Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

davewhite04 said:
I don't know of any prophet that had foretold something like this, I mean it's a prophecy about how human beings will behave many hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, who prophesied it(A very complex prediction if you ask me).
Predictions that are based on basic knowledge of human nature are not difficult to do, Dave. That's how beachfront psychics and newspaper astrologers get their money, after all. Oh, and incidentally, Jesus was not talking about how humans would behave hundreds of years after his death, but scant decades. There were messiah claimants very quickly after him (to say nothing of before him), and there were people who twisted what he said to suit themselves pretty much before the century was out. Your saying "Koresh, anyone?" was just..... well, it made me chuckle, anyway. Koresh, anyone? Jim Jones? Erm, Joseph Smith? And pretty much on and on (and not restricted to Christianity either), all the way back to Year Zero.

davewhite04 said:
If you have a more remarkable prediction then that, backed up with straight forward evidence, then let me see it.
That's cute, Dave, really. Ask the skeptic to provide a better supernatural event, with evidence. :D My point being that nobody produced predictions better than Jesus did, nor any worse. And neither Jesus, nor any of the Old Testament prophets produced any psychic views of the future with sufficient detail to ever be regarded as remotely supernatural, any more than Nostradamus did, or the "Bible Code". Wars, defeat, it's all human nature. And the preservation of the odd prediction that did come true is self-fulfillment at its best, because the prophecies which failed were not preserved.
 
Silas said:
Predictions that are based on basic knowledge of human nature are not difficult to do, Dave. That's how beachfront psychics and newspaper astrologers get their money, after all. Oh, and incidentally, Jesus was not talking about how humans would behave hundreds of years after his death, but scant decades. There were messiah claimants very quickly after him (to say nothing of before him), and there were people who twisted what he said to suit themselves pretty much before the century was out. Your saying "Koresh, anyone?" was just..... well, it made me chuckle, anyway. Koresh, anyone? Jim Jones? Erm, Joseph Smith? And pretty much on and on (and not restricted to Christianity either), all the way back to Year Zero.

Luke 21:8
And He said: “Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time has drawn near.’ Therefore do not go after them.

The key being that Jesus is saying that many will come in His name, bearing in mind at the time Christianity didn't even exist, He was just a travelling wise man. A pretty impressive prediction if you ask me. But if you prefer to close your eyes and live in the dark, so be it.
 
I can't get you atheists who don't think Jesus existed as a person. I'm no Christian (personally, I bet Jesus wouldn't be happy with Christians anyway) but it's amazing the conspiracy theories you people come up with to explain Jesus away. You sound like the flat-earthers that say God created fossils to confuse us.
 
: :eek:
Religion will never die due to the fact most people are too lazy to think for themselves. Religion offers quick explanations, and it covers everything. What ever it does not explain is left as the mysterious ways of god. Most atheist seem to spend a lot of time thinking about(why else would we be on these forums), thus many of us have seen too many errors. Regarding religion i have problem dissmissing as untruthful. There is one thing though that i find more central than religion. Does god exist. The people who have a faith that have passion tend to not be concerned with religion as much as their uniqe faith in god alonw. Rather than bothering with religion to prove the point this is what needs to be determinded. It is not that hard to make intelligent people relize there are too many flaws with religion. But although one sees the flaws they may choose to ignore them, this is kind of a contradiction i know to saying their smart. I am not sure where i am going with this, but will end with this. My dislike for religion comes from the fanactics, which most religious people are not in my experiance.
 
Where did the Lord's Supper come from? Was it an imaginary meal that the disciples shared with an imaginary person? Were the disciples imaginary too?

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

For an atheist: Where did reality begin in the 1st century AD regarding the Christian religion? Who were the conspirators that put it all together?


Most importantly:

Why didn't someone disprove it (Christianity) at the very beginning? The Jews hated Christianity and so did the Romans. Why didn't somebody just step up and say "You know we Romans have no record of executing a Jew called Jesus Christ -- Pontious Pilate denies it, and all the Jewish authorities deny that a man you call Jesus the Christ ever existed. So why don't you Christians just stop your religion now so we won't have to execute you? We hereby prove that Jesus Christ never existed and this religion of yours really makes no sense at all."

Can an atheist find documentation that the Roman authorities did this? There were plenty of people around back then that were "up to the task" of destroying christianity -- Saul of Tarsus (the apostle Paul) was one of them. It just makes common sense that they would have the smarts to do this with the facts, and "end the problem" forever. Will atheists deny that the christian religion was a serious problem for the Roman and Jewish authorities? They had a major problem alright -- because they couldn't deny the truth that was well known by many many thousands (perhaps millions) of people in Israel that witnessed Jesus in their lifetimes. He preached to five thousand alone at the Mount of Beatitudes.

Denying that Jesus ever existed really makes no common sense. He must have been a very charismatic person that a large number of people experienced.
 
Last edited:
Finsnuffle said:
I can't get you atheists who don't think Jesus existed as a person. I'm no Christian (personally, I bet Jesus wouldn't be happy with Christians anyway) but it's amazing the conspiracy theories you people come up with to explain Jesus away. You sound like the flat-earthers that say God created fossils to confuse us.
Dammit! I had a huge epiphany and realised exactly what was wrong with the Mythical Jesus argument, and why I intrinsically rejected it, and have been busy for a week trying to work up a long post for the IIDB forums that showed how the MJ theory is a conspiracy theory in that it has all the characteristics of the conspiracy theory. And you just knock it off in a short post, Finsnuffle. I thought it was a really original idea of mine. :(
 
Finsnuffle said:
I can't get you atheists who don't think Jesus existed as a person. I'm no Christian (personally, I bet Jesus wouldn't be happy with Christians anyway) but it's amazing the conspiracy theories you people come up with to explain Jesus away.
then do us all a favour and explain him back again, thank you.
it's not conspiracy, it's hard facts, no evidence.
 
I can't get you atheists who don't think Jesus existed as a person. I'm no Christian (personally, I bet Jesus wouldn't be happy with Christians anyway) but it's amazing the conspiracy theories you people come up with to explain Jesus away.

Were you there? It's a conspiracy one ment to deceit the masses, it has worked, and the gullible eat it up, it takes a mindless idiot to believe so much BS.

The Christ conspiracy
Jesus never existed

Debunking Jesus Christ

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

Nuf said!

Godless
 
Musta said,

then do us all a favour and explain him back again, thank you.
it's not conspiracy, it's hard facts, no evidence.

The argument of silence speaks louder than the hard facts you are looking for. The people that were there in the first century and hated christianity with a passion -- why didn't they produce the hard facts to prove Jesus never existed? Why didn't the people in authority nip it in the bud, and remove the threat to their power and control? Just a simple statement from Pontious Pilate and the Jewish sanhedrin would have been sufficient, wouldn't it?

The atheists, jews, and romans had their chance 2000 years ago and they blew it.
 
Woody said:
Why didn't the people in authority nip it in the bud?
They tried to, but the common people fell into the stupid of christianity. This stupidity seeped all the way into the leadership, sadly, leading to the legalization of the religion by Constantine.
 
Hapsburg said:
They tried to, but the common people fell into the stupid of christianity. This stupidity seeped all the way into the leadership, sadly, leading to the legalization of the religion by Constantine.

Exactly right -- it was easier for the entire roman government to change than it was to prove that Jesus never existed -- because they couldn't disprove it, they knew it was true.

How about that -- the world's superpower was defeated by a "myth" named Jesus. No "nation" could beat Rome with a military, but Jesus "the myth" took them over with the blood of thousand of martyred saints. The spoken word is greater than the sword of conquest.

As for the Jewish leadership -- they were accused of murdering the christ and this was bad for their reputation. Also, jews were converting to christianity. The jewish leadership denied he was the christ, why didn't they just deny that Jesus ever existed? It seems to be such a simple thing to prove. The Jewish religious community generally takes the same stand today -- Jesus existed, but was not the christ. Why didn't they wash their hands of the blame if Jesus never existed. Did they just enjoy the stigma of being "christ murderers" sending them to the dungeons during the inquisition?
 
Last edited:
Woody said:
Where did the Lord's Supper come from? Was it an imaginary meal that the disciples shared with an imaginary person? Were the disciples imaginary too?

Was it a painting or a photograph? That should answer your question.

Why didn't someone disprove it (Christianity) at the very beginning?

Simple, Jesus was not written about for decades after the so-called resurrection. Pilate would have had no idea.

Can an atheist find documentation that the Roman authorities did this?

Had the Romans even knew about it, do you really think they gave a damn?

Denying that Jesus ever existed really makes no common sense. He must have been a very charismatic person that a large number of people experienced.

Yes, it does make sense. What better way to start a religion than to create a story about a man who apparently died and was resurrected. The same thing could be said about Muhammad. He saw an angel when no one else did.
 
Woody said:
The Jews hated Christianity and so did the Romans.

maybe the Romans perpetuated the Christian myth to turn the violent insurgents into peaceniks.

"no... stop attacking the Romans, look - your leader says give us our taxes and be non-violent"

The Romans would have loved Christianity.
 
Godless said:
Were you there? It's a conspiracy one ment to deceit the masses, it has worked, and the gullible eat it up, it takes a mindless idiot to believe so much BS.

The Christ conspiracy
Jesus never existed

Debunking Jesus Christ

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

Nuf said!

Godless
Now even Godless is using the language of the conspiracy devotee. This is very, very sad.

As is publishing links to sites which you would instantly reject as valid repositories of evidence if they were about the UFO sightings or crater chains or the Moon Hoax. Acharya S?? Puh-leez! Godless, tell me you don't really take her seriously? Then jesusneverexisted.com starts off with this (as far as I can see irrelevent) mentioning that there were "lots of Jesuses". But when talking about inaccuracies in the Gospels the first thing it says is that the account of Mary and Joseph and the census and travelling to Bethlehem couldn't have happened. Well, duh! But that's the weakest part of the argument. If they faked Jesus having been born in Bethlehem - for obvious reasons to do with Messianic expectations - why the hell did they "pretend" that he was born in Galilee in the first place?

The only site there even worth a look is the jesuspuzzle site where Earl Docherty puts the demonstrations and backup for his theory. The only one worth taking any notice of.
 
Last edited:
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: Let's get right down to it. Jesus didn't exist, and there is no proof that confirms he existed. Why is it that people continue to believe he is their dying demigod savior? When will they ever learn that there is no Jesus. No savior. No heaven. No hell. No religion? When will you people realize you are living a big fat lie?

but his followers formed their religion a few years after his death. wouldnt they know?
 
“ Originally Posted by Woody
Where did the Lord's Supper come from? Was it an imaginary meal that the disciples shared with an imaginary person? Were the disciples imaginary too? ”


Was it a painting or a photograph? That should answer your question.

For a fact -- it was neither, so how does that answer a question?


------------------------------------


“ Why didn't someone disprove it (Christianity) at the very beginning? ”



Simple, Jesus was not written about for decades after the so-called resurrection. Pilate would have had no idea.

OK, so it's the "how soon we forget" argument. Give 'er a little time and we're all get a case of alzheimer's. ;)


-----------------------------------

“ Can an atheist find documentation that the Roman authorities did this? ”

Had the Romans even knew about it, do you really think they gave a damn?

Absolutely, the christian religion was punishable by death in the 2nd century. This law was decreed by the Roman senate. Would you like proof?

They lived in catacombs to escape persecution from the roman government-- will you deny that too?


------------------------------------------------


“ Denying that Jesus ever existed really makes no common sense. He must have been a very charismatic person that a large number of people experienced. ”


Yes, it does make sense. What better way to start a religion than to create a story about a man who apparently died and was resurrected. The same thing could be said about Muhammad. He saw an angel when no one else did.

Wait a minute, Jesus didn't exist but Mohammed did exist? Now I'm totally confused by the lack of logic. Explain how the denial process works so I can understand it better.
 
beelzebozo said:
maybe the Romans perpetuated the Christian myth to turn the violent insurgents into peaceniks.

"no... stop attacking the Romans, look - your leader says give us our taxes and be non-violent"

The Romans would have loved Christianity.

They didn't "love christianity." It was a threat to their religions and their political power.

Have you read the letters to the Roman Senate from Justin Martyr?

From the first apology written by Justin Martyr:


To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.

Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right. Do you, then, since ye are called pious and philosophers, guardians of justice and lovers of learning, give good heed, and hearken to my address; and if ye are indeed such, it will be manifested. For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumours which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.

Hmmm, Justin sounds like a rational thinker, does he not? He says don't let your superstitions or personal bias interfere with rational thinking and proposes you have the ability to think rationally (fat chance for a Jesus Myth kook).

But lest any one think that this is an unreasonable and reckless utterance, we demand that the charges against the Christians be investigated, and that, if these be substantiated, they be punished as they deserve; [or rather, indeed, we ourselves will punish them.] But if no one can convict us of anything, true reason forbids you, for the sake of a wicked rumour, to wrong blameless men, and indeed rather yourselves, who think fit to direct affairs, not by judgment, but by passion. And every sober-minded person will declare this to be the only fair and equitable adjustment, namely, that the subjects render an unexceptional account of their own life and doctrine; and that, on the other hand, the rulers should give their decision in obedience, not to violence and tyranny, but to piety and philosophy. For thus would both rulers and ruled reap benefit. For even one of the ancients somewhere said, "Unless both rulers and ruled philosophize, it is impossible to make states blessed." It is our task, therefore, to afford to all an opportunity of inspecting our life and teachings, lest, on account of those who are accustomed to be ignorant of our affairs, we should incur the penalty due to them for mental blindness; and it is your business, when you hear us, to be found, as reason demands, good judges. For if, when ye have learned the truth, you do not what is just, you will be before God without excuse.

Certainly the non-existance of Jesus should be considered "true reason" for the Roman cause against christianity. Wouldn't you agree? Also the Roman government is charged with the execution of Jesus, an innocent man, by the bible the christians used -- surely a "false accusation" worthy of death for anyone that believed it.

For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment. Justice requires that you inquire into the life both of him who confesses and of him who denies, that by his deeds it may be apparent what kind of man each is. For as some who have been taught by the Master, Christ, not to deny Him, give encouragement to others when they are put to the question, so in all probability do those who lead wicked lives give occasion to those who, without consideration, take upon them to accuse all the Christians of impiety and wickedness.

Well if the Master Christ didn't ever exist - this case is pretty well shot, wouldn't you say?

And of these some taught atheism; and the poets who have flourished among you raise a laugh out of the uncleanness of Jupiter with his own children. And those who now adopt such instruction are not restrained by you; but, on the contrary, you bestow prizes and honours upon those who euphoniously insult the gods.

Your atheist brethren had their chance to undo christianity and they blew it. Why was christianity singled out for persecution? -- Hardly the warm reception by the roman government concerning christianity that some of you atheists claim. :bugeye:


For all are called Christians. Wherefore we demand that the deeds of all those who are accused to you be judged, in order that each one who is convicted may be punished as an evil-doer, and not as a Christian; and if it is clear that any one is blameless, that he may be acquitted, since by the mere fact of his being a Christian he does no wrong.

Jeez, was this persecution or what?
 
Last edited:
Vasilidante said:
but his followers formed their religion a few years after his death. wouldnt they know?

*************
M*W: No, the followers of 'Jesus' were sun-worshippers. No human being with eyes ever saw the Jesus of the New Testament. Jesus is a reference to the sun (sun of God). The Sun was God to them. Through the ages, human beings changed the names and the myths of the gods they believed in, but none of these gods were real human beings at anytime, ever. They were all myths themselves. There never was a real god.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: No, the followers of 'Jesus' were sun-worshippers. No human being with eyes ever saw the Jesus of the New Testament. Jesus is a reference to the sun (sun of God). The Sun was God to them. Through the ages, human beings changed the names and the myths of the gods they believed in, but none of these gods were real human beings at anytime, ever. They were all myths themselves. There never was a real god.


ok, so you got a little typographical error. We followers of Jesus are son-worshippers, that's what you meant to say -- right? ;)

The Son is God to christians. Maybe you just heard it wrong.

I think you got us confused with Baalism.

from the source:

That Baal was primarily a sun-god was for a long time almost a dogma among scholars and is still often repeated. This doctrine is connected with theories of the origin of religion which are now almost universally abandoned. The worship of the heavenly bodies is not the beginning of religion.
:rolleyes:

Baal is also seen as a Christian demon.

Another version of the demon Ba'al is Beelzebub, or more accurately Ba‘al Zebûb or Ba‘al Zəbûb,

MW I think you got the wrong guy, the sun-god is the enemy of christians.
 
Last edited:
Woody said:
I think you got us confused with Baalism.

:rolleyes:

MW I think you got the wrong guy, the sun-god is the enemy of christians.

*************
M*W: Ba'al means "husband" in Sumerian. Ba'al was not a god nor an idol. I believe he was husband to Ishtar or some other female 'deity' de jour. No, Woodrow, you got it wrong. The "sun-god" was the idol of the christians.
 
Back
Top