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

[Medicine*Woman]

On a slightly disruptive side note, I thought the saying was "cut to the chase", not "cut through the chase".

*************
M*W: Correctomundo!

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970730

 

[SnakeLord]

According to the Gnostics, the manner of death of Jesus had little significance.

I would say exactly the same thing if something I believed in was as contradictory as this event clearly is.

christianity is indeed positioned upon the notion that god came and died, then ressed and buggered off back upstairs, (and will then return shortly to destroy the planet and universe).

If the disciples that were suposedly there can't even agree on the very basics, there's not a lot left of any worth.

They also believed that being able to generate a variety of ideas was a sign of religious health.

But complete disagreement on what god did or did not say, and other such details is not "religious health", nor is it simply "variety of ideas". It is in fact complete and utter contradiction.

 

[spidergoat]

If the disciples that were suposedly there can't even agree on the very basics, there's not a lot left of any worth.

They may not have been there for his execution, but they were there for his teachings.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

They may not have been there for his execution, but they were there for his teachings.

*************
M*W: But how can it be proven that his followers were there? I believe they're all made-up characters representing the 12 signs of the zodiac.

 

[SnakeLord]

They may not have been there for his execution, but they were there for his teachings

But then if their words cannot be trusted in certain instances, why think you can trust them at all? Do remember that these contradictions and disagreements happen all throughout the NT, not just when it comes to the death of jesus.

Here is an example of claimed miracles between the disciples:

If we are to be honest, (to ourselves if nobody else), we must appreciate that none of these texts and can be considered valid.

We have to consider that all details concerning jesus could be fabrications or misunderstandings. Instead of Mary being impregnated by a sky being, perhaps she was impregnated by the milkman. We must also ask if any of these characters even existed to begin with - and faced with absolutely no evidence other than the words of a few disciples that can't even agree, it's not looking very hopeful.

Indeed it is almost as ludicrous as it would be to accept happeh's claims concerning masturbation.

 

[Mythbuster]

"Chase" slightly better on the thread list than "bullcrap".

Jesus existed all right. Here's my proof: when they wrote the Gospels it was very important to them to emphasise that He was the Jewish Messiah, consequently it was necessary for Him to be in direct line of descent from King David, and that He be born in Bethlehem-Ephrata.

Therefore the two Evangelists who decided to include a Nativity tale in their biographies of Jesus, chose those tales that had Jesus being born in Bethlehem. As a matter of interest, they chose completely different and inconsistent tales: In Matthew, Joseph and Mary live somewhere, probably Bethlehem. Mary falls pregnant, and Joseph is ready to cancel the betrothal The Angel comes to Joseph and tells him that the baby was conceived through the Holy Spirit and to "take Mary home", ie go through with the betrothal. After Jesus was born "in Bethlehem", the Magi come from the East and visit Herod in Jerusalem, asking where the new King is. Herod is concerned and wants to know about the new King (so he can have him killed) and sends them in the direction of Bethlehem (where scripture tells him any Messiah will be born). They visit Mary in a house, please note, and pay homage. An angel comes again and advises Joseph to get out of Bethlehem, and to flee to Egypt. From Egypt Joseph is scared to return to Bethlehem because he trusts Herod's successor there, Archelaus, no more than he did Herod himself, so he takes himself and his family to Nazareth in Galilee.

In the book of Luke, Mary is kinswoman of Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Mary lives in Nazareth in Galilee, and it is there that she is visited by the angel Gabriel, who tells her about her conception by the Holy Spirit. Later Augustus Caesar announced the census which caused Joseph to take Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem (it's quite specific), where Jesus is born. It does not say whereabouts he was born, but there is no mention of a stable, of ox and ass or anything more barnyard-specific than the one mention of a manger.

So what can we deduce from this? What do these stories have in common? Why, only that Jesus was a Galilean from the town of Nazareth - a factor common to all the Gospels. It was necessary to the Evangelists, to the early Christian community as a whole, to believe that Jesus was the promised Davidic Messiah, and that therefore he had to have been born in Bethlehem. It certainly wasn't part of any substantial prophecy that the Messiah be a native of Galilee (quite the opposite, in fact - the Davidic Messiah was predicted to be born in Bethlehem in order to ensure that at the very least He would be a Judahite. But Galilee is in Samaria (formerly Israel).

If the early Christians were making up a Davidic Messiah out of whole cloth, surely He would be Bethlehem born and raised, a Judahite who was perfectly at home in Jerusalem. But it seems that Jesus being a Galilean was simply too well known by people who would remember having seen Him - and of course, the Apostles carrying the new Church forward were themselves Galilean.

It is quite clear, then, that a fictional Jesus would never have been depicted as having come from a Northern backwater fishing port, with the retroactive fitting of one or other Bethlehemite birth story. He would have been depicted as coming from Bethlehem in Judah, and no-one would ever have heard of Nazareth. Clearly Jesus was a Nazarene, a Galilean, then, and just as clearly He must have existed in real life.

I'm afraid that Luigi Casciola is quite evidently a nutter. First of all, his theory is specifically designed to deal with the Galilee/Bethlehem dilemma, and brings in all sorts of nonsense such as Jesus never being called Jesus. Secondly, what kind of serious scholar would publicise his work through a court case? That makes him a mere publicity seeker. And thirdly, to have specifically picked on his old Seminarian mate, an apparently perfectly blameless priest, indicates to me that Casciola is working out some agenda that undoubtedly involves some personal slight from his youth

What ? he's losing the court ?

 

[charles cure]

the only thing i have to add to this is that there is speculation that the "of nazareth" actually refers to a group of fellows jesus was associated with, called "Nazoreans", which translates to "little fish". they were basically a cult of gnostic/jews that lived in the wilderness. but i fully agree with the rest of what you wrote here.

in much of what i have read, many historians/archaeologists agree that jesus could not have been from nazareth because nazareth the town didn't exist until around a century after his death. the nazoreans also were more than just a cult of gnostic jews, they were a lot like what a political party would be nowadays, and they were associated frequently with the zealots, which was a big militant faction in jerusalem at the time.

 

[spidergoat]

*************
M*W: But how can it be proven that his followers were there? I believe they're all made-up characters representing the 12 signs of the zodiac.

This is due to the priestly social engineers that used ancient symbolism to usurp their power and influence over those they were trying to dominate.

 

[spidergoat]

But then if their words cannot be trusted in certain instances, why think you can trust them at all?

Only mainstream Christians think that the words must be literally true in order to have value. When you study early Gnostic Christianity, you realize that the words need not be trusted without question, and that only through personal interpretation accompanied by Gnosis can the hidden meanings be realized. In other words, it was participation, not blind acceptance, that we may know what Jesus was talking about.

 

[SnakeLord]

Only mainstream Christians think that the words must be literally true in order to have value.

That isn't really a response to my question. You end your statement with: "that we may know what jesus was talking about", and yet a large part of my post was that you cannot even validate that any such being ever existed or ever said anything - let alone anything else.

To then assume he must have done because a highly contradictory book says so, is "blind acceptance" - even more so when you add that it isn't considered important whether the text can be trusted or not.

 

[Mythbuster]

only through personal interpretation accompanied by Gnosis can the hidden meanings be realized.

i find the bolded part very suspect

 

[Silas]

I'm afraid that Luigi Casciola is quite evidently a nutter. First of all, his theory is specifically designed to deal with the Galilee/Bethlehem dilemma, and brings in all sorts of nonsense such as Jesus never being called Jesus. Secondly, what kind of serious scholar would publicise his work through a court case? That makes him a mere publicity seeker. And thirdly, to have specifically picked on his old Seminarian mate, an apparently perfectly blameless priest, indicates to me that Casciola is working out some agenda that undoubtedly involves some personal slight from his youth

What ? he's losing the court ?

I didn't say he was he was going to lose his case. I simply expressed my opinion of what he's done.

I sincerely hope the case is simply thrown out. As an atheist, I promote the rational viewpoint. I do not want my personal belief of atheism "promoted" by a green-ink brigade vexacious litigant. In other words, a looney.

 

[The Devil Inside]

in much of what i have read, many historians/archaeologists agree that jesus could not have been from nazareth because nazareth the town didn't exist until around a century after his death. the nazoreans also were more than just a cult of gnostic jews, they were a lot like what a political party would be nowadays, and they were associated frequently with the zealots, which was a big militant faction in jerusalem at the time.

indeed.
also, after his death, they were instrumental to him being called the messiah.
its a very interesting subject, and it kind of sucks that there isnt more actual documentation on it.
they were responsible for christ entering into jerusalem through the (east? west? i dont remember) gateway to jerusalem. the particular gate was called the "eye of the needle". it was built in such a way that a camel with a rider would have a very difficult time entering. thats what the saying "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of G-d" means. hence, he enters on a donkey (a very common and inexpensive animal), to show his humble nature. as we all know, camels are MUCH taller than a donkey.
*shrug*
at any rate, they WERE considered revolutionaries, and were responsible for multiple failed uprisings against rome and the temple clergy.
good job, charles cure! im really surprised that other folks know these things. i will certainly look at your posts a bit less critically now.
:m:

 

[Silas]

BTW Jexus never existed.
Here is proof: click

Godless

I don't like evangelistic Christianity, why should I like an anti-Christian site which is couched the same sneering and self-righteous manner?

 

[Silas]

indeed.
also, after his death, they were instrumental to him being called the messiah.
its a very interesting subject, and it kind of sucks that there isnt more actual documentation on it.
they were responsible for christ entering into jerusalem through the (east? west? i dont remember) gateway to jerusalem. the particular gate was called the "eye of the needle". it was built in such a way that a camel with a rider would have a very difficult time entering. thats what the saying "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of G-d" means. hence, he enters on a donkey (a very common and inexpensive animal), to show his humble nature. as we all know, camels are MUCH taller than a donkey.

This thing about the Eye of the Needle being a Jerusalem gate was simply an old apologetic which basically gave rich Christians a free pass to heaven without (as Jesus may have been suggesting) divesting themselves of their entire wealth prior to being accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven. The implication was that a heavily laden camel with all the possessions of a wealthy person could not pass through the so-called "Eye", but by just dropping some of them, then they could. Also it was an explanation for the dichotomy between the huge wealth of the Church conflicting with this very basic message from Jesus about the uselessness of material possessions.

There is also some speculation that he didn't actually say "camel", but more like .. I don't actually know, but "finger"? Anyway, something more realistic and basic, but certainly less strikingly memorable!

 

[spidergoat]

That isn't really a response to my question. You end your statement with: "that we may know what jesus was talking about", and yet a large part of my post was that you cannot even validate that any such being ever existed or ever said anything - let alone anything else.

The words attributed to the character of Jesus are so unlike the religion of the time, and emphasize not the worship of the man, but a profound philosophy of universal love that, contrary to the Christian message, it does not matter at all wether there was a real person named Jesus or not, just like it does not matter that there was not a real person named Lao Tzu. I happen to think there was, since there was no need to create this character, thus the principle of occam's razor applies. The simplist explanation, that Jesus existed, but that his teachings were both misunderstood by many, and deliberately manipulated by others, is the most likely. His rebellious actions were inconsistent with the values of the status quo, inconsistent even with the values of the orthodox church (who are the people that supposedly made him up). Stories of his treatment were the understandable reaction of the establishment, given what we know about them historically.

 

[charles cure]

indeed.
also, after his death, they were instrumental to him being called the messiah.
its a very interesting subject, and it kind of sucks that there isnt more actual documentation on it.
they were responsible for christ entering into jerusalem through the (east? west? i dont remember) gateway to jerusalem. the particular gate was called the "eye of the needle". it was built in such a way that a camel with a rider would have a very difficult time entering. thats what the saying "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of G-d" means. hence, he enters on a donkey (a very common and inexpensive animal), to show his humble nature. as we all know, camels are MUCH taller than a donkey.
*shrug*
at any rate, they WERE considered revolutionaries, and were responsible for multiple failed uprisings against rome and the temple clergy.
good job, charles cure! im really surprised that other folks know these things. i will certainly look at your posts a bit less critically now.
:m:

well, you know, im not all retarded bravado and anger. but yeah a lot of people dont know much about the real world that existed at the time the bible stories refer to, ive always thought it was pretty interesting. good call.

 

[The Devil Inside]

i never thought you and i would share civil words with eachother...
cause for a party?

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Plinty[sic] The Younger: (112 A.D.) also a secular historian talks about Jesus/early Chruch.

False.
Pliny mentions Christians who worship a "Christ".
He never mentions Jesus of Nazareth at all.

Pliny is merely repeating what he has heard from Christians - this is no proof of Jesus at all.

Tactius: [sic] (55-117 A.D.)

He merely reports Christian beliefs of his later times, not from earlier documents:
* he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's;
* he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ ');
* and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.

Tacitus is merely repeating later Christian beliefs - this is no proof of Jesus at all.

(May I suggest you check facts such as NAMES more carefully? You got them both wrong

So, we know from outside sources that jesus did miracles, died, and rose.

Nonsense.

What we have is 2nd centuries reports of Christian beliefs.

This is not proof of Jesus at all.

No ancien Jewish, or Roman source has ever said that Jesus did no miracles, or rose from the dead. They just simply said Jesus did that by magic.

Nonsense.

Celsus claimed the Gospels were "FICTION based on MYTH"

Porphyry said the evangelists were "INVENTORS, not historians"

Julian said they worship a "SPURIOUS son" and have "INVENTED" their beliefs. He also noted that contemporary Roman history did NOT record these events and people.


Also,
numerous CHRISTIANS did not believe in a real Jesus :

2 John reports Christians who do NOT
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".

Marcion argued Jesus was a PHANTOM.

Polycarp's epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"

Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection.

Bardesanes, in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ was physical :
"...assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual;

Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.

"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth",
and also:
"Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"


There is no evidence for Jesus,
but much evidence of myth-making.

Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

No Taticus wrote that Jesus died by cruifiction by Pilate. This is historical.

His name is TACITUS.
No,
he does NOT mention Jesus,
he simply repeats Christian beliefs of 2nd century.

I added Plinty to show that Christians emegred from Jesus.

His name is PLINY.
No,
he does NOT mention Jesus,
he simply repeats Christian beliefs of 2nd century.

Also there is Jospephus,

His name is JOSEPHUS.
His famous passage is a Christian forgery,
or at least tampered with by Christians.

The Jewish Talumund,

It's called the TALMUD.
Centuries after Jesus, it has stories such as :
* Jesus being bastard son of a Roman soldier
* Jesus being conceived during menstruation
* Jesus being STONED to death
* Jesus learning black magic in Egypt

Do you think these stories are true?
If not, why do you bring up the Talmud?

(You just cited 4 pieces of "evidence", and got the names all wrong - do you ever CHECK your work?)

Gnostic writings,

Which tell a completely different story about a Cosmic Christ.

the NT,

According to modern NT scholars (e.g. Brown),
NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met any Jesus.

amd many others.

Nonsense.
What others?


Iasion