Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

windword

whyamIhere

windword
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

The "mythical" characters of Abraham and Moses are MORE documented than the mythical character of Jesus. FACT!

If we our being honest with ourselves nothing from that period is a Fact.

It requires a huge imagination to call anything from that era a fact.

You can call Jesus a mythical figure. You just can't prove it.

Nor can I prove you wrong. But one thing is sure, none of us have all the facts.

The only thing that I'm calling a "fact" is the fact that Abraham and Moses are more documented then Jesus ever was. Are going to argue with that?

No...

I don't have the facts.

PrinceDreamer

Khaleesi

TheEthicalSkeptic

Khaleesi
Actually there is more non biblical documentation of Jesus than there is Ceasar. Research it. Yes by proper name.

Yes, I read Jesus' famous work "The Gallic Wars."

As I said there are 3 Primary sources for Julius Caesar, one of them being Caesar himself. Non Biblical primary sources for Jesus include, Flavius Josephus, Gaius Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus, Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, and some even include the Koran.

eta Tacitus even mentions Pontius Pilatus by name as the man that sentenced Jesus to crucifixion.

edit on 9-10-2013 by Khaleesi because: (no reason given)

You quote all these people who wrote about Jesus, how many met him? How many knew him? Hmm that would be none, considering they were all born after the event, after he died and the koran is evidence? Written some 600 years after he died? Really... Even the new testament was written long after he died by people who had never met him, or are you going to alleged that they were writen by the apostles?

There is very little actual evidence that Jesus lived, All the written evidence seems to start some 70 - 100 years after he died, and by people who never met him or knew him, never listened to his sermons, never witnessed any miracles. You have to accept Jesus on faith alone for there is no evidence

And how many of the accepted Primary sources that wrote about the lives of the Caesars actually met them? Go back to my previous posts and it is explained. Some of the primary sources that I listed were Roman and would have had access to Roman records, such as the one that actually wrote of Pilate and Jesus. He was a Roman historian. Do you really think a Roman citizen would have haphazardly thrown out the name of another respected Roman citizen, (a Roman Prefect no less) without looking into the Roman records?

wildtimes
reply to post by Logarock

 

Well, I just provided a bibliography for you, Log. 91 volumes written over 300+ years. LOTS of comparative works on older myths and religious figures. You aren't looking hard enough if you haven't found anything.

Pleased to be of service, however. That reading list should keep you busy for a while - if you're brave enough to read them.

Oh you can find wondering mystics and the like but you cant find anyone anywhere making the volume of claims, working the sort of miracles he worked, ect ect. You just cant.

And here, I just got this from link you posted...

"It is very doubtful whether the Christian faith could have been built upon the foundations of a historic Jesus ... who was little more than a teacher of practical philosophy."

Jesus was never a teacher of practical philosophy and anyone that would say such a thing is so ignorant that they should find some profession other than official Jesus debunker. Even if Jesus is not believed by personas like this they should know enough to know that he was not a philosopher. For Petes sake man.

reply to post by adjensen


At about 40 minutes in is where you'll find what you're talking about Ad.



Everyone else school is in session so start at the beginning.

reply to post by ltheghost

you/they can say what they want, but, I SAY TO YOU JESUS LIVES. HE LIVES ALSO IN MY HEART. One day you will figure it out.

Wouldn't be surprised, honestly. Besides the Bible, there is literally no evidence that he was real. The name Jesus Christ is already proven to be a name bestowed onto him after his death. I don't remember what his true name is.

I think there are two likely scenerios: one is that Jesus was a real man, whose name was changed to reflect a less Middle-Eastern/Jewish name after his death. And, he was just a normal man with a great message (similar to Ghanda) that was misinterpreted into the religion we know today.

OR

He was a created character in the fictional book known as the Bible.

Shiloh7
The only references to him comes from a source that is unreliable - Jesephus and we know that most that has been written for Christianity has been heavily interpolated by scribes with their master's own agendas.

Josephus Professor, Steve Mason - Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson:1992)
"Taking all of these problems into consideration, a few scholars have argued that the entire passage (the testimonium) as it stands in Josephus is a Christian forgery. The Christian scribes who copied the Jewish historian's writings thought it intolerable that he should have said nothing about Jesus and spliced the paragraph in where it might logically have stood, in Josephus' account of Pilate's tenure. Some scholars have suggested that Eusebius himself was the forger, since he was the first to produce the passage…Most critics, however, have been reluctant to go so far. They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo's text. To be sure, many of the "pseudepigrapha" that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity." (p.170-171)

"Finally, the existence of alternative versions of the testimonium has encouraged many scholars to think that Josephus must have written something close to what we find in them, which was later edited by Christian hands. if the laudatory version in Eusebius and our text of Josephus were the free creation of Christian scribes, who then created the more restrained versions found in Jerome, Agapius, and Michael? The version of Agapius is especially noteworthy because it eliminates, though perhaps too neatly, all of the major difficulties in the standard text of Josephus. (a) It is not reluctant to call Jesus a man. (b) It contains no reference to Jesus' miracles. (c) It has Pilate execute Jesus at his own discretion. (d) It presents Jesus' appearance after death as merely reported by the disciples, not as fact. (e) It has Josephus wonder about Jesus' messiahship, without explicit affirmation. And (f) it claims only that the prophets spoke about "the Messiah," whoever he might be, not that they spoke about Jesus. That shift also explains sufficiently the otherwise puzzling term "Messiah" for Josephus' readers. In short, Agapius' version of the testimonium sounds like something that a Jewish observer of the late first century could have written about Jesus and his followers." (p.172)

"It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus' statements about Jesus' healing and teaching activity, or the circumstances of his trial. Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus' reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus' existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings." (p.174f)

Others have this well covered already, however I will chime in and agree that there is absolutely 0 proof in the historical record that Jesus existed outside of the bible. Josephus and Suetonius et all have been thoroughly refuted.

RockstarMatt


I think there are two likely scenerios: one is that Jesus was a real man, whose name was changed to reflect a less Middle-Eastern/Jewish name after his death. And, he was just a normal man with a great message (similar to Ghanda) that was misinterpreted into the religion we know today.

The problem here and its a big one, is that believe him or not, he cant be compared with Gandhi. He just bears so little and vague resemblance to Gandhi.

DeadSeraph
reply to post by danielsil18

 

Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, to name 3 Roman historians. The Talmud even acknowledges that Jesus existed. If he is a myth, why wouldn't Jews simply dismiss him as such, instead of writing about why he was a heretic? The history is there for you to research if you want.

edit on 8-10-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

so there really was a demigod that walked on water... born of a virgin named Mary? Came back from the dead? Turned water into wine? Fed hundreds of people with a basket of fish?

....researching "history" based on heresay accounts by people thousands of years ago does not equal proof any of this happened in reality. Sure there have been people alive named Jesus and/or Jesus Christ... of course... however the Jesus, the son of man, or son of God.... Jesus the savior of man? If you truly believe then I also have a bridge to sell you that is 50% off for a limited time only! CALL NOW

windword
Jesus Christ certainly never existed. Jesus the Nazarene, perhaps.

Christ was an ancient title that Caesar was using, at the time. Jesus would never have taken Caesar's pagan title from him.

I have stayed off this thread because it's utter B.S. for any true ancient history scholars, and this guy is not respected anywhere within that circle even among non Christians.

Of course Jesus would not have used that title! Are you freaking kidding me? His name is Yeshua, he is a Hebrew of the tribe of Judah and he is the MESSIAH which means savior and all Hebrews knew the Messiah is anointed of God! Christos means anointed one and that is how they call him Christ!

Your argument is beyond belief here !

There is absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ, anywhere outside of the Bible. All the citations, posters have listed in this thread, have all been debunked.

wrong, and there is no point arguing this. You believe it and nothing I say will change it. Much evidence has been presented and Randy just posted a great video. Of course, I seriously doubt you will even watch it even if you skip to the 40 min mark and watch for 10 minutes. Again, we must agree to disagree.

For those who say that only a Jew could have penned the New Testament, therefore, they think they've successfully debunked Atwill, didn't consider that Josephus was a Jew.

And?

I am going to bow out again now this is just a disgusting display of complete ignorance on the Jesus deniers part.

1. Do you believe in Atlantis existing?

I'm going to add this one issue that video Randy brought up around the 1:11 min mark and that is that if people want to discount to 11 sources example he gives for the crucifixion of Jesus, and they want to discount Paul's testimony, he says you don't have to go to the extreme work of getting 11 sources, just give me 2 sources that say Paul was a liar or the Apostles were liars, and they are not there.

Don't you think if this amazing psy-op was going on by the Roman's and Jesus was a fake that someone would have written about it at some point? There are just too many testimonies of those who actually knew the apostles, of the apostles themselves like Matthew who speak of this and where are the factual refutations by experts who say otherwise from their time period?

Ok, I'm done.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


All that bluster and not one scrap of evidence. I would laugh, but it's not funny.

SuperFrog
You really can't be serious...

Flavius Josephus (37 – ca. 100)
Gaius Suetonius (c. 69 – after 122)
Cornelius Tacitus (56 – after 117)
Babylonian Talmud (3rd to 5th centuries)
Pliny the Younger (61 – ca. 112)
Trajan (18 September 53 – 9 August 117 AD)
Koran. (after 22 December 609)

How do you imagine any of your 'sources' as reliable?

Historians looks for early sources. Christianity has them. There is no other
ancient documents that have close sources like the New Testament does.
Don't forget Saul of Tarsus. He was a contemporary of Jesus and he was
approving of killing Christians.
That is enemy attestation and Historians use that also for data.
So Saul became Paul the Apostle and within
25 years after Jesus resurrection Paul wrote his first epistle. He named
eyewitnesses, met with the other Apostles and an early creed came out
months after Jesus resurrection that Paul talks about in 1 Cor 15 and that is
the goldmine for Historians.

Alexander the Great was written about 400 years after he died.
I'd rather trust information close to the source because there will be no
time for myths and fables to pop up.

reply to post by ltheghost


This isn't necessarily anything new. Consider the website/book Jesus Never Existed, which has been sourcing the various inspirations for the mythology of Jesus Christ for a long time.

The problem is that "faith" is based on emotion, not reason. The evidence points to Jesus and Christianity being an amalgam of the very same paganism it seeks to replace, but that doesn't matter to Christians who base their beliefs on feelings/intuition, instead of logic, reason, and fact.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


I don't think it really matters If he existed really he did have a good message which has been twisted by the Religious powers.
The Bible should read as any other holy book.

"Treat people how you want to be treated"
The end....but that wouldn't make priests, rabbis ect money would it?

All the rest is not needed and has just held humanity back, Image how far advanced we would be If the dark ages was replaced with the age of reason.

reply to post by ltheghost


Twelve years ago I also noticed the numerous parallels between Josephus’ Wars of the Jews and the Gospel accounts, however, I don’t see this as a “confession” and I suspect that Mr. Atwill’s conclusions are biased in support of his previous work. It appears that Mr. Atwill assumes that Josephus was entirely a tool of Vespasian, but he also had other loyalties.

The parallels that Mr. Atwill calls “conceptual and poetic”, I view as allegorized accounts, and the key to knowing the truth about Christianity is to understand this allegory. Everywhere Josephus claimed to have built his “walls” he was actually employing allegory to tell the story of early Christianity and the Gospel writers reinterpreted this allegory into actions attributed to, or associated with, Christ. For his construction work, Josephus was identified as a “carpenter” and “husband” of Mary (a.k.a. Philo). (Christ was the “Word” and he was used to perform “miracles”.)

The Romans themselves used allegory to control the masses so when the Gnostics (“sinners”) appeared and started revealing its secrets, the Romans sided with other purveyors of this allegory to eliminate Gnosticism. These efforts eventually led to the “Jewish” Revolt of 66-73CE. The war, censorship, disinformation (i.e. Philo) and infiltration of the Gnostics eventually turned Gnosticism into Christianity. In order to distance Christianity from its Gnostic origin, it was necessary to create a false literal history to explain Christianity’s emergence and thus the Gospels were created. However, it can be assumed that the Gnostic taint was never entirely eliminated from the Christians, so they continued to be persecuted by later Romans.

Hm... Maybe this Atwill guy's acting out? Looking for some attention?


Maybe a hug or two?


Whether this Jesus guy existed or not (it's very likely he did, but whatevs) really shouldn't matter to non-Christians anyway. People perform and have performed 'miracles' all the time, and many have cult-like followings. Personally, I feel as if Jesus is the Mozart of the thaumaturgical-messianic crowd. Awesome guy of course, by most accounts.

There is not a lot of secular history on Jesus. But most scholars accept that the famous 1st century historian Josephus mentioned Jesus and John and his Brother James in his writings. en.wikipedia.org...

The controversy on Jesus is not so much as whether he existed or not but what were his original teachings.

reply to post by Willtell


Jesus had two brothers? Why doesn't anybody talk about this?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Because one was gay and the other liked dressing up as a lady