Log in

View Full Version : Proof Jesus isn't real?


Raw_Power
2006-09-21, 11:48
1. A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.



2. A MUTE RECORD WORLD WIDE

The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE, but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering. References to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud are garbled and come from traditions which were only recorded in the third century and later.



3. REVEALING THE SECRET OF CHRIST

Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history. Instead, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed the existence of his Son and the role he has played in the divine plan for salvation. These early writers talk of long-hidden secrets being disclosed for the first time to apostles like Paul, with no mention of an historical Jesus who played any part in revealing himself, thus leaving no room for a human man at the beginning of the Christian movement. Paul makes it clear that his knowledge and message about the Christ is derived from scripture under God’s inspiration.



4. A SACRIFICE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM

Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8). The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.



5. SALVATION IN A LAYERED UNIVERSE

The activities of gods in the spiritual realm were part of ancient views (Greek and Jewish) of a multi-layered universe, which extended from the base world of matter where humans lived, through several spheres of heaven populated by various divine beings, angels and demons, to the highest level of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled. In Platonic philosophy (which influenced Jewish thought), the upper spiritual world was timeless and perfect, serving as a model for the imperfect and transient material world below; the former was the "genuine" reality, accessible to the intellect. Spiritual processes took place there, with their effects, including salvation, on humanity below. Certain "human characteristics" given to Christ (e.g., Romans 1:3) were aspects of his spirit world nature, higher counterparts to material world equivalents, and were often dependent on readings of scripture.



6. A WORLD OF SAVIOR DEITIES

Christ’s features and myths are in many ways similar to those of the Greco-Roman salvation cults of the time known as "mystery religions", each having its own savior god or goddess. Most of these (e.g., Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) were part of myths in which the deity had overcome death in some way, or performed some act which conferred benefits and salvation on their devotees. Such activities were viewed as taking place in the upper spirit realm, not on earth or in history. Most of these cults had sacred meals (like Paul’s Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f) and envisioned mystical relationships between the believer and the god similar to what Paul speaks of with Christ. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.



7. THE INTERMEDIARY SON

The Christian "Son" is also an expression of the overriding religious concept of the Hellenistic age, that the ultimate God is transcendent and can have no direct contact with the world of matter. He must reveal himself and deal with humanity through an intermediary force, such as the "Logos" of Platonic (Greek) philosophy or the figure of "personified Wisdom" of Jewish thinking; the latter is found in documents like Proverbs, Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon. This force was viewed as an emanation of God, his outward image, an agency which had helped create and sustain the universe and now served as a channel of knowledge and communion between God and the world. All these features are part of the language used by early Christian writers about their spiritual "Christ Jesus", a heavenly figure who was a Jewish sectarian version of these prevailing myths and thought patterns.



8. A SINGLE STORY OF JESUS

All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.



9. THE GOSPELS AS (FICTIONAL) "MIDRASH"

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.



10. THE COMMUNITY OF "Q"

In Galilean circles distinct from those of the evangelists (who were probably all located in Syria), a Jewish movement of the mid-first century preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God put together over time a collection of sayings, ethical and prophetic, now known as Q. The Q community eventually invented for itself a human founder figure who was regarded as the originator of the sayings. In ways not yet fully understood, this figure fed into the creation of the Gospel Jesus, and the sayings document was used by Matthew and Luke to flesh out their reworking of Mark’s Gospel. Some modern scholars believe they have located the "genuine" Jesus at the roots of Q, but Q’s details and pattern of evolution suggest that no Jesus was present in its earlier phases, and those roots point to a Greek style of teaching known as Cynicism, one unlikely to belong to any individual, let alone a Jewish preacher of the Kingdom.



11. A RIOTOUS DIVERSITY

The documentary record reveals an early Christian landscape dotted with a bewildering variety of communities and sects, rituals and beliefs about a Christ/Jesus entity, most of which show little common ground and no central authority. Also missing is any idea of apostolic tradition tracing back to a human man and his circle of disciples. Scholars like to style this situation as a multiplicity of different responses to the historical Jesus, but such a phenomenon is not only incredible, it is nowhere attested to in the evidence itself. Instead, all this diversity reflects independent expressions of the wider religious trends of the day, based on expectation of God’s Kingdom, and on belief in an intermediary divine force which provided knowledge of God and a path to salvation. Only with the Gospels, which began to appear probably toward the end of the first century, were many of these elements brought together to produce the composite figure of Jesus of Nazareth, set in a midrashic story about a life, ministry and death located in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.



12. JESUS BECOMES HISTORY

As the midrashic nature of the Gospels was lost sight of by later generations of gentile Christians, the second century saw the gradual adoption of the Gospel Jesus as an historical figure, motivated by political considerations in the struggle to establish orthodoxy and a central power amid the profusion of early Christian sects and beliefs. Only with Ignatius of Antioch, just after the start of the second century, do we see the first expression in Christian (non-Gospel) writings of a belief that Jesus had lived and died under Pilate, and only toward the middle of that century do we find any familiarity in the wider Christian world with written Gospels and their acceptance as historical accounts. Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith. By the year 200, a canon of authoritative documents had been formed, reinterpreted to apply to the Jesus of the Gospels, now regarded as a real historical man. Christianity entered a new future founded on a monumental misunderstanding of its own past.

THE ASSEMBLED PUZZLE

Modern critical scholars have been dismantling the story of Jesus, attempting to salvage from it an inspiring sage for a more rational, enlightened future, and letting go the sacrificial divine Savior of an archaic past. Some of them are edging toward the admission that Paul's Christ had nothing to do with an historical man, while positioning their new teaching Jesus as only one element in the Jewish-Hellenistic synthesis which led to Christianity. The sage, however, is an artificial construct, a misreading (then and now) of the broader sectarian expressions of the day. And the links and lines of development between the various strands which scholars have created to make their scenarios hang together are largely unsupported by the evidence. The pieces of the Jesus Puzzle will not fit together except by abandoning any expectation of encountering an historical, human face.

SOURCE (http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/)

ArmsMerchant
2006-09-26, 18:52
I suggest you study rhetoric and debate.

One cannot prove a negative.

Twisted_Ferret
2006-09-26, 18:54
quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

I suggest you study rhetoric and debate.

One cannot prove a negative.

You can, or at least as far as you can prove anything. Suppose I said "there is a pink gnome four feet behind you, and you can see it, and it will be there forever." Look behind you, no pink gnome; you've disproved my little theory.

jsaxton14
2006-09-27, 00:42
quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

I suggest you study rhetoric and debate.

One cannot prove a negative.

Are there any integers that are both even and odd?

Ra-deus
2006-10-02, 08:53
Everybody knows that Jesus isn't real, what else is new?

Merlinman2005
2006-10-02, 08:56
hey you can prove a negative

a highest number does not exist

ArmsMerchant
2006-10-06, 19:09
quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

Interesting post. You are to be commended ror your scholarship and diligence.

However, as I seem to recall from studying debate, one cannot prove a negative.

redzed
2006-10-06, 21:13
quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE,

Interesting but what does it prove? That we should disregard what religions say about Jesus and make up one's own mind? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The source uses the reference regarding Tacitus and it's later historical date as a premise for the entire article. It may be instructive to look at the bible books also in an historical light in that many details written therein have also proven to be historically accurate and therefore the books may be regarded, historically, as equally valid as "non-christian" sources.

"A First Century physician, Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, said, 'While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court'(Acts 18:12). According to the Delphi inscription, Gallio took office on July 1, and his proconsulship lasted only one year. That year was AD52. Now here's the nub: if you compare Acts 1:1-3 with Luke 1:1-4 you will discover that Luke wrote his gospel about Jesus before he wrote Acts. This can only mean that his stories about Jesus were written within a very short time of Jesus death, while there were still living eyewitnesses who could have either verified or disproved them." (Ritchie Way GNU August 2006)

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Living Corpse
2006-10-07, 05:57
Please tell me why BC and AD are used if Jesus never existed.. Did they just pluck this random name that so happens to coincide with the Christian faith?

Niceguy
2006-10-07, 16:03
If you gave it thought, you would realise that BC andAD taken to mean Before Christ and After Death would leave a large gap in history, the lenth of jesus' lifespan, with no numerical designation.

BC and AD are shortened latin words I belive, although I dont know the translation.

the crow
2006-10-07, 16:40
what's the point..

Raw_Power
2006-10-07, 17:07
quote:Originally posted by Living Corpse:

Please tell me why BC and AD are used if Jesus never existed.. Did they just pluck this random name that so happens to coincide with the Christian faith?

Please tell me why Thursday is named after Thore, or why Sunday is named after the sun god if they are not real, pwetty pwease.

And as someone else said:

quote:If you gave it thought, you would realise that BC andAD taken to mean Before Christ and After Death would leave a large gap in history, the lenth of jesus' lifespan, with no numerical designation.

BC and AD are shortened latin words I belive, although I dont know the translation.

purplekhanabooze
2006-10-07, 19:38
AD does not mean after death

AD means anno dommini (sp?) which means "in the year of our lord"



BC does mean before christ

vazilizaitsev89
2006-10-07, 23:04
I WILL KILL YOU FOR MOCKING MY MESSIAH!!! (sarcasm)

Source
2006-10-08, 09:06
quote:Originally posted by purplekhanabooze:

AD does not mean after death

AD means anno dommini (sp?) which means "in the year of our lord"



BC does mean before christ

So why do they teach you that shit in school, if it's not true?

Merlinman2005
2006-10-08, 09:28
lol they told you it meant After Death?

wow.

they shouldn't have done that. I know when i learned it, they told us the actual terms

Source
2006-10-08, 10:11
quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

lol they told you it meant After Death?

wow.

they shouldn't have done that. I know when i learned it, they told us the actual terms

I went to one of the supposedly best schools in my area. But I can honeslty say I've learnt more after leaving school than I ever did when I was there.

[This message has been edited by Source (edited 10-08-2006).]

Mellow_Fellow
2006-10-12, 21:03
"Jesus" did exist, get the fuck over it.

There's plenty of evidence for his existence, Roman, Jewish and not to mention Christian writings...

Sure, maybe lots of the Bible/gnostic gospels isn't "true" as such, but the man they speak of most definatly did exist.

Now whether he was the Son of God, and we all have to believe in him to escape the flames and worms of hell...

Now that's another matter http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

elfstone
2006-10-13, 01:31
quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

"Jesus" did exist, get the fuck over it.

There's plenty of evidence for his existence, Roman, Jewish and not to mention Christian writings...

Sure, maybe lots of the Bible/gnostic gospels isn't "true" as such, but the man they speak of most definatly did exist.

Now whether he was the Son of God, and we all have to believe in him to escape the flames and worms of hell...

Now that's another matter http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

"Plenty of evidence" is an exaggeration to say the least. The only close to contemporary writing mentioning Jesus is probably a forgery (Josephus). All Roman and Christian writings are written at a time when christianity was already a noticable cult and they provide no historical evidence.

Clarphimous
2006-10-13, 02:38
quote:Originally posted by Living Corpse:

Please tell me why BC and AD are used if Jesus never existed.. Did they just pluck this random name that so happens to coincide with the Christian faith?

No, of course not. A Christian came up with those dates based on approximations of when Jesus supposedly was born (using references to historical events in the gospels to date his birth). Here's a little history lesson for everyone.

I'm going to test out some HTML code while I'm at it, so this might look a bit weird if it goes wrong.

From Asimov's Guide to the Bible:

Herod

    The general period of Jesus' birth is given:

        Matthew 2:1. . . . Jesus was born . . . in the days of Herod the king . . .

    The mention of Herod at once tells us that the day of the Maccabean kingdom is over. Much has happened in the century that passed between the ending of 1 Maccabees and the opening of Matthew.

[here I skip several pages on the history of the Maccabees, and the rise of Herod.]

    The birth of Jesus during the reign of Herod raises an interesting point in chronology. The Romans dated events from the year in which, according to legend, the city of Rome had been founded. That year was 1 A.U.C., where the initials stand for ab urbe condita ("from the founding of the city"). According to this scheme, Pompey took Jerusalem in the year 690 A.U.C.

    Unfortunately, however, none of the gospels date the birth of Jesus according to this scheme or, for that matter, according to one of the other schemes used in the Bible. The evangelists might have used the Seleucid era that was used in the books of the Maccabees, for instance. Or they might have named the number of the year of Herod's reign after the fashion of the dating in 1 and 2 Kings.

    But no scheme was used. Matthew simply says "in the days of Herod the king" and anything closer than that must be worked out by deduction.

    Some five hundred years after the time of Jesus, such deductions were made by a scholarly theologian and astronomer named Dionysius Exiguus, who lived in Rome. He maintained that Jesus had been born in 753 A.U.C, and this date for Jesus' birth was widely accepted.

    Gradually, as the centuries passed, the old Roman system of counting the years was dropped. Instead, it became customary to count the years from the birth of Jesus. That year was A.D. 1, or "Anno Domini" ("the year of our Lord").

    The years prior to the birth of Jesus were labeled B.C. ("before Christ"). Thus, if Jesus was born in 753 A.U.C., then Rome was founded 753 years before his birth, or 753 B.C. The entire system of dating used in this book (and, indeed, in any modern history book) follows this "Christian Era" or "Dionysian Era" in which A.D. 1 is equated with 753 A.U.C.

    And yet scholarship in the centuries since Dionysius Exiguus has made a revision necessary. For instance, from sources outside the Bible it is quite clear that Herod ascended the throne in 716 A.U.C., that is, 37 B.C. He reigned for thirty-three years, dying in 749 A.U.C. or 4 B.C.

    But if that is so, it is impossible for Jesus to have been born in 753 A.U.C. and still have been born "in the days of Herod the king," since Herod had died four years before. If Jesus were born in the time of Herod then he must have been born no later than 4 B.C. (four years "before Christ," which certainly seems paradoxical).

    And even this is merely the latest he could have been born by that verse in Matthew. He could well have been born earlier, and some have suggested dates even as early as 17 B.C.

Edit: w00t, it worked! Indented the paragraphs successfully.

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 10-13-2006).]

Clarphimous
2006-10-13, 03:07
quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

I suggest you study rhetoric and debate.

One cannot prove a negative.

You cannot "prove" anything with evidence. Everything has to be rationalized that is not mathematics and pure logic.

That said, there is not sufficient evidence for me to believe it one way or the other. I know that Isaac Asimov (who wrote the book I quoted from in my previous post) believed that he was a historical figure. And he seemed to know his stuff. So I dunno. The Gospels might just be very loosely based on a historical figure, with much of the details added later on. What we do know for sure is that there were, indeed, many instances where people in that time period had tried to claim the position of "Messiah." And then we have all the other weird religious groups at that time (mystery cults and whatnot). So the real answer is probably somewhere in between the extremes of "Jesus never existed and everything in the Gospels is false" and "The Gospels are inerrant." Exactly where in this continuum is what we have to figure out, here.

quote:Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses.

Odd, I heard that it was the book of Matthew that was based on Moses. Mark didn't have any details on his birth and rising out of Egypt.