The God Who Wasn't There

[Zhavric]

Please click on the link below and view the film there.

YouTube - The God Who Wasn't There - Part 2

The debate here is on the subject of the film. Do you think it's claims are valid?

[jascowhiz0]

I think its taken out of context and obviously biased.

Christianity was an underground religion it its early years, so people weren't going to go public like the apostles and Christ did(or conveniently no documents talking about Jesus for 40 years) . Another thing is, after Christ died the believers thought He would come back relatively soon, but after a period of time they realized it wasn't going to be soon. So then they wrote the gospels quite a few years after Jesus left.

They float the idea that Paul thought of a completely different Christ because he never mentions Jesus's life. I was glancing through Hebrews, its not meant to recount of Jesus's life, its meant to teach what the church believes in. Most church documents probably don't even mention Jesus's life, rather what the church believes in. Paul's documents don't contradict the rest of the bible or Christianity. Now they claim other Gospels were thrown out. I was taught a reason as to why they were thrown out, but I've forgotten most of it. One reason I do remember was that they were teaching what would be heretical views to Christianity(I don't know much about Heretics, but I do know there were a lot of holes in them).

They mention Hebrews 8:4 "For if He (had been)were on earth, He would not (even have been) be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law:" (translation from my bible is different than the one they used) But looking through Hebrews, the quote from the context I read is basically saying that if he comes to earth he would not be a priest but something else. Or when he comes to earth he is not going to be a priest. He comes as a high priest, not a priest as Hebrews says. Whats funny is they use this quote to demonstrate that Jesus never came to this world or if He did He died in a mythical realm. They even go onto say that Paul didn't even know Jesus was a human. In response Hebrews 10:5 "Therefore, when He came into this world, He said: 'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.'" But a body You have prepared for Me. A human body. Can't be a godly body because even the video admits he dies. Just stuff I found glancing through Hebrews. Something you might find interesting. When I went to find the Hebrews 8:4 quote the first page I opened to was Hebrews 10:5. And as I said the 8:4 quote in my bible is different from theirs.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Zhavric Do you think it's claims are valid?

I don't think anything... I know it's garbage. Extremely subjective.

[Kamehameha34]

Not subjective at all. Just inductive - as all historical accounts are.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: The_Genius I don't think anything...

We know. Please contribute to the debate or don't bother posting.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 I think its taken out of context and obviously biased.

There was something that is taken out of context. Can you point to what it was?

Christianity was an underground religion it its early years,

Which years are you referring to? If your answer is before 70 ce, you're going to have to provide evidence.

so people weren't going to go public like the apostles and Christ did(or conveniently no documents talking about Jesus for 40 years)

I'm sorry, but the disciples never existed either. There isn't a shred of evidence suggesting they're real and considerable evidence suggesting they're every bit as contrived as their mythic teacher.

Your line of reasoning so far hasn't actually addressed any of the issues raised in video. You're simply restating Christian propaganda. To put things in perspective, here's an analogy:

Video: "Superman isn't a real person. He's fictional and exists only in comic books."

You: "Then who saved Lois Lane all those times? Who stopped Lex Luthor from blowing up Metropolis?"

Another thing is, after Christ died the believers thought He would come back relatively soon, but after a period of time they realized it wasn't going to be soon. So then they wrote the gospels quite a few years after Jesus left.

How sophomoricly convenient? It sounds perfectly reasonable until we give it a moment's thought.

First, if the events in the gospels had taken place, we'd expect to see A LOT more mention of them. After all, we're talking about one of the most literate places on the planet at the time (having a written religion will do that...) set at the crossroards of Pax Romana.

Philo of Alexandria comes to mind. He lived at the same time Jesus did, visited Judea, wrote about Judaism, mentions Pilate and hung out with the Essenes (people who are now considered early Chritians). Yet Philo is completely silent on Jesus. He doesn't mention him directly ("Some guy was making dead people walk around") or indirectly ("a bunch of kooks were talking about dead people walking around").

Second, the above quoted bit is EXACTLY the sort of excuse we'd hear if someone was trying to invent history that never actually took place.

They float the idea that Paul thought of a completely different Christ because he never mentions Jesus's life. I was glancing through Hebrews, its not meant to recount of Jesus's life, its meant to teach what the church believes in.

Once again: how convenient? You do realize this is a tremendous cop out, yes? The challenge is to prove Paul was aware of Jesus' alleged life events. You have in no way met this challenge.

Paul's documents don't contradict the rest of the bible or Christianity.

That's because the gospels were written with Paul's writings close at hand. We know the first gospel to be written was Mark and we know it wasn't written until 70ce. The other gospels came later.

They mention Hebrews 8:4 "For if He (had been)were on earth, He would not (even have been) be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law:" (translation from my bible is different than the one they used) But looking through Hebrews, the quote from the context I read is basically saying that if he comes to earth he would not be a priest but something else. Or when he comes to earth he is not going to be a priest. He comes as a high priest, not a priest as Hebrews says. Whats funny is they use this quote to demonstrate that Jesus never came to this world or if He did He died in a mythical realm.

Mostly agree.

They even go onto say that Paul didn't even know Jesus was a human. In response Hebrews 10:5 "Therefore, when He came into this world, He said: 'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.'" But a body You have prepared for Me. A human body.

Have you READ Hebrews?

10:4. For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away.

Paul's talking about the Jewish practice of killing cattle & livestock to attone for sins. He's saying that Jesus' sacrifice does this far better, but he in no way indicates Jesus was an actual person. As the video stated: he doesn't mention Pilate. He doesn't mention Gethsemane. He doesn't mention anything that would lead us to believe Jesus was an actual person.

[jascowhiz0]

My first post was a quick reaction and I don't know much about all this stuff and maybe what I was taught in school (Catholic school) is a bunch of BS. So I stop and re looked at the whole thing. This whole idea about the God who wasn't there is based on the dating of the Gospels as a given, then goes on from there to say its folklore and Paul has no idea whats going on.

Well their explanation for the dating of the Gospels is that Mark is first and he mentions the destruction of the temple so it must be after 70AD. They don't go into any detail about why they came to this conclusion and we must accept it as a given for them to go on. Read this article about the dating of the Gospels.

When Were the Original Gospels Written?

This is an interesting read I found while Google searching for info. This may sound like a bad way to search for info, but out of all the articles I found, this one sounded the most legit (from the Christian and modern viewpoints).

Article about the existence of the Apostles.
History of the Apostles

[nilan3000]

Im not sure if all they say is true, but they are certainly on to something.

[loser]

Not subjective at all. Just inductive - as all historical accounts are.

If they use inductive reasoning, then they are NOT historical accounts. History is not supposed to be about inference..it's about recording actual events.

If your answer is before 70 ce, you're going to have to provide evidence.

Why 70 ce?

[loser]

I'm sorry, but the disciples never existed either. There isn't a shred of evidence suggesting they're real and considerable evidence suggesting they're every bit as contrived as their mythic teacher.

Evidence?

First, if the events in the gospels had taken place, we'd expect to see A LOT more mention of them. After all, we're talking about one of the most literate places on the planet at the time (having a written religion will do that...) set at the crossroards of Pax Romana. Philo of Alexandria comes to mind. He lived at the same time Jesus did, visited Judea, wrote about Judaism, mentions Pilate and hung out with the Essenes (people who are now considered early Chritians). Yet Philo is completely silent on Jesus. He doesn't mention him directly ("Some guy was making dead people walk around") or indirectly ("a bunch of kooks were talking about dead people walking around").

So, using this reasoning, we should expect to see a lot of mention of the Seven Great Wonders of the Ancient World. Can you direct me to sources where Philo or other writers of that period are mentioning these great accomplishments. Thanks.

That's because the gospels were written with Paul's writings close at hand. We know the first gospel to be written was Mark and we know it wasn't written until 70ce. The other gospels came later.

You're going to have to prove that.

As the video stated: he doesn't mention Pilate. He doesn't mention Gethsemane. He doesn't mention anything that would lead us to believe Jesus was an actual person.

So, then, does this mean that Pilate wasn't actually a real person (since Paul fails to mention him)?

This whole idea about the God who wasn't there is based on the dating of the Gospels as a given,... Well their explanation for the dating of the Gospels is that Mark is first and he mentions the destruction of the temple so it must be after 70AD. They don't go into any detail about why they came to this conclusion and we must accept it as a given for them to go on. Read this article about the dating of the Gospels.

The evidence points to the Gospel of Luke being written about AD 60. His second book, Acts, was written about AD 62. Mark was probably written somewhere around AD 55 and Matthew around AD 50. John is purported to be written in the 80's or 90's but I suppose a much earlier date, possibly AD 65-69. His later book Revelation was also most likely written pre AD 70.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 My first post was a quick reaction and I don't know much about all this stuff and maybe what I was taught in school (Catholic school) is a bunch of BS. So I stop and re looked at the whole thing. This whole idea about the God who wasn't there is based on the dating of the Gospels as a given, then goes on from there to say its folklore and Paul has no idea whats going on.

You've got that backwards.

Christianity is based on dating the gospels as a given... that they were written much earlier than they actually were. The evidence doesn't suggest this.

Well their explanation for the dating of the Gospels is that Mark is first and he mentions the destruction of the temple so it must be after 70AD. They don't go into any detail about why they came to this conclusion and we must accept it as a given for them to go on.

It's a given that Mark's mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple cannot happen before 70 ce. Apologists like to claim Mark was written much earlier and was documenting a prophecy, but there's absolutely ZERO evidence of this. The other gospels very obviously build from Mark.

Read this article about the dating of the Gospels. When Were the Original Gospels Written?

I'm really at a loss for why you posted this. It doesn't give us anything to go on and is more than a little dishonest. First, it relies heavily on the idea of "internal evidence". This is the straw apologists grasp at when it comes to dating the bible. It goes something like this:

If we encounter a handwritten phrase in an undated journal that reads "I'm really looking forward to going to New York and climbing to the top of the world trade center" we'd conclude (using internal evidence) that the document was written before 9/11/2001. The glaringly obvious problem here is anyone who wants to create a document of this nature need only write as though 9/11hadn't yet happened and voila! Internal evidence dictates a pre-disaster date.

The dishonesty of the article came here:

"Another French scholar, the noted authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls Father Jean Carmignac of Paris (d.1986), has also re-evaluated the dating of the Gospels."

I see your author doesn't go out of his way to point out we have actual physical documents in the form of the DSS. We don't have any gospels earlier than the second century. None. Not one. 90 generations of scholars have been unable to unearth one.

Article about the existence of the Apostles. History of the Apostles

The apostles were individuals in their adulthood in 33ce. When do we "learn" the most about them?

One of the earliest of these are the writings of Eusebius, 'The History of the Church,' (to A.D. 324). These were written in ca A.D. 325 and include perhaps the most complete history of the apostles.

About 300 years after the fact.

About Eusebius and Mark (John Mark):

Though neither Clement of Alexandria (?153-215), nor Origen of Alexandria (182-251) seem to have noticed, Eusebius of Caesarea (c.263-339) relays the news that the apostle Mark had been "first bishop" of Alexandria and had suffered martyrdom in the "eighth year of Nero." This would have been 61 AD – rendering the apostle dead before the death of Peter whose memoirs Mark supposedly wrote up as the Gospel of Mark. "Dragged to death", or maybe not. His bones – well, someone's bones – turned up in 9th century Venice.

Welcome to Enlightenment! Religion–the Tragedy of Mankind - Articles by Kenneth Humphreys

I'm sorry, but the disciples are every bit as fictional as their mythical teacher. The people who your article mentions aren't impartial 3rd parties. They're members of the church inventing history to benefit the church... and not doing such a good job of it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser Why 70 ce?

We know the Jewish temple was destroyed then. We know the other gospels all draw & build from Mark. We know that Mark mentions the destruction of the temple.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser Evidence [the disciples never existed]?

Actually the burden is on Christians to prove these individuals existed. The evidence they were invented is glaring & obvious. Let's take Peter for a moment:

1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas)).
"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!

The 12 Apostles – Fabricated followers of a fabricated Saviour – Ken Humphreys

We both know there's zero counter evidence. Apologist arguments here rely on special pleadings and other fallacies.

So, using this reasoning, we should expect to see a lot of mention of the Seven Great Wonders of the Ancient World. Can you direct me to sources where Philo or other writers of that period are mentioning these great accomplishments. Thanks.

Horrible...horrible reasoning.

A hellenized Jew has motivation to write about an incarnate Jewish messiah who raises Jews from the dead. The above quoted text is evidence of a special pleading; a desire to equate rare natural events with impossible / unevidenced supernatural events.

Finally, Jesus allegedly died around 33 ce. Philo of Alexandria died in the 4th decade of the first century making him a contemporary of Jesus (he would have been had their been a gospel Jesus). The "newest" of the 7 wonders was completed shortly after 290 bce in Alexandria.

Congratulations: from the perspective of Philo and the allegations in the gospel, you've just compared a two century old landmark with magical events happening in Philo's lifetime.

Moving on.

You're going to have to prove that.

See above. We know when the temple was sacked. We know Mark was the first gospel written. We know Mark mentions the temple's fall. The gospels demonstrate things that Paul knew, but Paul demonstrates almost no knowledge of the gospels. Logically, which came first?

So, then, does this mean that Pilate wasn't actually a real person (since Paul fails to mention him)?

Pilate is a real person because Philo of Alexandria mentions him. Funny how Philo, who wrote about Jesus' executioner and hung out with the early Essenes managed to miss the incarnate godman who was doing rock star level miracles. It's almost as though *gasp* he wasn't real.

The evidence points to the Gospel of Luke being written about AD 60.

What evidence? I sincerely hope you have something more solid than "internal evidence".

His second book, Acts, was written about AD 62. Mark was probably written somewhere around AD 55 and Matthew around AD 50. John is purported to be written in the 80's or 90's but I suppose a much earlier date, possibly AD 65-69. His later book Revelation was also most likely written pre AD 70.

Thank you for making claims. Now back them up or concede that you are unable to.

[Chris]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 They mention Hebrews 8:4 "For if He (had been)were on earth, He would not (even have been) be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law:" (translation from my bible is different than the one they used) But looking through Hebrews, the quote from the context I read is basically saying that if he comes to earth he would not be a priest but something else.

Original King James version:

For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Zhavric We know the Jewish temple was destroyed then. We know the other gospels all draw & build from Mark. We know that Mark mentions the destruction of the temple.

John?

[loser]

The other gospels very obviously build from Mark.

I'm curious to know how many times you read each of the gospels before coming to the conclusion that they were OBVIOUSLY 'copied' from Mark or have you perhaps been influenced by modern-day source and form critics posing as scholars?

We know that Mark mentions the destruction of the temple.

Surely you're not referring to Jesus' prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple found at Mark 13:2, are you? Well, Matthew 24:2 and Luke 21:6 mention the same prophecy by Jesus. Since you don't believe that people can forsee the future (or is it just Jesus' abilities that you doubt?), you come to the wrong conclusion.

Actually the burden is on Christians to prove these individuals existed. The evidence they were invented is glaring & obvious. Let's take Peter for a moment: 1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas)). "Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really.

1) No, we have no need to prove their existence.We're sorry that you don't believe and are missing all of the blessings that come with that belief but that's your choice.

2) The evidence that is "invented" is glaring and obvious.

3) The Bible does not say Peter was beheaded by Nero or that he was crucified upside down. Just because later liars wrested the truth does not have ANY bearing on the validity of the original writings.

Your arguments are null and void and your evidence is non-existent.

The fact that you speak so much in the plural (i.e., "we know, we know, we know") indicates an alignment with certain biased thinkers who's opinions you value highly. Not much original content...mostly just mirroring the same old tired rhetoric that scoffers have been using since the time of Christ

Also, your assertion that Jesus never existed shows more "dishonesty" than "Twas the Night Before Christmas".

A hellenized Jew has motivation to write about an incarnate Jewish messiah who raises Jews from the dead.

Uh, no he doesn't. He has EVERY reason to NOT mention Him. Gamaliel (President of the Sanhedrin) advised ignoring the Christians, which is EXACTLY what one would expect a Jew to do.

Not very good reasoning...

Congratulations: from the perspective of Philo and the allegations in the gospel, you've just compared a two century old landmark with magical events happening in Philo's lifetime.

Your point? I've got a book right here besides me that mentions Jesus, Philo, and the Seven Wonders. What's even more amazing is that these people and places ALL existed over 2,000 years ago (but the book is less than 20 years old!).

We know Mark was the first gospel written

No, "we" don't. We're almost completely sure that Matthew and Luke preceded Mark.

We know Mark mentions the temple's fall.

He does NOTHING of the sort. You're prefabricating an alternate 'truth', something that makes you more comfortable to believe.

The gospels demonstrate things that Paul knew, but Paul demonstrates almost no knowledge of the gospels.

Almost? If they hadn't been written already, would it be "almost"?

Besides, Paul speaks of how he persecuted the early Church (and Christians). Had Christianity not have been a vibrant movement that was threatening Judaism, Paul (Saul) would not have expended so much energy in relentlessly tracking down and persecuting the Christians.

Once again, under scrutiny, your arguments fall flat.

Logically, which came first?

No doubt, it was the gospels that came first.

Thank you for making claims. Now back them up or concede that you are unable to.

I can only back up my claims in the EXACT same way that you back your claims up. For every source you list, I will list an opposing source that contradicts your sources. You know that there is no shortage of OPINIONS on BOTH sides of this debate. Won't you just categorically dismiss all of my sources as being biased apologetics at the same time that I will be dismissing your sources as anti-biblically biased?

It's a no win situation for either side. Only God can change your mind. Only Satan can change mine.

[loser]

To quote Hebrews 8:4 alone is to take the verse out of context. It seems that opponents of Jesus, Paul, and/or the Bible are trying to insinuate that Jesus was never on the earth (as Zhavric claims). However, if we begin reading from verse one, the meaning is made perfectly clear:

Heb 8:1 The whole point of what we are saying is that we have such a High Priest, [Jesus] sits at the right of the throne of the Divine Majesty in heaven.

It's obvious that this was written AFTER Jesus had ascended to heaven...He was no longer on the earth, He was sitting on His throne beside His Father in heaven.

[Chris]

Quote by: loser To quote Hebrews 8:4 alone is to take the verse out of context. It seems that opponents of Jesus, Paul, and/or the Bible are trying to insinuate that Jesus was never on the earth (as Zhavric claims). However, if we begin reading from verse one, the meaning is made perfectly clear: Heb 8:1 The whole point of what we are saying is that we have such a High Priest, [Jesus] sits at the right of the throne of the Divine Majesty in heaven. It's obvious that this was written AFTER Jesus had ascended to heaven...He was no longer on the earth, He was sitting on His throne beside His Father in heaven.

talk about taking things out of context. The actual quote from Heb 8:1 (Original King James Version 1611)

Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

[loser]

And how, exactly, is that "taking things out of context?"

Oops, I did make a mistake. I forgot to show the translation used (Good News Bible) and, therefore, the wording is slightly different than the KJV (1611) that you posted. However, the CONTEXT is NOT changed.

[loser]

For the benefit of any who might be following this thread, I submit these various translations of Hebrews 8:1:

(ALT) Now [this is the] main point about the [things] being said: we have such a High Priest who sat down at [the] right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

(ASV) Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is this: We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

(BBE) Now of the things we are saying this is the chief point: We have such a high priest, who has taken his place at the right hand of God's high seat of glory in heaven,

(CEV) What I mean is that we have a high priest who sits at the right side of God's great throne in heaven.

(DRB) Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such an high priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens,

(EMTV) Now this is the main point of the things being said: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

(ESV) Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,

(Geneva) Nowe of the things which we haue spoken, this is the summe, that wee haue such an hie Priest, that sitteth at the right hand of the throne of the Maiestie in heauens,

(