".

-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto ("Bible Review,@ Feb. 2000, p. 36)
_____



"The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel".

-Bishop John Shelby Spong
_____



"But even if it could be proved that John's Gospel had been the first of the four to be written down, there would still be considerable confusion as to who "John" was. For the various styles of the New Testament texts ascribed to John- The Gospel, the letters, and the Book of Revelations-- are each so different in their style that it is extremely unlikely that they had been written by one person."

-John Romer, archeologist and Bible scholar ("Testament")
_____



"It was not until the third century that Jesus' cross of execution became a common symbol of the Christian faith."

-John Romer, archeologist and Bible scholar ("Testament")
_____



"What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things."

-Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, ("Bible Review," December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p. 9)
_____



"When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards."

-David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the "Anchor Bible" series ("Bible Review," December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)
_____



"Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published under his name; and it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the canonical books ascribed to them."

-Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College ("Bible Review," June 1994)
_____



"A generation after Jesus' death, when the Gospels were written, the Romans had destroyed the Jerusalem Temple (in 70 C.E.); the most influential centers of Christianity were cities of the Mediterranean world such as Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, Damascus, Ephesus and Rome. Although large number of Jews were also followers of Jesus, non-Jews came to predominate in the early Church. They controlled how the Gospels were written after 70 C.E."

-Bruce Chilton, Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College ("Bible Review," December 1994, p. 37)
_____



"James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew, 'is in fact not historical.'

"How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner's speculations concerning Jesus' baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really know if the baptism, or any other event written about in the Gospels, is historical?"

-Daniel P. Sullivan, "Bible Review," June 1996, Vol. XII, Number 3, p. 5)
_____



"David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the Gospels could not be read as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said; rather, the evangelists and later redactors and commentators, influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and legends that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus' life, unreliable as sources of historical information.".

-"Bible Review," October 1996, Vol. XII, Number 5, p. 39
_____



"The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts."

-Bishop Shelby Spong, "Liberating the Gospels"
_____



"Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "Who Wrote the Bible?" ("U.S. News & World Report," December 10, 1990)
_____



"Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars-- from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or traveled with Jesus."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," ("U.S. News & World Report," December 10, 1990)
_____



"Once written, many experts believe, the Gospels were redacted, or edited, repeatedly as they were copied and circulated among church elders during the last first and early second centuries."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," ("U.S. News & World Report," December 10, 1990)
_____



"The tradition attributing the fourth Gospel to the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, is first noted by Irenaeus in A.D. 180. It is a tradition based largely on what some view as the writer's reference to himself as "the beloved disciple" and "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Current objection to John's authorship are based largely on modern textural analyses that strongly suggest the fourth Gospel was the work of several hands, probably followers of an elderly teacher in Asia Minor named John who claimed as a young man to have been a disciple of Jesus."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," ("U.S. News & World Report," Decmember 10, 1990)
_____



"Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus' death that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words the authors attributed to Jesus himself."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Catholic Papers," ("U.S. News & World Report," December 10, 1990)
_____



"Three letters that Paul allegedly wrote to his friends and former co-workers Timothy and Titus are now widely disputed as having come from Paul's hand."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," ("U.S. News & World Report," December 10, 1990)
_____



"The Epistle of James is a practical book, light on theology and full of advice on ethical behavior. Even so, its place in the Bible has been challenged repeatedly over the years. It is generally believed to have been written near the end of the first century to Jewish Christians. . . but scholars are unable conclusively to identify the writer.

"Five men named James appear in the New Testament: the brother of Jesus, the son of Zebedee, the son of Alphaeus, "James the younger" and the father of the Apostle Jude.

"Little is known of the last three, and since the son of Zebedee was martyred in A.D. 44, tradition has leaned toward the brother of Jesus. However, the writer never claims to be Jesus' brother. And scholars find the language too erudite for a simple Palestinian. This letter is also disputed on theological grounds. Martin Luther called it "an epistle of straw" that did not belong in the Bible because it seemed to contradict Paul's teachings that salvation comes by faith as a 'gift of God'--not by good works."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Catholic Papers," ("U.S. News & World Report," Dec. 10, 1990)
_____



"The origins of the three letters of John are also far from certain."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," ("U.S. News & World Report," December 10, 1990)
_____



"Christian tradition has held that the Apostle Peter wrote the first [letter], probably in Rome shortly before his martyrdom about A.D. 65. However, some modern scholars cite the epistle's cultivated language and its references to persecutions that did not occur until the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) as evidence that it was actually written by Peter's disciples sometime later.

"Second Peter has suffered even harsher scrutiny. Many scholars consider it the latest of all New Testament books, written around A.D. 125. The letter was never mentioned in second-century writings and was excluded from some church canons into the fifth century. "This letter cannot have been written by Peter," wrote Werner Kummel, a Heidelberg University scholar, in his highly regarded Introduction to the New Testament."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Catholic Papers," ("U.S. News & World Report," December 10, 1990)
_____



"The letter of Jude also is considered too late to have been written by the attested author-- "the brother of James" and, thus, of Jesus. The letter, believed written early in the second century."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Catholic Papers," ("U.S. News & World Report," December 10, 1990)
_____



"According to the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, a faithful account of the actions and words of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels; but it is impossible to reconcile this with the existence in the text of contradictions, improbabilities, things which are materially impossible or statements which run contrary to firmly established reality."

-Maurice Bucaille ("The Bible, the Quran, and Science")
_____



"The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels."

-Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels," ("U.S. News & World Report," December 10, 1990)
_____



"Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous followers (or their followers' followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus' life. The earliest appeared to have been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion."

-David Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" ("Time," April 8, 1996)
_____



"So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that 'we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus.'"

-Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926
_____



"The Synoptic Gospels employ techniques that we today associate with fiction."

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University ("Bible Review," June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
____


"Josephus says that he himself witnessed a certain Eleazar casting out demons by a method of exorcism that had been given to Solomon by God himself-- while Vespasian watched! In the same work, Josephus tells the story of a rainmaker, Onias (14.2.1)."

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University ("Bible Review," June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
_____



"For Mark's gospel to work, for instance, you must believe that Isaiah 40:3 (quoted, in a slightly distorted form, in Mark 1:2-3) correctly predicted that a stranger named John would come out of the desert to prepare the way for Jesus. It will then come as something of a surprise to learn in the first chapter of Luke that John is a near relative, well known to Jesus' family."

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University ("Bible Review," June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
_____



"The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our using it as a historical record of that year."

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University ("Bible Review," June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 54)
_____



"Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."

-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic ("The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy")
_____



"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies."

-Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, "From Jesus to Christ," aired in 1998)
_____



"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts."

-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
_____



"We are led to conclude that, in Paul's past, there was no historical Jesus. Rather, the activities of the Son about which God's gospel in scripture told, as interpreted by Paul, had taken place in the spiritual realm and were accessible only through revelation."

-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p. 83
_____


"Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth."

-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p. 141
_____



"Even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction."

-Robert M. Price, "Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John Rankin," Opening Statement
_____



"It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last."

-Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute ("Deconstructing Jesus," p. 260)

("Did a Historical Jesus Exist?," by Jim Walker, originated: 12 June 1997/additions: 22 April 2011, http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 07:46PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tall Man, Short Hair ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 12:54PM

I'll leave it to our more patient community members to sift through your carpet bombing response.

The problem remains that it is without dispute, something happened in the first century in Jerusalem that gave birth to this Christian faith. No reasonable human can dispute this. Exactly what happened? And will you please for once explain to us why none of the contemporary critics of Christianity claimed Jesus never existed? Why did the world need to wait over 1700 years before this fabrication found it's way to the surface?

As noted by even several atheists, Occam's Razor demands the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. And despite years of my repeated requests, you have been unable to produce evidence for any of your alternate theories that even begins to match the wealth of resources citing the fact of an actual historical Jesus.

I understand questions about the miracles attributed to Jesus. Those veer into faith, and are fine to question. But your steadfast insistence there was no Jesus places you firmly in the tin foil hat crowd.

Daniel Fincke, atheist:

"I personally want to take this chance to discourage my fellow atheists who are not historians from publicly making a big deal out of the historicity of Jesus, especially when engaging with Christians. Why? Because the historical consensus is that there was a historical Jesus. Responsible, mainstream, qualified history scholars who judiciously disregard supernaturalistic claims about Jesus and have no agenda to promote Christianity nonetheless, as a matter of academic consensus, believe there was a historical Jesus. Could they be wrong? It’s possible. But if they are, that is for qualified historians to prove, not laypeople. And it is for the field of ancient history to be persuaded to change its consensus before laypeople go around making claims that Jesus did not exist."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2013/10/on-atheists-attempting-to-deny-the-historical-jesus/#ixzz3QPiEksOn


Tim O'Neill, atheist, hisorian:

"I’m another atheist who long ago realized that when it comes to historiography, most atheists are stunted at about a high school level of understanding."

http://www.inquisitr.com/1523534/jesus-christ-never-existed-atheists-and-historians-dispute-michael-paulkovichs-jesus-myth/#3Y0mCQIpjgdzDHyE.99";;;

"The real problem is that the Jesus Myth thesis requires a series of baseless suppositions to prop it up and gets slashed to pieces by Occam's Razor. That's why it only appeals to fringe contrarians and/or ideologues with an agenda."

http://thewrongmonkey.blogspot.com/2014/09/126-writers-who-according-to-michael.html

"The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars. The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity."

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/

Neil Carter, atheist:

"When climate change deniers want to insist that our actions have no impact on global temperatures, they display a remarkable disdain for an entire discipline populated by credentialed professionals in that field who say otherwise. It doesn’t seem to bother the deniers that they themselves have no specialization in the academic field they disparage because in any field of study there will always be at least some small contingent who go against the consensus. The existence of those outliers is justification enough for the deniers to say, 'This business is far from certain, you know. Just look at these four people who disagree!'

That’s how I feel when people in the skeptic community argue that Jesus never existed. They are dismissing a large body of work for which they have insufficient appreciation, most often due to the fact that they themselves have never formally studied the subject. "

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/09/04/an-atheists-defense-of-the-historicity-of-jesus/#ixzz3QPkN3yBP";;;



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 12:56PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 03:43PM

I've quoted scholars, historians and noted authorities back at him, and he's still crying like the Messiah baby.

Wait. Jesus didn't cry. He was the perfect child. It says so in those unreliable Gospels.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 03:45PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 03:50PM

You know what your non-existent Jesus said about hypocrites.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 04:40PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Babyloncansuckit ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 04:09PM

Nobody is arguing. They are pointing out the evidence that it's a myth. How it looks like, walks like and quacks like a myth. If Jesus being a myth is a problem for you then you might have a problem with reality.

If you disregard all scholars whose careers weren't destroyed by revealing their findings, the list shortens considerably. Try John Allegro, the Dead Seas Scrolls scholar who found that Jesus was the creation of a psychedelic mushroom cult. Your tripped out neighborhood shroom head might be the closest to the original Jesus tradition.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 10:59AM

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's good reason why it took over 1700 years
> for the first suggestion to arise that Jesus was a
> mythical creation instead of an actual person.

That's not the case at all.

Tacitus, writing in about 116 CE, reported what christians believed, then called their beliefs "a pernicious myth."*

Oops.


* some translations render the phrase in question, "a most mischievous superstition." The Latin is, "exitiablilis superstitio"
However you translate it, it's clear that Tacitus considered the Jesus story to be made-up nonsense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 11:06AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tall Man, Short Hair ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 12:30PM

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There's good reason why it took over 1700 years
> > for the first suggestion to arise that Jesus was
> a
> > mythical creation instead of an actual person.
>
> That's not the case at all.
>
> Tacitus, writing in about 116 CE, reported what
> christians believed, then called their beliefs "a
> pernicious myth."*
>
> Oops.
>

Tacitus referenced Jesus as an actual person. It's the beliefs birthed with Jesus that Tacitus critiques. He raises no question about whether or not this person actually existed.

>
> * some translations render the phrase in question,
> "a most mischievous superstition." The Latin is,
> "exitiablilis superstitio"
> However you translate it, it's clear that Tacitus
> considered the Jesus story to be made-up
> nonsense.

Here's a more complete extract from Tacitus. It's simply dishonest to claim Tacitus said there was no actual Jesus when Tacitus notes "Christus" founded the faith and was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Can you cite any reliable historian (not an ideologue) who has ever actually claimed Tacitus as a leader in the "Jesus was a myth" movement? From Annals 15:44:

"Hence to suppress the rumor, he [Nero] Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 12:39PM

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tacitus referenced Jesus as an actual person.

Tacitus didn't reference "Jesus" at all. He mentions a "christus" that people of his time believed in, but never mentions "Jesus."

> It's
> the beliefs birthed with Jesus that Tacitus
> critiques. He raises no question about whether or
> not this person actually existed.

He refers to what christians believe as a pernicious superstition. He doesn't specify which part of their beliefs, including whether or not "christus" was real, he considers a pernicious superstition. To me, that says he considers *all* of it a pernicious superstition.

> It's
> simply dishonest to claim Tacitus said there was
> no actual Jesus...

I didn't make any such claim. I simply pointed out that Tacitus considered christian beliefs superstition.

> when Tacitus notes "Christus"
> founded the faith and was put to death by Pontius
> Pilate.

Was he simply repeating there what he'd heard christians *claim?*
That's how I read it. Not as a statement of "fact," but as a statement of the beliefs of christians.

If he had referenced any Roman history, that history wouldn't have contained "christus." That was a title used by Christians, not by Romans. Any Roman history would have had "Jesus" or "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Yeshua." Tacitus doesn't mention any name, only the title *christians* used, which indicates he heard this story from christians, and was repeating what they believed -- he then immediately calls it a superstition/myth.

> Can you cite any reliable historian (not
> an ideologue) who has ever actually claimed
> Tacitus as a leader in the "Jesus was a myth"
> movement? From Annals 15:44:

I don't claim Tacitus was a "leader in the 'Jesus was a myth' movement. Once again, I simply pointed out that Tacitus says he considers what christians believed about 'christus' (he never mentions "Jesus") to be superstition/myth. He doesn't believe it.

By the way, are the only "reliable" historians the ones who agree with you? Are the rest "ideologues?" Hmm, reminds me of something about Scotsmen...:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 12:48PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tall Man, Short Hair ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 01:24PM

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't claim Tacitus was a "leader in the 'Jesus
> was a myth' movement. Once again, I simply
> pointed out that Tacitus says he considers what
> christians believed about 'christus' (he never
> mentions "Jesus") to be superstition/myth. He
> doesn't believe it.
>
> By the way, are the only "reliable" historians the
> ones who agree with you? Are the rest
> "ideologues?" Hmm, reminds me of something about
> Scotsmen...:)

Well perhaps we misunderstand each other. I make no claim that Tacitus believed in a miraculous savior. He does provide an account reporting that there was an actual person "Christus" at the root of the Christian faith. I believe this is a claim our OP would dispute. OP prefers to don metallic cranial attire and suggest elaborate alternate conspiracy theories for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever rather than submit to the weight of the historical evidence that there actually was an individual (human or otherwise) at the genesis of the Christian phenomenon.

Occam's Razor does not demand we accept him as savior, but there is no reasonable conclusion to draw from the available evidence except that there was a person "Jesus" at the root of this whole Jesus movement. As I noted above, we all agree something happened in the first century in Jerusalem that created this thing we know as Christianity. The simplest explanation is the one with the plethora of tracks leading back to the scene of the event. There was a Jesus there.

If you agree that there likely was some person who served as the palette from which the colors of the Christian faith were painted, then we're likely in the same camp. As a believer, I will necessarily attribute more miraculous renderings than you, but we can likely agree there was no grand, completely unsupported, conspiracy at the start of it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 01:50PM

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well perhaps we misunderstand each other. I make
> no claim that Tacitus believed in a miraculous
> savior. He does provide an account reporting that
> there was an actual person "Christus" at the root
> of the Christian faith.

I don't agree. As I pointed out above, it appears he was simply repeating what he heard from some christians or about christians. My explanation is above.

> I believe this is a claim
> our OP would dispute.

As would I. :)

> ...rather than submit to the
> weight of the historical evidence that there
> actually was an individual (human or otherwise) at
> the genesis of the Christian phenomenon.

Despite the cherry-picked quotes of a few "select" atheists above, I do *not* agree that there is any "weight" of historical evidence showing any such thing.

I do agree that there being some person who started it likely. However, no evidence shows who that person was (for all we know, it could have been "Paul").

What I'd point out to you is simply this: historians (christian, atheist, whatever) argue about what evidence there is, what it means, whether it's reliable or not. They come down on all sides of the issue. But in your discussions on this, you often engage in a false dichotomy: that EITHER there was a real Jesus OR Jesus was a myth, and that if you don't accept the first, you must be claiming the second. That's not the case at all. Not accepting the first because of lack of evidence doesn't even imply the second -- it simply indicates our inability to muster evidence to support the first. It doesn't require claiming the second. "We don't know if there was an actual Jesus or not" is thus the situation, without considering the separate claim that "Jesus was entirely a myth," which requires its own evidence and its own consideration (and for the record, though there's ample reason to consider many of the stories about Jesus' deeds as myth, there's no more evidence to show the entire character was a myth than there is to show the entire character was a real person).

That appears to be Tacitus' position as well. He doesn't claim "Jesus was a myth!" He simply repeats what christians say, then calls it a superstition/myth. He doesn't believe it.

Your original post stated:
"There's good reason why it took over 1700 years
for the first suggestion to arise that Jesus was a mythical creation instead of an actual person."

That wasn't correct. Tacitus did indeed offer such a "suggestion." He didn't claim it as fact, but it's clear he thought christian beliefs about "christus" were superstition/myth. It's very likely that pretty much every other non-christian/Roman of the time felt the same, though we don't have their writings.

> Occam's Razor does not demand we accept him as
> savior, but there is no reasonable conclusion to
> draw from the available evidence except that there
> was a person "Jesus" at the root of this whole
> Jesus movement.

Occam's Razor would suggest we can't conclude there was or wasn't a person "Jesus" at all. We don't know. We may very well never know. The evidence FOR one doesn't support that conclusion though, and even christian scholars agree (as Steve gave references to above) that the Jesus stories could have come from some other "teacher," from an Essene "teacher" that was put to death in 88 BCE, or from other sources -- including being entirely made up out of thin air.

> As I noted above, we all agree
> something happened in the first century in
> Jerusalem that created this thing we know as
> Christianity.

Yes, we all agree that *something* in the first century happened to create christianity. We don't agree that it happened in Jerusalem (Antioch has often been suggested, with some evidence to back it up, as christianity's birthplace).

> The simplest explanation is the one
> with the plethora of tracks leading back to the
> scene of the event. There was a Jesus there.

That's the thing, though. There are *no* tracks leading back to "Jesus." The stories (gospels) we have that CLAIM "Jesus" was the source of it are anonymous, late, contradictory, and not backed by archaeological or other "hard" evidence. Given that, it's just as simple an explanation to imagine that Paul made it all up, and spread it. Or that some other "teacher" like the Essene one, before the 1st century CE, had his stories spread and be modified. The "simplest" explanation shouldn't be one that is rife with contradiction, anonymity, and unverifiability.

> If you agree that there likely was some person who
> served as the palette from which the colors of the
> Christian faith were painted, then we're likely in
> the same camp.

I do agree with that. We just don't know who that was, when they lived, where they were born, etc. I agree with that because *somebody* had to start the thing. Religions don't just pop up out of thin air, they're the product of humans. Somebody started it.

> As a believer, I will necessarily
> attribute more miraculous renderings than you, but
> we can likely agree there was no grand, completely
> unsupported, conspiracy at the start of it.

I don't think any such "grand conspiracy" likely, but I can't rule it out. We simply don't know how it started. Neither the "Jesus was a real person" nor the "Jesus was entirely a myth" camps have evidence providing a closed case, or even a high probability. We just don't know.

So, whether you believe there was a real Jesus or not isn't a matter that can be settled by historical evidence. For the believer, it's "faith." For people like me, who eschew "faith," there's no reason to believe there was a Jesus -- until somebody shows convincing evidence there was (then, of course, there would still be the matter of whether he was "divine"...).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 02:25PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Finally Free! ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 01:50PM

J.K. Rowling has stated that none of the characters in her books are based on real people, with the exception of one, Gilderoy Lockhart. His personality of narcissism and taking credit from other people was something she based on a real life person...

Does that mean that Gilderoy Lockhart is or was a real person? No it does not. The person that the character was based on is real, but they didn't wield magic, didn't teach in Hogwarts, and didn't do anything that the story has that character do. Gilderoy Lockhart is not a real person and anyone arguing that he is would be laughed at.

So, what about Jesus... Was he based on some guy long ago? Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn't mean that "Jesus" existed at all. There is no evidence for pretty much anything that is purported to have happened to him in the Bible happening. There was no census that forced people to travel to the homes of their ancestors, there was no reports of large crowds people following around a teacher hoping to be healed and causing an uproar. (According the the Bible these crowds would have been large enough to warrant being written up somewhere) There is no record of his crucifixion... There's no contemporary record of his existence...

Yet, believers continue to claim that because there's this huge religion built around his story, that he must have existed and that's the only proof that they have. (To me, that's like saying that Spider-man must exist, or at least must have someone who was real at his creation, because he has tons of fans)

As for "vast conspiracies", why do they have to be "vast"? Joseph Smith and a small handful of others created a narrative that is believed by thousands, if not a couple million to be absolutely true. It wasn't a vast conspiracy, it's how religions start. Time will tell if Joseph Smith's attempt will last as long and grow as large as Christianity, I doubt it will due to the information age and the relative ease we now have to research Joseph Smith's history, but who knows.

Applying Occam's Razor to Christianity and the Christ story says to make no more assumptions than necessary... The simplest argument is that Christ was made up. Maybe his character was loosely based on one or more people who existed, but the differences from known reality are enough to make the "reality" of such a person moot, but according to Occam's Razor, we don't even need to make that assumption. He can be a completely made up character and Christianity could still be what it is today.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 04:30PM

to a position of supposed high authority when it comes to allegedly verifying this "real live Jesus'" magical history tour. The long and short of it is that Tacitus has long been dead and buried when it comes to spurious claims by the "Jesus Lived!" crowd that he serves as a reliable historical reference point on the case of the ambling Messiah.

For Tall Tale's benefit, let's review what I've already posted in this thread about this tattered Tacitus:

--Lataster:

“There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them."
_____


--Wilson:

There is no reliable evidence for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. The writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus areneither clear or specific.


--Wells:

A favorite pagan source cited by Christian believers verifying the life of a “real” Jesus is that of the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote that “Christians derive their name and origin from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”

Ample evidence exists, however, to show that Tacitus was simply repeating what he had been told by Christian informants.

First, as Wells demonstrates, Tacitus identified Pilate by the rank of procurator, which title was a Roman administrative office from the second half of the first century.

Next, Tacitus failed to identify Jesus by name, but merely referred to a person put to death who went by the title of Christ.

Finally, Tacitus was an opponent of Christianity and therefore would have been inclined to repeat the Christian view of the day that Christianity was of recent vintage, given that the Roman government countenanced only ancient cults. (Wells, pp. 16-17)
_____


--Parsons:

"‘ . . . [P]agan sources do not confirm the resurrection. . . . [T]here is good reason to suppose that [a well-known passage from Tacitus] was written nearly ninety years after the alleged death of Jesus and was based not on historical research but on information provided by Christians of the second century. . . .”

******


Let it go, "Tall Man, Short Hair." Your ideologue monologue is becoming your mind bog.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2016 05:05PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Babyloncansuckit ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 08:51AM

Good job. Jelievers would see this as a critique of their beliefs but it's just critical thinking. Instruction in "How to smell a myrh". Once you get that, and beyond the need for a historical Jesus, a world of possibilities open up that don't rely on self deception. There's even room for other beliefs, if weird beliefs float your boat. A little self deception can be a fun game, like adult hide and seek.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Babyloncansuckit ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 08:53AM

My English teacher would have had me shot.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jacob ( )
Date: December 21, 2016 12:48PM

Yea, a Christmas is pagan and Jesus is a myth thread all in one.

I think it could be reasonably argued that Christmas is Christian..... now. Just like it could be reasonably argued that the swastika and pentagram now mean something different.

But anyway, Christmas has pagan roots, Jesus, lord and savior of all, never lived, and symbols and words change meaning.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  ******    *******   **         *******   **      ** 
 **    **  **     **  **        **     **  **  **  ** 
 **               **  **               **  **  **  ** 
 **         *******   **         *******   **  **  ** 
 **               **  **               **  **  **  ** 
 **    **  **     **  **        **     **  **  **  ** 
  ******    *******   ********   *******    ***  ***