Will the real Jesus please stand up?

Medicine*Woman

Jesus: Mythstory--Not History!
Valued Senior Member
*************
M*W: I found this interesting article that discusses all the Jesus gods that mythology has known. Quotations are in italics:

The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

Too strange to be a coincidence!

According to the Biblical account, Pilate offered the Jews the release of just one prisoner and the cursed race chose Barabbas rather than gentle Jesus.

But hold on a minute: in the original text studied by Origen (and in some recent ones) the chosen criminal was Jesus Barabbas – and Bar Abba in Hebrew means ‘Son of the Father’!

Are we to believe that Pilate had a Jesus, Son of God and a Jesus, Son of the Father in his prison at the same time??!!

Perhaps the truth is that a single executed criminal helped flesh out the whole fantastic fable.

Gospel writers, in scrambling details, used the Aramaic Barabbas knowing that few Latin or Greek speakers would know its meaning.

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

But was there a crucified Jesus?

Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.

But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

Will the real Jesus please stand up?
 
While this is good information for people to know (it's too often a surprise to people who have grown up learning about the Christian stories), I do want to point out that the url (jesus never existed) is a bit contradictory to the content of this article.

They seem to be fine accepting that all these "Jesus'" existed, why should it be so hard to think that the commonly known one existed as well?

Certainly there is a *ton* of after-the-fact additions to what is now considered the Jesus story, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of there existing a true root story. If Jesus ben Stada existed, why not Jesus ben Galilee?
 
This whole argument almost single handedly rests on the census story, Luke obviously made an error.

If you don't like that Gospel read one of the other three :)
 
While this is good information for people to know (it's too often a surprise to people who have grown up learning about the Christian stories), I do want to point out that the url (jesus never existed) is a bit contradictory to the content of this article.

They seem to be fine accepting that all these "Jesus'" existed, why should it be so hard to think that the commonly known one existed as well?

Certainly there is a *ton* of after-the-fact additions to what is now considered the Jesus story, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of there existing a true root story. If Jesus ben Stada existed, why not Jesus ben Galilee?
*************
M*W: Because there is no documentation that a Jesus ben Galilee existed. I Googled him just now. Nothing. Nada. The following link is as close as I came to finding a Jesus ben Galilee.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
 
This whole argument almost single handedly rests on the census story, Luke obviously made an error.

If you don't like that Gospel read one of the other three :)
*************
M*W: Well, the other three gospels are not known for their telling of the census story or the birth of Jesus. So, where do we go from here?
 
*************
M*W: Well, the other three gospels are not known for their telling of the census story or the birth of Jesus. So, where do we go from here?

I'll answer your question with a question. Is there any proof where these other Jesus's were born?
 
Will the crazy lady who states controdicting facts based off google searches please stand up.... Oh wait, she already did. Cookie?
 
*************
M*W: Because there is no documentation that a Jesus ben Galilee existed. I Googled him just now. Nothing. Nada. The following link is as close as I came to finding a Jesus ben Galilee.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

It is true, that there is no currently known non-biblical first-hand documentation of the now-famous Jesus from the first 3 decades of the A.D. period. However, there are by far more people from that time period who did not get recorded than who did - a claim that the lack of written evidence is positive proof of the lack of existence of a person is a poor argument in my mind. Of those who were recorded in some fashion, many have been lost as the records themselves have been lost.

The best and earliest non-biblical reference we have to "the" Jesus in fact does come from Josephus, although his only reference is to some rabble-rousing followers of some dude he hadn't heard of before, these Christians. His followers, not specifically the man himself.

It must be considered that the books of the bible were chosen *because* they are written records of "the" Jesus. They are the very thing you are looking for; they just happen to have been bound into a single collective work that is now used for religious purposes. They are roughly contemporary accounts of "the" Jesus' life, and though clearly not pure histories, they are still written accounts from the time period in question. Adoption of earlier religious stories is blatant in the Gospels. Later editing of stories for political purposes is clear - from selective translation choices to ink difference in some older manuscripts showing different authorship of certain passages. Errors are blatant even between books: possibly mistakes, possibly failed attempts to give the Jesus story more historical weight than it actually had.

But all of this corruption of the texts doesn't completely invalidate them as a source of historic knowledge. The description of roman occupation, the social structure of societies in the areas, etc are all valuable. What these inaccuracies does is lessen the weight of the sources as an accurate source of information - the more items in the text shown to be untrue, the less highly regarded as true history the remaining unverified items should be considered. The books of the bible have shown themselves to be corrupted and biased sources for information in favor of Jesus' existence.


But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if all but Paul's letters were shown to be blatant falsehoods, then we still have Paul's letters as secondhand accounts from only 20-50 after the supposed death of "the" Jesus. Certainly not as good as the claimed first-person accounts, but still historical documents to be included in our assessment of the overall history of the area.


A question: Did Paul exist?
 
A question: Did Paul exist?
*************
M*W: His existence is questionable. I don't think he existed. I'm trying to research why he was named Saul, then Paul. I think whoever he was, he may have been an astrologer with some other name. The NT has so much astrological data to the point I think the NT was an astrological calendar. I've mentioned this before, but I know it's far-fetched, and no one else knows enough to comment about it. I want to find out if Josephus actually wrote it or had an astrologer write it.

If there were a Saul/Paul, I think it was another name for Apollo (also not a real person).

I think he was a Roman astrologer or maybe even a Hebrew astrologer. But that's as far as I have gone on researching him.
 
It seems that both of these threads have reached the same root question: How do we validate ancient written records? How much credence do we give them? How do we parse the myth from the factual?
 
One important thing to keep in mind is that back in those days (2,000 to 4,000 years ago) the vast majority of people were not able to read or write. The principal control of the masses was done by a few who could. Those would write whatever they wanted, and people had no options at all.
The idea of trying to extract any historical facts from the Bible is ridiculous.
In my opinion, it will be ever nearly impossible to confirm any truth about the life of people like "Jesus".
 
The idea of trying to extract any historical facts from the Bible is ridiculous.
In my opinion, it will be ever nearly impossible to confirm any truth about the life of people like "Jesus".

By that logic humans should not study history and just assume that nothing is accurate but that would be kind of stupid. You have to remember that there was a time before video.
 
The Gnostic Society Library
The Gospel of Thomas
.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
.
These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.
What I find interesting about this particular Gnostic Gospel is that it consists of nothing but the spoken words of the Biblical Jesus. A lot of the quotes from this ancient text can be found in the Bible (with slightly different translations) but there are also things that you will not find in the Bible. Those are the real eye openers and it's no suprize to me that they were somehow left out. Just look who the original author was. I think this shows (independent from the Bible) that the Jesus of the new testament truly existed as a single person and that the Bible misrepresents his philosophical teachings. The only reason I can think of for The Church to leave so many of Jesus's words out of the new testament is because those words did not fall in line with their own philosophies.
 
One important thing to keep in mind is that back in those days (2,000 to 4,000 years ago) the vast majority of people were not able to read or write. The principal control of the masses was done by a few who could. Those would write whatever they wanted, and people had no options at all.

The idea of trying to extract any historical facts from the Bible is ridiculous.
In my opinion, it will be ever nearly impossible to confirm any truth about the life of people like "Jesus".
*************
M*W: It was a long time after that that people began to read. In fact, it was probably long after the printing press was invented that the "general public" had access to printed books. Even though people gained access to the printed word, most of them cound not read.

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/printpress.htm

I would be curious to see the specific items in the bible that could be considered as historical. There's a lot of astrological stuff that has been proved to be historical.

http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/jesus_second_coming.htm

http://blog.beliefnet.com/astrologicalmusings/2010/01/bible-may-have-been-written-ce.html

http://www.astrologyzine.com/astrology-bible.shtml

People of "Jesus's day" could not read. A thousand years down the road to the Dark Ages, the people still couldn't read. It was five hundred after that, the printing press was invented, and by this time, the myths of Jesus had changed quite a bit since their first inception. The only people who could read were those who were taught by the Roman Catholic monks. Then the Reformation caused great changes, and the bible was changed accordingly. The King James Version has more than 3,000 mistakes (changes) from the original text.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm

When one realizes that the Epistles of 'Paul' (c.50-70AD) were written before the gospels (and could have been written in Rome by Romans (70-120AD); and the gospels were written after the death of 'Paul', and were also written after the fall of Jerusalem (c.70AD), which makes me think the validity of the gospels could be challenged.

There are umpteen websites in favor of the KJV, and those are managed by religious education and church organizations, so the truth needs to be compared through extra-biblical documents.

There is no new evidence today that Jesus existed. All the evidence occurred before people could read, and a thousand years before that! If Jesus were God, he would still be evident today. He is not, and if one thinks about it, he was not evident in the day he allegedly lived! The story of Jesus, the myth, was created after earlier dying demigod savior myths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

Here's a list of other "gods" besides Jesus:

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html

Christians will refute all this data by saying the bible says this or the bible says that, but they refuse to look at any other documentation other than the bible, so their focus is very limited. They are afraid to find out the truth.

I would like those christians who read this post to question the data I have posted. I am not trying to cram atheism down your throats. I just want you to read what I've posted, and question it.

Great post, maxquijano! Welcome to SciForums.com!
 
Last edited:
That is a miracle M*W. All those similarities were discovered after 1970.

Let me ask you, who is "BUDDIAH – INDIA: Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25"
 
I said it before and I will say it agian Jesus was not jewish he was a Mexican.
 
Back
Top