Jesus - the son of Maria and Josef the Carpenter - did not exist. So nobody killed him. He is a fictional character invented by the cult created by Paulus.

Everything in his legend is stolen from several other legends of godlike saviours and is part of the myths originating in Egypt and Sumeria.

But according to the tales in the Bible - he was killed by Romans after being sentenced by jewish leaders.

And I am not really alone with this theory, can not really take credit for it either. Roger Viklund have written a whole book about this, but unfortunatly it is in swedish.

Try to guess the religions:

Religion #1

The central figure is a god born as a human, by the end of december, to save the world from evil

The mother was a virgin.

He died and then was resurrected so he could reinforce the convent between God and man.

The cult was spreading during the 2nd and 3rd century.

It emphasized faith, disciplin, compassion and honesty, with a lot of moral.

It became the dominant religion among the Roman Emperors, competing with Jove et al..

The worshippng took place in sacred rooms, and had rituals with blood and pure water.

The Religion has been used by military forces to justify their violence as a struggle against evil.

Religion #2

The main character is the son of a god.

He was called the Lamb of God.

He was born in a cave at the end of December.

His birth was preceded by a star in the East.

When he was born he was visited by three wise men.

As an infant he was carried from his homeland to avoid a tyrant.

He was being noticed already as a child in the temple.

He had twelve disciples and performed miracles, among others he fed a large group of people with bread, and he could walk on water.

He managed to rise a man from death.

He was betrayed at his last supper.

He was crucified, buried and resurrected.

He is one of three parts of God.

Religion #3

The main character is both God and Son of God and was sent from Heaven in the shape of a Man to purify the World from Sin.

He is a Saviour and one part of a trinity.

His adopted father was a carpenter, but his true father a holy spirit.

His birth was witnessed by wise men, shepards and was preceded by a Star.

This happend when his parents were forced to go to another city to pay taxes.

As an adult he became an hermit and fasted.

He was named the Lion of a local tribe.

He was without sin.

He performed miracles, healing the sick (lepracy) and waking the dead.

He had disciples spreading his beliefs.

He was merciful and was critized for mingling with sinners.

He had a last supper and forgave his enemies.

He was resurrected after his death and returned to heaven.

Answers:

#1: Of course it is the cult of Mithras.

It was one of the competing religions and a great source of inspiration for the Jesus-cult.

#2: Yes, this is the egyptian Osiris/Horus-myth.

And obviously one of the first Messias-myths, inspiring all the rest.

#3: Indeed, this is the Krishna-myth from India.

Nice post, with one criticism.

The Krisna stuff is a little forced, mostly because of how non-Dualism works. Most of those phrasings are inane within the scope of the religion.

The fact that certain ideas have been incorporated does not disprove his existance.

There are reasons for using the familiar to crossover to the unfamiliar.

Nor are any of these ideas stolen. As cultures converge and merge with conquoring nations such crossovers often occur.

Philosophers often built one idea upon another.

However, the Hebrew of the OT were often warned of this, and that is why marrying those outside was frowned upon.

This Jesus guy also reminds me of Hercules.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

This Jesus guy also reminds me of Hercules.

Oh man, the part in the Bible where Jesus kicks the shit out of that hydra is my favorite part.

The existance of Jesus is accepted as a historic fact. There are ancient roman doccuments and stuff mentioning him.

Weather or not he was God is the only thing that is really questioned.

IF JESUS, THEN WHY NOT HERCULES?

If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?

To take one example, examine the evidence for the Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.

Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. Hercules got born as a human from the union of God (Zeus) and the mortal and chaste Alcmene, his mother. Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Like Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have mention of Jesus in Joesphus' Antiquities, so also does Joesphus mention Hercules in Antiquities (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.

Some critics doubt that a historicized Jesus could develop from myth because they think there never occurred any precedence for it. We have many examples of myth from history but what about the other way around? This doubt fails in the light of the most obvious example-- the Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc., assumed that there must have existed a historical root for figures such as Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, etc. These writers put their mythological heroes into an invented historical time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to determine when Hercules lived. As Robert M. Price revealed, "The whole approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who originated it." [Price, p. 250] Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicized mythologies: UFO adherents who's beliefs began as a dream of alien bodily invasion, and then expressed as actually having occurred (some of which have formed religious cults); beliefs of urban legends which started as pure fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which stem from fiction but believed by their constituents.

People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so go their gods. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and colleges. Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations or fear embarrassment against their Christian friends. Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.

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

Heracles

But good points. I like it.

yeah, i didn't write it, but it works! :P

Did Heracles ever say "I am God. The only way to heaven is through me"? Nope.

Regarding the main point of the article: The Christian religion is not a religion based on physical proof. There is no evidence Jesus existed then? In the Christian religion, He still exists now. Why would we care whether or not there is proof He existed then when we already believe He still exists today?

AGAIN you do not cite your material. Even Borat's shaped up somewhat, this is just sad.

METAPHOR.

Actually, Jesus did exist. The question is whether or not he was the messiah. But, there was a "prophet" named Jesus who traveled, preaching "the word".

Cheers,

Lost

It is fact that Jesus existed. He is recorded in sereral different, objective, and secular sources. But of course, it's up to you weather or not you believe.

quote:Originally posted by p106_peppy:

It is fact that Jesus existed. He is recorded in sereral different, objective, and secular sources. But of course, it's up to you weather or not you believe.

If you insist on calling something a fact, then you cannot call upon someone's belief about it. Present your sources.

In the link below there's a list of the historical sources that mention Jesus and why they are not very credible : http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel2.html

Of course, if religion actually focused on spirituality, then what would be important is what's attributed to Jesus and not whether he ever walked the earth.

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

Part 1: Historicity

quote:

For example, F.F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, has said: "Some writers may toy with the fancy of a "Christ-myth", but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar."

The wikipedia entry doesn't have any reference other than the Bible.

Bullshit.

It can be assumed that years between jesus' death and the writing of the scriptures stories got mixed up, but the message remains the same.

quote:Originally posted by p106_peppy:

It is fact that Jesus existed. He is recorded in sereral different, objective, and secular sources. But of course, it's up to you weather or not you believe.

All information is subjective. It is through interpretations that information can exist.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

The wikipedia entry doesn't have any reference other than the Bible.

Bullshit.

Is it some kind of weird joke? Well, I don't get it.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

The wikipedia entry doesn't have any reference other than the Bible.

Bullshit.

Just as a side note : you should try and compare entries for one and the same subject in different language versions of Wikipedia, such as i.e. English, Spanish, French, and German.

quote:Originally posted by Darwinist:

Is it some kind of weird joke? Well, I don't get it.

If you're going to discuss Jesus as a literal person, and rigoriously attempt to determine if the man lived, the Bible is good for circumstantial information, but you definately need something to back it up.

Thats like saying that there's absolute historical proof for Krisna, called the Bagavad-Gita.

And claiming that such existance is so blatantly obvious is condescending, to the point of nearly negating his arguement. It shows a complete lack of rigor.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

If you're going to discuss Jesus as a literal person, and rigoriously attempt to determine if the man lived, the Bible is good for circumstantial information, but you definately need something to back it up.

...

True.

That's why I refered more to this part of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Sources_and_further_reading

quote:Originally posted by Infernal:

All information is subjective. It is through interpretations that information can exist.

Well, no. It is perception that is subjective. As long as the information is recorded somewhere but not imparted and read, I would say it is objective. It is still the same for everyone. It is not yet a part of anyone's personal, inner world.

Jesus was alive silly! The Da Vinci Code says so!

He fucked Mary (Magdalene) and had children, was mortal, and drank a lot of wine.

Gosh you athiests/agnostics are all stupid.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Actually, Jesus did exist. The question is whether or not he was the messiah. But, there was a "prophet" named Jesus who traveled, preaching "the word".

Cheers,

Lost

In those times, everyone was a "prophet" who "preached the word". 2000 years later, jack shit has changed. Only some people are now smart enough to ignore drunk bums and crazy people.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

In those times, everyone was a "prophet" who "preached the word". 2000 years later, jack shit has changed. Only some people are now smart enough to ignore drunk bums and crazy people.

I think that's exactly the point, in teh last centuries there were a lot other prophets who were smart enough to call themselves philosophers and were able to make a decent phylosophy like in indo-cina, the ony asshole that tried to make a religion with god worshipping elements were the bible assholes.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Actually, Jesus did exist. The question is whether or not he was the messiah. But, there was a "prophet" named Jesus who traveled, preaching "the word".

Cheers,

Lost



ACTUALLY, there were several. But don't take my word for it... check out www.jesusneverexisted.com (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com). Reading Rainbowwwwwww.... Buh dah DAH!

[This message has been edited by Joe_the_Dead (edited 10-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by p106_peppy:

The existance of Jesus is accepted as a historic fact. There are ancient roman doccuments and stuff mentioning him.

Weather or not he was God is the only thing that is really questioned.

Apart from the Gospel sources, there is only one reference to Jesus Christ as a man, and that is from a passage histories of Josephus. Unfortunately, most ancient historians believe the passage to be a third century forgery.

quote:For example, F.F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, has said: "Some writers may toy with the fancy of a "Christ-myth", but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar."

A common argument. However, to the best of my knowledge, Jesus didn't own any mints or conquer the known world.

Meh, he wasn't the messiah anyway, so what do I care of some Jew was born 2000 years go?

We have more original transcripts and copies of Biblical books and such-dated texts than we do of Plato's literature; no one ever says Plato didn't exist.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

We have more original transcripts and copies of Biblical books and such-dated texts than we do of Plato's literature; no one ever says Plato didn't exist.

Thatìs right, but if you were smart, you'd be able to notice that there aren't millions monks dressed like freaks that are trying to make you believe that Plato did existed. I hope you know what i mean.

Luke 2:1-3 - 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to his own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Publius Quirinius held a census for taxation. This taxation is what forced the family of Jesus to travel back to Bethlehem.

~ http://tinyurl.com/8794l

~ http://tinyurl.com/d2owa (a very good breakdown of exact years if Quirinius' position of governor, and when the actual census occurred.)

Josephus, the Historian, confirms the census of Quirinius mentioned in Luke, and the existence of Jesus of Nazareth...

Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.

First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91).

~ http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

~ http://tinyurl.com/9dnhj (a COMPREHENSIVE study on Josephus' writings, and their authenticity)

Conclusion: Jesus did, in fact, exist.

A better question would be, "Was he the son of god/God incarnate ?"

You'll have to read the Bible to find that answer.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 10-28-2005).]

Simply because Luke claims that Mary and Joseph were recorded in the census does not necessarily mean that they ever in fact existed - particularly lacking any corroborating evidence.

Concerning Josephus:

quote:However, it is significant that Origen, writing in about AD 240, fails to mention it, even though he does mention the less significant reference to Jesus, as brother of James, which occurs later in pAntiquities of the Jews (book 20, ch. 9). Origen also states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" (Contra Celsus, book 1, ch. 47) "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew X.17), but the testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Starting in the 17th century, this has given rise to the suggestion presented by Protestant philologists that the Testimonium Flavianum did not exist in the earliest copies, or did not exist in the present form.

Some modern historians reject the passage as an interpolation, on other grounds, for several reasons inherent in the text. In its context, passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and thus the thread of continuity, of "sad calamities," is interrupted by this passage. The context, without the testimonium passage reads:

"...So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition. <insertion> About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome..."

The passage 3.3 also fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by K. H. Rengstorff, 2002. It is also argued that 'He was [the] Christ' can only be read as a profession of faith. If so, this could not be right, as Josephus was not a Christian; he characterized his patron Vespasian as the foretold Messiah.

The deepest concerns about the authenticity of the passage were succinctly expressed by John Dominic Crossan, in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant (1991): "The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish." Three passages stood out: "...if it be lawful to call him a man... He was [the] Christ... for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." These seem directly to address Christological debates of the early 4th century. Consequently most secular historians (and even many Christian scholars) dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation.

Josephus on Jesus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)

quote:Originally posted by Emc3:

Thatìs right, but if you were smart, you'd be able to notice that there aren't millions monks dressed like freaks that are trying to make you believe that Plato did existed. I hope you know what i mean.



For Christ's sake.

"...that are trying to make you believe that Plato did exist."

"Did Jesus exist for real?"

Why the hell are you using the past participle? WHY?

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

Simply because Luke claims that Mary and Joseph were recorded in the census does not necessarily mean that they ever in fact existed - particularly lacking any corroborating evidence.

Concerning Josephus:

Josephus on Jesus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)

If you had bothered to look at my links, all of that is included, and refuted.

Shame on you.

Also, why do you think it's been a subject of debate ? No atheist wants to admit Jesus was real...cause then that means God might be real. And then they'd have to believe !

*shakes head*

quote:4. It is sometimes claimed that manuscripts before Eusebius do not have the passage in question. This is simply not true; there are no extant manuscripts before Eusebius. It is also sometimes pointed out that the Josippon, a medieval Hebrew version of Josephus, lacks the passage in question. However, Josippon is dependent on the text of the Antiquities preserved by Christians, so it is clear that the author of Josippon does not represent an independent manuscript tradition but rather purposely omits the passage.

However:

quote:However, it is significant that Origen, writing in about AD 240, fails to mention it, even though he does mention the less significant reference to Jesus, as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (book 20, ch. 9).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Also, why do you think it's been a subject of debate ? No atheist wants to admit Jesus was real...cause then that means God might be real. And then they'd have to believe !

*shakes head*

Funny. (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004712.html)

quote:Originally posted by Emc3:

Thatìs right, but if you were smart, you'd be able to notice that there aren't millions monks dressed like freaks that are trying to make you believe that Plato did existed. I hope you know what i mean.



It's probably because the message imparted by Plato is not of the same order of magnitude nor has had the same impact as Christ's one. Besides, nobody doubts that Plato existed. His writings are still read today.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:



It's probably because the message imparted by Plato is not of the same order of magnitude nor has had the same impact as Christ's one. Besides, nobody doubts that Plato existed. His writings are still read today.

That's right. I don't even wanna go there, it's obvious that anybody who's trying to compare Jesus with Plato must be a little asshole probably with his brains raped by his religious family parents.

Besides Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were so much better than jesus, because they searched for truth while jesus used propaganda.

"Did Jesus exsisted for real?" What fucking type of language is that? Go back to the ghetto.