Unraveling the Jesus Myth

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Heehoos Have you ever heard of the idea that the winners write history? It means that the texts that SURVIVE, the stories that make it through history are written by those who win the battle, by those who have the resources and whose perspectives actually survive. Not every text or scribble written in history has survived. This is something that you can understand, isn't it? Like if I were to write someone a letter and send it to someone, it may not make it into the next day let alone the next decade?

This is a concept I understand quite well, thank you.

Search in vain for orthodoxy in the 1st or 2nd centuries. "Apostolic teaching" is a fantasy invented by the Church. The "early Fathers" were bitter rivals, protagonists in a struggle between fiercely competitive groups and schools of thought.

It was only three centuries after the supposed "facts" of JC's life and teachings that rancorous assemblies of ambitious and fanatical clerics decided what precisely was that life and teaching.

The distinction between orthodoxy and its opponents was never as clear cut as later 'official' Church historians were to maintain. Many so-called Gnostics had held positions of authority within the early Church, as did the Apologists later stigmatised as heterodox and heretical. Orthodoxy even appears to have had its own factions. The synoptic "12 Apostles and a ministry of 12 months" has a hint of gnosticism about it, connecting the superstar with the zodiac and astrology. A rival faction of the orthodox favoured a much longer ministry for their hero and a rebuttal of the more esoteric gnostic doctrines. Their ideas entered the canon in the Gospel of John.

Orthodoxy favoured a set of simplistic tales, little more than "comings and goings" of the godman, comprehensible to the uneducated, and readily re-enacted in pageant and ceremonial. These fables were held to be "true accounts from recent history".

In a series of councils and assemblies spanning two centuries, an officially approved and obligatory dogma was hammered out which was then stamped upon the credulous mind of humanity. Those with the temerity to question the creed and sacraments were criminalized, persecuted and eliminated.

Source.

Just because texts about Jesus don't exist doesn't mean they never did.

Really? Please demonstrate where else we can apply this logic. We don't have any texts about invisible flying monkeys. Do they exist?

And also, the story of Jesus does absolutely say that he was a poor man, a carpenter's son, someone who was off the radar. Even in the gospels that we have, he is completely off the radar for most of his life -- up until he was in his 30's.

Please.

As if raising people from the dead, fulfilling prophecies and commanding the attention of the Roman & Jewish authority in the are could be defined as "keeping a low profile".

In addition, Christianity was not a welcomed religion. If you were a Roman and you knew about texts that were written and held about an illegal religion, would you maybe consider having them destroyed?

This is another myth.

The Romans were barely aware that Christianity existed in the first and second centuries. Remember that the Romans were an inclusive culture. They'd pick up the cultures and mythologies of the poeple who they conquered. They had issues with the Jews because the Jews kept revolting and causing drama for them. If anything, the Romans saw Christianity as just another flavor of Judaism.

The idea that Rome would suddenly take interest in some backwater cult is almost as ridiculous as the godman, himself.

These are all just ideas -- I'm not saying they are true. It's just that in a time when so few people actually knew HOW to write, there wouldn't be much writing at all, let alone writing that was ALLOWED to survive.

What are you talking about? We're talking about Judea which had a written religion. It was one of THE most literate places on the planet at the time.

The gospels weren't chosen for inclusion until the 2nd or 3rd century. They were written many years before along with many more texts that were not included because they were considered 'gnostic' in their content.

Already covered this above. It wasn't until the third century that the church finally got its story straight.

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO WRITE. Just because I don't respond in the way you would have me respond gives you no *authority*. This is a public forum and I am allowed to write whatever I want to within the guidelines of the forum rules. I was making a point about what a "theory" is because you don't seem to understand the concept.

You're attempting to muddy the waters with off-topic ramblings about things that do not pertain to this thread. Evolution is another debate entirely and explaining to you why a (as you call it) a "theory" isn't what you think it is falls outside the universe of discourse of this thread. Start another one if you like.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Then it is quite a shame. The man they made up would have disagreed with their agenda completely.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky Then it is quite a shame. The man they made up would have disagreed with their agenda completely.

That's true of most propagandas. People are given information about X that's false, but appealing. The truth, while valid, is never what they want it to be.

[Zhavric]

Just wondering if Heehoos or iamalwaysright would like another bite at the apple.

The core problem of the apologist argument is the notion that we should believe outrageous claims simply because they cannot be instantly disproven... as though anywhere in our lives we'd conclude "Well, there's no evidence proving invisibly flying monkeys, but there's no evidence disproving them either... so I guess they're real because a handful of people said so."

[Fonceai]

Copy-pasting from other forums, Zhavric?

Might as well ask Christians to question their faith if they can't address your points in your opening post.

Are you trying to pose that Jesus never existed at all, or just that Jesus wasn't divine?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Copy-pasting from other forums, Zhavric?

Nothing but my own work. I posted the thread once before under the name "The Duke of Vandals".

Might as well ask Christians to question their faith if they can't address your points in your opening post.

Heh. Perhaps...

Are you trying to pose that Jesus never existed at all, or just that Jesus wasn't divine?

Certainly that Jesus wasn't devine and the gospel Jesus was actually a composite of a few different Jesuses (Jesii) who we know about from the writings of Josephus and other souces (such as the dead sea scrolls). The gospel Jesus... the guy who was born to Mary & Joseph, had disciples, and got offed by the Romans never existed except in myth.

[Fonceai]

Well, here are some responses to each of your points.

Not apologist for either side, just open-minded things to consider.

I. Josephus and multiple Jesii

Depending on the language used, those different people could have been named Yeshwa, Joshua, or Jesus. All the same name in translation, but a gap of 30 years from birth to preaching Gospels isn't much. Someone could have easily spoken with his name.

II. Philo would have wrote about Jesus

You have to consider that even if there was a historical figure named Jesus, there was rarely an opportunity for him to speak to the higher class citizens of the places he visited. In fact, it isn't unreasonable to think that the stories about him only preaching to the flawed and shunned people to be true.

The lack of writing by Philo isn't quite conclusive proof. He wasn't a historian. Also, there were plenty of prophets back then. Did Philo write of John the Baptist? At the time, John the Baptist was more "famous" than Jesus. It wasn't until much later that people realized the significance of what Jesus was preaching, but John the Baptist was recognized by everyone as a prophet.

III. The Gosples

I think most of the Gospels are bunk. There are probably many grains of truth in them, but try looking for the three or four black grains of sand in a football sized section of white sandy beach.

Thanks to the telephone game of accounts and the flaws in language translation, I have doubts as to the truthfulness of the Gospels.

IV. Personhood of Jesus

Also a valid point, but consider that those who were Christians at that time did not see a difference between Jesus and God. They were regarded as one and the same. It wasn't until much much later that the concept of a separate-but-linked Holy Trinity was accepted.

V. Appeal to Guilt

This I completely agree with, but you are primarily addressing Catholicism here; founded by the worst betrayer of Jesus out of guilt for betraying him.

Regardless, this fifth part of yours really doesn't have to do with the existence of Jesus.

Just because the stories about him are probably fabricated doesn't mean that 2000 years ago there didn't exist a man who said, "Play nice."

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Well, here are some responses to each of your points. Not apologist for either side, just open-minded things to consider.

Thanks for taking the time to do so.

I. Josephus and multiple Jesii Depending on the language used, those different people could have been named Yeshwa, Joshua, or Jesus. All the same name in translation, but a gap of 30 years from birth to preaching Gospels isn't much. Someone could have easily spoken with his name.

Two points here:

1) The name, while significant, is actually secondary to the fact that multiple Rabbi's who had a name similar to Jesus were performing actions similar to those attributed to Jesus... having issues with the Romans... talking about the end of the world... saying "play nice"... getting into trouble with the Jewish authority... The list goes on.

2) Christians and non-Christians alike fall into the trap of assuming that someone named Jesus was born around 1 CE and said some radical things around 33 ce shortly before his death. This time frame isn't realistic and has no support to it at all. When we start to look at the first century without this unsupported assumption, things start to fit together much better. For example, one of the Jesii that Josephus mentions lives around 70 ce and was put to death around then.

II. Philo would have wrote about Jesus You have to consider that even if there was a historical figure named Jesus, there was rarely an opportunity for him to speak to the higher class citizens of the places he visited. In fact, it isn't unreasonable to think that the stories about him only preaching to the flawed and shunned people to be true. The lack of writing by Philo isn't quite conclusive proof. He wasn't a historian. Also, there were plenty of prophets back then. Did Philo write of John the Baptist? At the time, John the Baptist was more "famous" than Jesus. It wasn't until much later that people realized the significance of what Jesus was preaching, but John the Baptist was recognized by everyone as a prophet.

The argument about Philo is more specific to the claim of Jesus' spectacular miracles. It's a bit of a "tar baby" issue. The more theists argue that someone living at the same time as Jesus with an interest in Jewish religion wouldn't be interested in Jesus, the more they have to struggle to prove that the big spectacular miracles of the gospels actually happened.

III. The Gosples I think most of the Gospels are bunk. There are probably many grains of truth in them, but try looking for the three or four black grains of sand in a football sized section of white sandy beach. Thanks to the telephone game of accounts and the flaws in language translation, I have doubts as to the truthfulness of the Gospels.

More than the telephone game, the gospel writers knew EXACTLY what they were up to... or someone in the early church did. They wanted to create a religion that had a strong memetic appeal to anyone, rich or poor.

IV. Personhood of Jesus Also a valid point, but consider that those who were Christians at that time did not see a difference between Jesus and God. They were regarded as one and the same. It wasn't until much much later that the concept of a separate-but-linked Holy Trinity was accepted.

This bit of the argument demonstrates that early Christians did NOT have their story straight nor were the gnostics a group of people who "knew" Jesus was a real person and wanted to allege he was a spirit.

V. Appeal to Guilt This I completely agree with, but you are primarily addressing Catholicism here; founded by the worst betrayer of Jesus out of guilt for betraying him. Regardless, this fifth part of yours really doesn't have to do with the existence of Jesus. Just because the stories about him are probably fabricated doesn't mean that 2000 years ago there didn't exist a man who said, "Play nice."

While it doesn't have much to do with Jesus' existence, it's important to discuss WHY people keep believing it.

[Fonceai]

On the first point, there is no way to prove Jesus was or wasn't a real person of some kind. This first point just goes to show that there was more than one Jesus, if it is true.

On the second, it only applies to people who believe in the miraculous divine Jesus. It doesn't apply to the actual existence of someone named Jesus who preached.

On the third, while I don't believe the Gospels are 100% artificial, I believe they are greatly modified in order to fit how the "editors" wanted to present the Bible.

On the fourth, it's no surprise that in that area of the world the message and ideas and stories were varied as they spread. The most reliable form of communication was in the hands of the Roman Empire, and they didn't exactly want to advertise that they created a martyr.

On the fifth, I understand what you're saying.

As far as my take on those five is concerned, they are great for showing that if there was a Jesus then his divinity is questionable. But they don't allege anything about whether Jesus was a real guy.

Besides, as I'm sure we both know, these arguments are only applicable to Christians who think their belief is the absolute truth for everyone.

For someone like me, they don't really address my beliefs at all because they don't challenge them.

[Thaway]

[quote=Zhavric;308646]Thanks for taking the time to do so.


2) Christians and non-Christians alike fall into the trap of assuming that someone named Jesus was born around 1 CE and said some radical things around 33 ce shortly before his death. This time frame isn't realistic and has no support to it at all. When we start to look at the first century without this unsupported assumption, things start to fit together much better. For example, one of the Jesii that Josephus mentions lives around 70 ce and was put to death around then.

Quote by: Zhavric The argument about Philo is more specific to the claim of Jesus' spectacular miracles. It's a bit of a "tar baby" issue. The more theists argue that someone living at the same time as Jesus with an interest in Jewish religion wouldn't be interested in Jesus, the more they have to struggle to prove that the big spectacular miracles of the gospels actually happened.

Why would a Jew living in 20 AD be interested in someone like the person described in the Gospels? Simple, Jews has the calling from God to be watchful for the Messiah. Thus, as I have argued with Jews who simply ignore the question of who is the Jesus described in the Gospels, it the calling of all Jews to examine as many claims as possible to the messiahship of someone, until such time as the Messiah is located.

Any bible believing Jews should agree with my claim here, even if at first they don’t.

Quote by: Zhavric More than the telephone game, the gospel writers knew EXACTLY what they were up to... or someone in the early church did. They wanted to create a religion that had a strong memetic appeal to anyone, rich or poor.

Create a religion? Are you talking about the 12 disciples, 11 of which died for what you say they fabricated? You can get people to die for what they believe in, but not what they know to be false…especially not 11 independent instances, and not they way they were each killed.

In addition, you are assuming great brilliance on their part in this fabrication. You are assuming a grand conspiracy as well. Do you realize that Islam was created by one person? So was Buddhism. Both Judaism and Christianity are different because for them to be false would require conspiracies because the many people who authored their texts.

And all for what? How were the early Christians treated by the Jewish community of which they branched? Not sure? Well just look how they are received today. Jews today still don’t like Jews who follow Jesus.

Without even getting into the historical documents I don’t really understand why you think your premise is reasonable.

If creating a religion could be done by one man (like Mormonism: Joseph Smith and Scientology L. Ron Hubbard) why would some many people have participated in the start of Christianity? In addition, why would they persist when simple behaviorism would dictate that severe punishment results in the cessation of the punished behaviors.

Now on to my points:

1) One of the strongest pieces of evidence (in my mind) as to why Jesus was in fact the Messiah who died for the sins of the world is that fact that 40 years after his death (I think exactly; 40 is a biblically significant number by the way) the second temple was destroyed and never rebuilt.

The point of the Temple was to provide a method and place for blood sacrifices for the atonement of sins. Why would God allow it to be destroyed and never rebuilt if we still needed it? He would not. Rather, it’s gone because we do no need it anymore.

2) You can’t just look at Christianity in isolation from Judaism…you will miss a lot of what is going on.

For example, the famous “last supper” was a Passover Seder. Jesus did not pick up a loaf of bread and say “this is my body broken for you” he picked up the Matzah…likely the Afikomen (more symbolism there). Matzah is unleavened bread (no yeast). Yeast represents sin. Prior to the Passover day the house is cleaned of all the yeast (sin) and the Matzah is made (without yeast – without sin).

So, Jesus took the bread representing his body, that had no yeast representing his sinless body and broke it telling them all that his sinless body will be broken for them..”take and eat” let my sinless body be a sacrifice for your (spiritual) health.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Thaway Create a religion? Are you talking about the 12 disciples, 11 of which died for what you say they fabricated? You can get people to die for what they believe in, but not what they know to be false…especially not 11 independent instances, and not they way they were each killed.

Absolutely not. The disciples were as contrived as the godman they allegedly followed. The NT only mentions the deaths of two of them.

The rest of them are attributed such ridiculous journeys and varieties of deaths, there's no way we can surmise they're anything but mythical tall tales. For example there's Peter (or rather there wasn't)...

"Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really. This legend was dreamed up by the mid-2nd century pope Anicetus (156-166) when he became locked in a conflict with the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument (over the dating of Easter) by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus staked a claim to Peter, and Peter, "Prince of the Apostles", trumps John.

2nd century texts known as the "Clementines" had made Peter the "first Bishop of Rome" and 3rd century invention gave him a 25-year pontificate – which made it a tad tricky for him to have died at the hands of Nero but, hey, this is "tradition."

3rd century Church Father Origen dreamed up a colourful flourish: Peter, feeling himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, chose option 'B' – crucifixion upside down!

Source.

No evidence & lots of wild stories does not evidence make.

In addition, you are assuming great brilliance on their part in this fabrication. You are assuming a grand conspiracy as well. Do you realize that Islam was created by one person? So was Buddhism. Both Judaism and Christianity are different because for them to be false would require conspiracies because the many people who authored their texts.

Conspiracy is really the wrong word for it. We see modern religions pop up all the time (like Scientology) without a dram of proof, but people follow them regardless. This wasn't the work of one man or an organized group of people.

Instead, it was an idea that was refined over time by individuals through out the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. Make no mistake, though: the early sects of Christianity did NOT get along nor agree with one another about their mythology.

And all for what? How were the early Christians treated by the Jewish community of which they branched? Not sure? Well just look how they are received today. Jews today still don’t like Jews who follow Jesus.

*blinks*

Take a look at the opulence of the Vatican... the splendor of churches... the influence the clergy has over the masses and it's VERY EASY to see why Christianity is perpetuated.

Without even getting into the historical documents I don’t really understand why you think your premise is reasonable.

Let me get this straight: people walking on unfrozen water, coming back from the dead and performing other magics are perfectly "reasonable", but explaining why those very obviously false stories are, well... false is "unreasonable"? You, sir, strongly need to re-examine your definition of reasonable.

If creating a religion could be done by one man (like Mormonism: Joseph Smith and Scientology L. Ron Hubbard) why would some many people have participated in the start of Christianity? In addition, why would they persist when simple behaviorism would dictate that severe punishment results in the cessation of the punished behaviors.

See the above link. It wasn't until much later after much fighting and murder that Christians finally "got their story straight".

1) One of the strongest pieces of evidence (in my mind) as to why Jesus was in fact the Messiah who died for the sins of the world is that fact that 40 years after his death (I think exactly; 40 is a biblically significant number by the way) the second temple was destroyed and never rebuilt.

First, you have absolutely ZERO evidence that Jesus ever EXISTED let alone died for anyone's alleged "sins". Second, unwrap yourself from this baseless notion that the gospel Jesus died in 33 ce. We have no evidence to support it. Thus, the gospel writers (writing mostly in the second century) could have quite easily fabricated any prophecy fulfillment they wanted to.

It's quite easy to re-write modern history when you have ancient prophecies to work with.

The point of the Temple was to provide a method and place for blood sacrifices for the atonement of sins. Why would God allow it to be destroyed and never rebuilt if we still needed it? He would not. Rather, it’s gone because we do no need it anymore.

This line of reasoning is a little like asking "Well if Superman's not real then who saved Lois Lane all those times?"

2) You can’t just look at Christianity in isolation from Judaism…you will miss a lot of what is going on.

On this, I couldn't agree with you more. When we look at Judaism, we see the multiple Jesuses that Josephus chronicles which provide the basis for the gospel Jesus and establish the existence of Jesus cults before 1 ce.

For example, the famous “last supper” was a Passover Seder. Jesus did not pick up a loaf of bread and say “this is my body broken for you” he picked up the Matzah…likely the Afikomen (more symbolism there). Matzah is unleavened bread (no yeast). Yeast represents sin. Prior to the Passover day the house is cleaned of all the yeast (sin) and the Matzah is made (without yeast – without sin).

Again, you've fallen into attempting to prove the story with the story itself. If we were discussing the alleged existence of Superman, citing Lex Luthor and Jimmy Olson is useless.

We need to look outside the propaganda to understand what was really happening in the first and second centuries.

[Zhavric]

Coming to a choice about God and such is every person's own business.

Of course it is. It's also important not to confuse a personal choice with a real-world truth claim.

Any person who tries to pipe up that they can prove one way or the other is an asshat.

Ad hom.

No one can prove anything. Ever.

See above regarding the important distinction between a truth claim about the real world and claims about personal feelings.

You're trying so hard to prove that Jesus didn't exist, yet by doing so you are already acknowledging and granting credit to the mythology behind Jesus.

I've never argued otherwise. Jesus is nothing BUT mythology.

Unless you can take someone back and show them the past, you can't prove this.

Of course we can. Think about the logic you've presented here. By you claim, any claim, no matter how outlandish, gains unwarranted validity by our inability to time travel. It's a shifting the burden of proof fallacy. "Alexander the great used magic lasers to conquer nations. Prove that he didn't."

You're citing a lack of proof as proof that he didn't exist.

You're talking about the argument from ignorance fallacy. It's important to understand certain key exceptions to it.

In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence. This is often summed up in epigrams such as "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In some circumstances, though, the absence of evidence can be used as the base for an inference.

For example, we can usually believe that a railroad timetable is complete, which is to say that all departures and arrivals for a given location are listed. In this case, the following argument is valid (and not an appeal to ignorance).

1. There is no arrival listed at this station in the next hour
2. (suppressed premise) Any scheduled arrival would be listed
3. Therefore, there is no scheduled arrival at this station in the next hour

When you include a negative assertion as proof of your claim, you're committing the aforementioned fallacy.

Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the arguments of this thread. My argument, though including the lack of evidence of Jesus, isn't limited to that. Take, for example, the issue raised by the writing of Athenagoras who, in "A Plea for the Christians", never actually mentions Jesus as an actual person establishing that some important second century Christians weren't interested in an embodied god. See also the positive evidence of the many Jesus that Josephus chronicles and how their deeds resemble those of the gospel Jesus.

"There are no writings about Jesus..." is the ignorance fallacy.

See above.

"Jesus has never appeared to me or spoken to me..." is the ignorance fallacy.

Straw man. I have never made this argument.

Thinks all forms of theism are nonsense. But he doesn't begrudge anyone their belief because he basically understands that they might not be him, they are different from him, so who is he to tell a specific person they are wrong?

I'm not "begrudging" anyone. I'm simply not willing to let Christians claim that Jesus is real "to them" when he's demonstrably false. I've repeatedly asked you to clearly state you position... to clarify if you accept that the gospel Jesus never existed. You've repeatedly fallen back to this same "personal choice" argument.

If you're a gnostic and believe Jesus is a spirit, more power to you. If you believe he existed "for you", then that's false and can be argued.

You gathered your own set of "memes" and convinced yourself of a conclusion. They are "memes" because you didn't witness any of the historical events, or lack thereof, which you are citing.

Please.

I'm fully aware of what memes I'm infected and NOT infected with and none of them require that I mute my sense of logic in limited situations.

At best, someone else wrote about something and you accepted that. That's a "meme", right?

Clearly you've never done me the courtesy of taking the time to understand memes. I'd appreciate it if you would do so. They offer an explanation for why people believe the things they believe.

The answer to the God / Jesus / whatever question is nobody fucking knows... and that means no one is right if they are saying "yes" or "no" to the question of existence.

That's not the case. We are not powerless to know things nor do we require omniscience to have knowledge of specific things. We can use logic & examine evidence to understand what actually happened.

Believe what you want as your own personal choice.

Agreed. As I stated before, personal choice shouldn't be used to veil truth claims about the natural world.

[Jack]

If creating a religion could be done by one man (like Mormonism: Joseph Smith and Scientology L. Ron Hubbard) why would some many people have participated in the start of Christianity?

No matter how hard I try, I just cannot make sense of this.

What does the number of people credited with starting any movement have to do with the validity of that movement? If the Jesus in the bible stories was a real man, one could easily argue that he started christianity himself. Somebody had to have the idea first.

[arielmessenger]

I have become convinced Jesus Christ of the Gospel accounts is a literary creation. John's Gospel holds one clue, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

I know "Logos" means more than just "word" but as meaning word, i.e., articulated "breath" considered by ancients the soul of God put into human form, but it has come to represent for me how ancient scripture writers created religious mythologies as if they were agents of God which they were.

But there is a more telling clue to the identity of Jesus Christ as a literary creation, a clue found in the "Q" Sayings of the Synoptic Gospels so to me it represents as close as we are likely to get to the authentic teachings of the man who inspired the stories of Jesus Christ.

The second clue is this verse found in Luke 7:28

"For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

"...among those born of women.." The writer here is telling us indirectly that Jesus was not born of women. Prior to this verse the writer has Jesus state those going out to see a prophet will see more than a prophet. Jesus, being more than a prophet, is not born of women. What is he then? A spiritual being.
Taking his place in the Jewish pantheon of spiritual beings presented as real people--e.g. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus Christ.

For myself, I believe there was a real person who inspired the Jesus Christ mythologies. That person was Yeishu ben Pantera, whose story can be traced in the slanderous Talmud accounts of him. There is reason to believe these Talmudic accounts are more accurate historically than anything in the NT accounts because of the Jewish cover-up of these stories that has lasted most of the 1800 years or so since they and the New Testament stories were written down. More on this later..

[Zhavric]

I'm hoping that Augustine will give his(?) thoughts on this topic as he disagreed with it in another.

[pikaso]

Maybe you'd better have a chat with El Jefe P.Pilot as he found out rather
quickly about the non-existant Hey-sus, as it cost El Jefe P.Pilot very dearly.
O.K. maybe there were ten houses in Nazz,but it existed as a town even back
before A.D.
The term Jew that you use never existed during the time or life of Jesus and
if the term jew belongs to anyone,it belongs to the Mighty Khazar empire as they defended the european states against the mauruading arabs who attempted to rule the world back then some time after 632 A.D.
Geez is'nt that what the arabs are trying to do today.
Back to the point is that Jesus did live and exist.....if he did'nt then why are
some people so busy thinking about him and hating him....is it bad to be
good?

Quote by: loser Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. However, there are virtually MILLIONS of copies of this famous painting. Some are legal "prints" that can be purchased rather inexpensively and which allows people to appreciate art (and their respective artists). However, often illegal copies are made which try to pass for the original in order to garner incredible riches. These are called counterfeits or forgeries or FAKES. Usually, there is only ONE original but the forgeries can number in the hundreds or even thousands. Alas, paintings are not the ONLY things that are forged: money, ancient artifacts, and yes, even MIRACLES are often forged! For every real miracle there must be over a thousand FAKE miracles...and for the very same reason: MONEY! The sad truth is that the RCC has lent credence to phony miracles for centuries. They chose to allow primitive cultures to retain their superstitions, melding them almost seamlessly into the forced Catholic dogma. Santeria is one special instance of a religion that combines voodoo and Catholicism. In South America, superstition runs rampant. Stigmata, weeping statues (especially of the Madonna), and other fanciful 'miracles' abound. But France and other European countries have theirs, too. Miracles DO exist but quietly so and never with the fanfare and sensationalism that makes headlines...or lines of desperate people willing to pay for a miracle. Lady of Guadeloupe is a HOAX...a FRAUD. But that hasn't stopped the pilgrimage that continues today. With so much ridiculous phoniness posing as miracles, the atheists don't have to say much. All they have to do is snort and jeer and guffaw...and that is what is really sad.

[The_Genius]

There is no way one can conclusively prove that Jesus did not exist. Yes, I do think that most gospels were not written at the time Jesus existed and the fact that the personality of Jesus might have been distorted to a certain extent. However, gospels are not the sources that speak of Jesus. Noble Quran also mentions Jesus numerous times. Despite the possibility of multiple Jesii aka imposters, Prophet Jesus (pbuh) existed.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Heehoos Is having faith the same as having an ax to grind? I'm not sure what the purpose of trying to disprove Jesus is. I suppose I can understand trying to put into place those who would use their religion to put down others. But does this person put equal time into trying to disprove the existance of Siddhartha? Of Lao-Tse or Confucius? Or Mohammad? It is easy to put down faith and religion when you have not needed it to save your life. Ask an alcholic or substance abuser if faith helped them find a path to recovery. Ask a soldier in a war if faith helped them make it through a scary night. Ask someone who has recovered from a nearly terminal disease if faith was not crucial in their recovery. Faith itself not a crutch. It is not a weakness. It is hope. It's the light at the end of a tunnel. Sometimes it can be one's only strength when they feel weak as hell. If Jesus was one person or was several persons (ironic that so many of the smart ones were named Jesus -- didn't they have other names for the wise folks?), why does it matter to one who does not believe? Is it the person or the story that matters? When it comes to one person's link to God, does it matter? For a Christian, when it comes to understanding love, forgiveness, selflessness, hope, faithfulness, kindness, gentleness, self control, etc., does it matter?

I have nothing against Jesus, wethere the Biblical version existed or not, but I am one who likes to get after those who use their faith as a weapon against others. I also support and defend anyone who uses their faith to improve themselves and if it helps them be strong and confident even better.
<