Jesus never existed.
- Thread starter Scott Free
- Start date
Is it the case that he was mythologized rather than invented or was he entirely invention compiled in the manner that the film Zietgiest claims?
The preponderence of evidence suggests that not only was the person of Jesus invented, from various other folklore and tradition, but the early church fathers told blatant lies to further the mythology.
I'll post more on this in a bit...
In the meantime......and if that preponderence has a flawed beginning then the conclusion is also probably flawed.
You reject Scripture, what about the view of 'some' that are well versed. The translators involved in the original KJV wrote an introduction, a preface so to speak. In it they mention quite a few names. I don't know if anybody has gone through the entire list to see if anybody is mentioned in some library somewhere. If there was, would their bio's have any weight on if the words in those texts were authentic?
Is there any proof that those 4 books were not written by the time of His ascension? That would have given Paul a few things to pass out along the way (allow to be copied). Certainly by the time Stephen was killed. The best way not to cover some event in a letter is if it happens after a letter is in the mail.
You reject Scripture, what about the view of 'some' that are well versed. The translators involved in the original KJV wrote an introduction, a preface so to speak. In it they mention quite a few names. I don't know if anybody has gone through the entire list to see if anybody is mentioned in some library somewhere. If there was, would their bio's have any weight on if the words in those texts were authentic?
Is there any proof that those 4 books were not written by the time of His ascension? That would have given Paul a few things to pass out along the way (allow to be copied). Certainly by the time Stephen was killed. The best way not to cover some event in a letter is if it happens after a letter is in the mail.
Last edited:
I choose what I respond to, and you can take it as given that I respond only to points that I think are worth responding to. You think you know things about me you cannot possibly know, you know nothing about me beyond what I choose to present here. That's by no means all of me, or even most of me, you don't know me and have not a clue what beliefs and passions motivate me in my real life and what I do about them. You're extrapolating far beyond the data you have. That boneheaded ad hominem accusation I deemed not worth dignifying with a denial. You wouldn't have believed it anyway, because you think you know things you don't.
I wonder if there are other prominent figures that actually never existed. Abraham, Moses, Paul, Billy Graham, Mohammed.......I find that Budda character quite suspect.
True, but the same is true of your scriptures.
Irrelevent...the scholars of James' court were commissioned to translate, not critique the bible...
You keep appealing to the Epistles of Paul, but most of these have been proven to be blatant forgeries...
Paul letters – And all the other fake epistles!
Paul letters – The fake epistles!
Of those, Moses is the most conspicuous choice...
Look into the history of Ancient Egypt and the parallels between the historic life of the Pharaoh Akhenaten and what the OT says about the life of Moses...
I claim Jesus did not exist because the evidence IMO demonstrates that it is very unlikely that he did. My (admittedly limited) understanding of science tells me that the wondrous powers and actions attributed to Jesus were fictions simply because they weren't possible. So that eliminates Jesus as literally described in the bible.
To further that argument I would put forward that there are no first hand accounts of Jesus.
The stories we do have were written at least 40 years after Jesus supposedly died. This means that if someone named Jesus had lived 40 years earlier they inspired these stories without the supernatural powers or causing any noteworthy upheaval in Roman life worthy of mention. So Jesus must have been a pretty normal guy where even Philo felt no obligation to mention him or his "teachings."
So I would put forward that a normal fellow would be unlikely to inspire such stories 40 years after his death. I would put forward that it is more probable that he was simply made up. For example; if an author were to write a story today, a supernatural thriller with lots of action and a hero bigger than life, would he make the hero up or seek out the name and details of someone who really lived 40 years ago? Where would the author get those records? Would it be easier to just make it up? I think it would be much easier to just make up the name.
It must be also considered that some of Jesus's remaining family might object to these stories of their relative. Certainly such stories would endanger their lives. Isn't it therefore more likely the name was just made up?
Now the actual teachings of Jesus need to be examined. If he were indeed a real person then it could be expected that his words would be unique or, god inspired as they were claimed to be, his message should also be unique? On examination however it can be demonstrated that every teaching Jesus supposedly made was actually a plagiarism from earlier works. This in my opinion is a great indicator that he never really existed. A real teacher inspired by god would surely come up with at least a single unique teaching but he didn't! Instead the teachings of Christianity are a mix of Judaism and Paganism which is exactly what we would expect to see if Jesus were fiction.
In order for my hypotheses to be true, however, I think it would be reasonable to expect there should be examples of other made up stories. There should be other fictitious characters that people thought were real but now we know were not. Indeed we find such examples in paganism where the stories almost exactly mimic the Jesus myth. Why don’t we object to the idea there was no one named Horus with the head of an owl wandering around Egypt? Why wouldn’t it bother anyone if I claimed Osiris never existed? We know that the story that Romulus was born of a virgin is a myth. We know Agustus wasn’t the son of god.
The teachings of Jesus were not unique to him. The events in the life of Jesus were not unique. The things Jesus did were not unique. The way Jesus died was not unique. In fact nothing about Jesus except his name was unique. The bible can’t even get his genealogy right!
So with all this in mind I find it very improbable that anyone named Jesus ever walked the earth.
What other things do I find very improbable? I find it improbable that I will win the lottery or be abducted by aliens. I can say very confidently that neither will ever happen. Is there some miniscule chance they could happen? Sure but for me the odds are so remote that the possibility is removed in any practical sense. It is in this way that I also can say with great confidence that Jesus never existed.
YouTube - Christianity is Pagan
YouTube - Jesus invention happened in Rome...
To further that argument I would put forward that there are no first hand accounts of Jesus.
The stories we do have were written at least 40 years after Jesus supposedly died. This means that if someone named Jesus had lived 40 years earlier they inspired these stories without the supernatural powers or causing any noteworthy upheaval in Roman life worthy of mention. So Jesus must have been a pretty normal guy where even Philo felt no obligation to mention him or his "teachings."
So I would put forward that a normal fellow would be unlikely to inspire such stories 40 years after his death. I would put forward that it is more probable that he was simply made up. For example; if an author were to write a story today, a supernatural thriller with lots of action and a hero bigger than life, would he make the hero up or seek out the name and details of someone who really lived 40 years ago? Where would the author get those records? Would it be easier to just make it up? I think it would be much easier to just make up the name.
It must be also considered that some of Jesus's remaining family might object to these stories of their relative. Certainly such stories would endanger their lives. Isn't it therefore more likely the name was just made up?
Now the actual teachings of Jesus need to be examined. If he were indeed a real person then it could be expected that his words would be unique or, god inspired as they were claimed to be, his message should also be unique? On examination however it can be demonstrated that every teaching Jesus supposedly made was actually a plagiarism from earlier works. This in my opinion is a great indicator that he never really existed. A real teacher inspired by god would surely come up with at least a single unique teaching but he didn't! Instead the teachings of Christianity are a mix of Judaism and Paganism which is exactly what we would expect to see if Jesus were fiction.
In order for my hypotheses to be true, however, I think it would be reasonable to expect there should be examples of other made up stories. There should be other fictitious characters that people thought were real but now we know were not. Indeed we find such examples in paganism where the stories almost exactly mimic the Jesus myth. Why don’t we object to the idea there was no one named Horus with the head of an owl wandering around Egypt? Why wouldn’t it bother anyone if I claimed Osiris never existed? We know that the story that Romulus was born of a virgin is a myth. We know Agustus wasn’t the son of god.
The teachings of Jesus were not unique to him. The events in the life of Jesus were not unique. The things Jesus did were not unique. The way Jesus died was not unique. In fact nothing about Jesus except his name was unique. The bible can’t even get his genealogy right!
So with all this in mind I find it very improbable that anyone named Jesus ever walked the earth.
What other things do I find very improbable? I find it improbable that I will win the lottery or be abducted by aliens. I can say very confidently that neither will ever happen. Is there some miniscule chance they could happen? Sure but for me the odds are so remote that the possibility is removed in any practical sense. It is in this way that I also can say with great confidence that Jesus never existed.
YouTube - Christianity is Pagan
YouTube - Jesus invention happened in Rome...
Last edited:
Just a note here Scott...
When the evidence is on your side, you don't need to rely upon probability...and invoking such could serve to devalue your argument...
That's all...:thumbright:
Maybe but I'm trying to prove a negative which is impossible with 100% certainty. All I can logically claim is that in all probability he didn't exist. The same for the argument against god. So while it might weaken my argument I still need to make it. I'm not trying to deceive anyone so where I am weak I will admit it.
I know some people will interpret my statement incorrectly and think I am saying there is a chance Jesus exists. What I am saying is that yes there is but it is about the same as the chance of winning the lottery. Some people buy lottery tickets and for them maybe that is chance enough but for me it isn't.
I just knew you would say that very thing. It's called predictable, no magic involved.
It may seem strange, to those whose minds are being controlled...
The rest of us understand that history is rife with examples of invoking the divine to ram laws and agenda driven mandates down the people's throats...
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here...
"
You'd think that John, having written his Revelations shortly after the alleged events, would have warranted some mention in the Epistles of Paul, and likewise John should have given some mention to the strong-arm of the Jesus cult...
"
As accurately as any other work of fiction...
Sherlock would peg it around 33 or 34 CE...
For us at this time. The healings were to show the people that God was with Him. Going through a wall is something that changes when you have a 'glorified body', apparently. Is that your example, how about causing others to have visions and hear voices. Not only walking on water during a storm but also able to stop the wind from blowing if that is causing others to be afraid.
M't:14:32: And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
The above would seem to mean the sea could have been quite rough rather than super calm. Did gravity still operate. Walk just right and you should have been able to surf the faces of the waves. The place on that sea would mean small waves if the winds were from north and rather huge if coming from the south.
That is what the 4 Gospels are trying to tell you, that they are first hand accounts. They were there in person. Why would a writer, who is out to deceive, say something like this if it was not accurate. It would have to have been written within a 'normal for that time' lifetime.
Joh:21:24: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh:21:25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
How far could the 4 'letters' have reached in 4 decades? There could have been quite a limited number of written material available back in the time it was still being written. The OT and 4 new books. What about it just reaching some spot and the people there want to copy that material so they can 'study it' over the course of time. Would that now date the writing at that later date? (because that is the only copy left in the world)
They forgot about Him in the garden just before His arrest, they forgot Him after the cross, (forgot that He mentioned being dead for that amount of time), and you think they woud decide to write about Him half a century later. How about a much earlier date?
Lu:24:27: And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Was that a little conversation or a long one? If that happened on one of the very first meetings then in 40 days the 'writers' would have written down the 4 books just as they appear today (more or less). Is it impossible that they were originally in Hebrew and then converted to greek when those books first got to Grecia? The KJV preface does mention that the Greek translation of the OT was 'inferior' to the original languages. Does that mean the 'newer additions' could be trusted as being accurate?
At what date did Christian persecution begin? The Jews were doing it before Rome ever heard the Gospels. There were not any Christians in Judea in 70AD. Roman persecution was of Jews in 70AD. Was the writer of Revelation 'in prison' (no walls on an island prison) because of being a Christian or for being a Jew (having relatives in a recently sacked Jerusalem)? Did Rome sacrifice Roman Christians to the lions or Jews who had recently tried to revolt (some of which were Christians but same nationality as the rebel forces).
Not really, He taught in parables so He would not be understood at the time. What is unique is that what was written down as being said fits in with what other Scripture has also said. You can't be unique from the OT if the OT covers things that you will do.
If every teaching was based on something taught before by some other people then who originally covered this subject.
M't:20:9-15:
And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour,
they received every man a penny.
But when the first came,
they supposed that they should have received more;
and they likewise received every man a penny.
And when they had received it,
they murmured against the goodman of the house,
Saying,
These last have wrought but one hour,
and thou hast made them equal unto us,
which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
But he answered one of them,
and said,
Friend,
I do thee no wrong:
didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
Take that thine is,
and go thy way:
I will give unto this last,
even as unto thee.
Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?
Is thine eye evil,
because I am good?
True there are ledgends of other who wanted to be gods.
True, even resurrection from the dead was done once in the OT.
Matthew and Luke have different paths because Matthew cover His heritage through Joseph, from the House of David. That allows Him to be on that throne. The heritage given in Luke is from His mother, She was a daughter of Aaron which is associated with the priest-hood even before that task was handed over to the House of Levi.
If you have 100% accuracy in that dept. then you might be right. 'All that' isn't the total of things said on that subject.
If you get sucked into believing a lie from Satan you have been abducted.
The odds are less of winning if you don't purchase a ticket.