Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

wildtimes
The idea that Jesus was a composite made of older mythologies is very reasonable, and PROBABLE, and NOT NEW.

I have looked at a good deal of "older mythologies" and just cant find anything that looks like Jesus as he was described by his followers or the prophets.

I find it funny as hell that people are willing to discredit the most printed book in history while claiming its fake and then clamoring that some paper that a guy wrote is truth.

Idk if Jesus truly existed at all, but I can say with authority that the author of this nonsense has zero credibility to disprove anything.

I do like how the New Agers make up perhaps a couple million people, while claiming the other 4 Billion of people who believe in Jesus are all suffering from some sort of mass delusion. (Those 4 bil include followers of Christianity, Islam, Catholicism, Jewish, Jehovas Witnesses)

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes, I did.
You called people who are writing about the probable truth "retarded." DO YOU KNOW WHO VOLTAIRE AND PAINE ARE?

Have you read their works? Would you like me to give you some (more) linky-dinks??

And what would happen - in your imagination - if it were PROVEN that Jesus was an invention/compilation of other, older religions? There is a LOT of evidence for it.

"Retarded". Think about it.

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.

danielsil18
There are people that think the Earth is 6,000 years old! Those same people will dismiss this and give an excuse like "Satan put that there to misguide us" or maybe they will say "God put that there to test the true Christians because the end of times is coming".

Hehehehehehe

wildtimes
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes, I did.
You called people who are writing about the probable truth "retarded." DO YOU KNOW WHO VOLTAIRE AND PAINE ARE?

Have you read their works? Would you like me to give you some (more) linky-dinks??

And what would happen - in your imagination - if it were PROVEN that Jesus was an invention/compilation of other, older religions? There is a LOT of evidence for it.

"Retarded". Think about it.

No, I called Joseph Atwill's claims retarded. And they are. And I provided links to scholars who agree (scholars which don't even agree with my own position, yet can see Atwill's books for what they are, which is garbage).

Secondly, I won't be derailing the thread with a detailed rebuttal to your second point, since there is enough information on ATS and elsewhere on the internet to debunk the "zeitgeist theory".

But please, feel free to provide me with more "linky dinks".

reply to post by DeadSeraph


I bet Atwill knows who Paine and Voltaire are. DO YOU? You come on here all blow-hard like you're the world's expert...
and you aren't.
I'm CERTAINLY not - but there is a butt-load of evidence/research that links ALL the major religions to a common thematic mythology. If you are unaware of that (LONG before "Zeitgeist" came out), then you are ill-equipped to be so adamant and dismissive.

And "retarded" is not an appropriate term. It makes YOU look bad.

wildtimes
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I bet Atwill knows who Paine and Voltaire are. DO YOU? You come on here all blow-hard like you're the world's expert...
and you aren't.
I'm CERTAINLY not - but there is a butt-load of evidence/research that links ALL the major religions to a common thematic mythology. If you are unaware of that (LONG before "Zeitgeist" came out), then you are ill-equipped to be so adamant and dismissive.

And "retarded" is not an appropriate term. It makes YOU look bad.

Yes, I know who Paine and Voltaire are. I never claimed to be the worlds expert. What I claimed is that Joseph Atwill is a snake oil salesman, and he is. Now you are insulting my intelligence because the facts don't agree with you? There are plenty of sources on the internet that contradict your claims, you'll have to forgive me if I find "Jesusneverexisted.com" a less than reputable source. It certainly isn't neutral.

Can you provide me with one shred of evidence that supports Atwill's claims that the romans authored the new testament? It should be noted that Atwill also claims that Flavius Josephus never actually existed. Would you like to start back-peddling now or later?

That is gobbeldegook sir. I want to eat sky cake and sky pie!

On a serious note, that wouldnt suprise me if they invented a "brave heart" type person, who of course could shoot lightning out of his eyes. If they would have put that in there, they woulda hooked me!

reply to post by wildtimes

but there is a butt-load of evidence/research that links ALL the major religions to a common thematic mythology

Not to be argumentative, but I don't believe that there is a "butt-load of evidence", not reasonable evidence anyway. There is a lot of conjecture on the part of some supposed scholars who want there to be some common religious historical basis, but their basis is based on the misrepresentation of history, belief that common beliefs and rules (like a prohibition on murder,) and drawing inferences where none exist constitutes such proof.

If you trace it back, most of it goes to the Age of Enlightenment, most of it is associated with liberal theologies, and when you look for evidence, there is scant any to be found.

There are those who claim that Horus and Jesus have about a dozen characteristics in common, for example, and believe that this means that Jesus is just a re-positioned Horus, but when you actually look at the Egyptian view of Horus, almost none of these "amazing coincidences" actually exist.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Debunking the Historical Jesus Part 1: TACITUS and the Tallmud

Tacitus:
Tacitus was hardly a contemporary source. He wasn't even born at the time that Jesus supposedly lived. Tacitus is widely known in apologist circles as the first pagan reference to christ or christianity. Early church fathers, however, curiously did NOT save all of Tacitus' writings. In fact, there's an interesting gap in his work concerning the emperor Tiberius from 29 CE - 31 CE, which includes the supposed year of the crucifixion. The passage that apologists cling to is in the 15th volume of his annals where he describes an incident concerning the emperor Nero.

"In order to put an end to this rumor, there fore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters" Annals 15, ch 44



Can this brief mention in the annals be considered reliable, historical and contemporary evidence for the existence of Christ? Simply put, no. Tacitus does not claim to be quoting any original source that cites this "christus". What he is doing is doing a quick drive-by account of what modern christians believe to be true, repeating the legends that he's come into contact with - not claiming historical truth. Furthermore, this passage is the exception, not the rule to the overall feel of the passage, and he clearly does not hold these christians in high regard.

Romans did not keep records of their countless crucifixions, so there is nowhere that Tacitus could have looked to source his information at all - for an event that happened almost a century earlier. If there WERE historical records concerning Jesus, the early church fathers would have pounced on it, seeing as they jumped on this passage and any other passing reference to someone they could claim fit the bill for their supposed savior. There is no written documentation from Pilate, or anyone else associated with the crucifixion itself. Furthermore, no roman record would have referred to someone they considered to be a common criminal as Christus. Christus (or the Christ or Messiah) is a title, not a name, therefore a common criminal would have been listed as Jesus ben Joseph - or the Latin equivalent.


Arguments against Tacitus are not reserved for purely secular scholars. Respected Christian scholar R. T. France does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus.

Tacitus was NOT a witness, NOR EVEN ALIVE when Christ was. He was only writing what others before him had written (forged). Not proof of anything. Hearsay.

reply to post by wildtimes


Sooooooooo, what percentage of Strobel's THE CASE FOR THE REAL JESUS have you read?

I found his scholarship and investigative reporting process top flight.

I realize that those where their biases are worshiped will not be convinced by any amount of facts.

reply to post by imasheep


And only fact you have is 'how many copies of bible is printed' and 'there are billions of those who believe'....

What authority are you talking about...

Please provide evidence or stop spamming topic.

So far 'believers' tried to prove Jesus existence with historian all of whom were born after supposed crucifixion. No official records of historians at the time, and we know for fact that Romans were very good at keeping records, even of disturbing facts such as tyranny of Caligula, or his predecessor Tiberius who ruled Roman empire at the time . Just simply, there is no evidence...

Some tried to 'make evidence', but I guess you know how that went...

Sooner people learn the 'truth', the better, and even here in USA there is more and more those who accept facts that there is no evidence in his existence....

reply to post by adjensen


I was thinking about Mithra, and Buddha, and all the other characters who have evolved over the eons. I know probably the site I cited www.jesusneverexisted.com...

won't win any critical acclaim for its style, but it DOES have a "butt-load" of credible, scholarly reference material showing how Christianity is a syncretic religion based on older ones....

Some sites have VERY worthwhile links embedded to other texts and sites. Almost ALL of the older works by the "Age of Enlightenment" and "Age of Reason" authors are available to read online.

As much as I 'envy' the stalwart faith of those of you who do not question the concepts and ideas of Christianity, I can't get past the Occam's Razor part of it. It is IMPLAUSIBLE, and there are TOO MANY inconsistencies, squabbles, and ruined lives based on organized religions. It NEVER made sense to me, even as a kid. I guess I'm hardwired to be skeptical and reasonable....it doesn't make sense any more to me now than it did when I was 8.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Yes, I know who Paine and Voltaire are. I never claimed to be the worlds expert.

No, you didn't. Altho there have been times I might have been easily convinced.

The Bible mentions a prefect of Rome named Pilot. Did Pilot exist ?
The Bible also says Christ crossed paths with him on the way to the cross.
Then Tacitus a Roman historian backs up scripture perfectly.
Proof positive period.

This is just another attack on Christianity. People use this forum for that reason alone and although they claim they have the definitive truth,... and anyone who "believes" is suffering from delusions, are the source of all problems of the world.
Regardless of their incessant attack on Christians, It's obvious that the Luciferian element is alive and dangerous to the world. Don't blame me ( as a Christian ) for the world's problems when it's obvious it's created by evil minions.

reply to post by wildtimes


That is a weak argument. The fact Tacitus was not alive when Jesus was crucified doesn't mean he didn't have access to other non-christian documentation. He specifically discusses Nero (a non-christian) and events surrounding the great fire of rome. Are we to assume that he made that up too?

reply to post by BO XIAN


I watched his video presentation in which he was hawking his "book." Then I did an independent search for his credibility.
Among others (MANY others, just do a search for Lee Strobel critical reviews), I'm offering ONE up to you here.

Lee Strobel is nothing but a mega-church apologist who wrote a book. "Snake-oil salesman." You said you can smell them. Evaluating Christianity: The Case Against Lee Strobel

Let me say this: the works of Lee Strobel are one of the things that crystallized my atheism. As a Christian, as an argument for Jesus/Christianity/theism, I think he has absolutely no credibility; as a person, I think he has absolutely no scruples. Here’s my case:

Please understand that I say this because I think Christians should put their best arguments forward. I think it’s unfair, for example, to tar all Christians with having to defend Fred Phelps, and I bristle when atheists suggest that there’s no difference between Phelps and any other Christian. Of course there is.

So let me be clear: I do not think Christianity is false because Strobel is a liar. I do, however, think that Christians should be aware of the fact that Strobel is a liar, and I think that Christians should not commend his books to seekers.

And there are many, many others. He's a liar. Do you tell your clients to read his book? Or watch Pat Robertson?
You worry me, Bo. You really, really do.

reply to post by wildtimes


Funny that you bring up Occam's razor. Which is the simplest solution:

1) The romans completely made up Christianity and authored the entirety of the new testament, and also created Flavius Josephus to accomplish this end in some giant conspiracy/joke to enslave and subjugate a group of people they had already enslaved and subjugated, and all subsequent mentions of Christians and Jesus by roman historians thereafter were made by people who were in on this conspiracy. The new testament itself thus must have been written by Jews who decided to go along with this plan because Joseph Atwill.

2) The NT was based on a real person.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

That is a weak argument. The fact Tacitus was not alive when Jesus was crucified doesn't mean he didn't have access to other non-christian documentation.

WHERE is that "other non-christian documentation"? (there's none) Pilate's diary? A list of centurion-managed executions? nope and nope. He is not offering PRIMARY EVIDENCE. He is stating something in passing that there is no back-up for OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE.