Am I the only one here who thinks the 'crucifixion of jesus' is a myth?

[mike1963]

Most of the annoyingly ubiquitous "news" coverage of this 'Passion' movie is reported as though it is an accurate representation of real history. I think the whole thing is a tale handed down from ancient goat herders. I have no problem with the alleged 'teachings' of a real or imagined Jesus-fellow but find it sad and ironic that most contemporary "christians" ignore them in favor of the rantings of Saul and Levitical laws.

:grr:

[wryter2000]

1. I agree with your dislike of the way Jesus is marketed

However, I do believe it's a historical fact that there was an itinerant preacher named Jesus and he was crucified by the Romans.

[DennisReveni]

Umm

"However, I do believe it's a historical fact that there was an itinerant preacher named Jesus and he was crucified by the Romans."

I thought none of the contemporary Roman historians mentioned Jesus.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
"What about writings during the life of Jesus?

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what got later written about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?"
....
"Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence."

[Pale_Rider]

26. Hmmm ... interesting line ....

.... here.

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what got later written about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

Pretty hard for a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before the alleged time of Jesus to mention him!

[kcwayne]

102. The Messiah was prophesied

according to Christian mythology and parts of the Bible. So it is interesting that no philosophers, scribes, or followers wrote anything about Jesus or the prophesy before his birth. This prophesy is only contained in the Christian texts, not in some other writing that was veritably written before Jesus.

[Comadreja]

117. Hardly mentioned by Paul, either

That is, his supposed miracles, virgin birth, or much at all of what he supposedly said.

[HighTide]

103. Albigensians was the usual name given to the heretics, especially

Albigensians was the usual name given to the heretics, especially
the Catharists, of southern France in the 12th and 13th century. ...


no cruicifiction myths in their stories of the Christ

[HighTide]

105. Hunted down by the Inquisition and abandoned by the nobles

Hunted down by the Inquisition and abandoned by the nobles of the district, the Albigenses became more and more scattered, hiding in the forests and mountains, and only meeting surreptitiously. The people made some attempts to throw off the yoke of the Inquisition and the French, and insurrections broke out under the leadership of Bernard of Foix, Aimerv of Narbonne, and Bernard Delicieux at the beginning of the 14th century. But at this point vast inquests were set on foot by the Inquisition, which terrorized the district. Precise indications of these are found in the registers of the Inquisitors, Bernard of Caux, Jean de St Pierre, Geoffroy d'Ablis, and others. The sect was exhausted and could find no more adepts and after 1330 the records of the Inquisition contain few proceedings against Catharists.




some believe that they held the oldest christian writings and that they still exist in secret

[Screaming Lord Byron]

116. Aren't they the Priory of Sion?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

107. They believed in 'living love' and didn't believe in Crucifixes.

Interesting bunch of course, and I suppose they would know about Christ's demise given their links to his descendents.
(just adding some nitro to this little fire here):evilgrin:

[HighTide]

118. more

Cathars or Albigensians was the name given this particular heretical sect which flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries, mainly in Italy and regions of southern France. As with many of the heretical groups under study, the predominant source of information about them comes from the writings of their detractors, orthodox Christians. Cathars were dualists: they believed in both 'good' and 'evil' realms, associating the spiritual, intangible, and metaphysical with the 'good'; and, similarly, they equated material possesions and tangible belongings with 'evil'. As a result they led ascetic lifestyles; they acknowledged no sacraments, ate no meat, eggs, or cheese, and rejected the materiality of Jesus' birth, crucifixion, and death. The church's movement towards lavishness and grandeur in architecture and ceremony was repellent to Cathars; they preferred a simple, spiritual church. In the early thirteenth century some of them formed a conventional church under the leadership of Bishop Niketas.

Prior to the 12th century, the Catholic Church had no specific policy pertaining to heretics; it had always been up to each diocese. However, with the rise and growth of Catharism, the church assumed a formal and unilateral position against Cathars and other heretical groups. Beginning in the late 12th century, numerous military assaults were waged against known Cathars. Eventually, Pope Innocent III proclaimed a crusade against the Albigensians in 1209, and the resulting war, which brought most of southern France under the control of the French crown for the first time, effectively dismantled much of the regional Cathar infrastructure. The Inquisition, established thereafter, rooted out surviving practicing Cathars, so that at the turn of the 14th century, only fourteen prefects (the Cathar term for faithful and devout follower) remained.



The Albigensians were still so strong after two years of the most brutal carnage that, when the Pope renewed the "crusade" in 1214, a fresh hundred thousand "pilgrims" had to be summoned. It proves the scale of the "heresy."

Innocent boasted that they took five hundred towns and castles from the heretics, and they butchered every man, woman and child in each town when they took it. Noble ladies with their daughters were thrown down wells, and large stones flung upon them. Knights were hanged in batches of eighty.

When, at the first large town, soldiers asked how they could distinguish between heretics and orthodox, the Cistercian abbot raged:

Kill them all, God will know his own.

They put to the sword the forty thousand surviving men, women and children. Today Christian writers dispute these things, but they are recorded in the bragging words of the Catholics of the time.

The Pope's behaviour during these horrible years was revolting and is known in full from his letters. Raymond of Toulouse, to spare his people, submitted before the crusade began, although the Pope expressly told his legates to "deceive him and pass to the extirpation of the other heretics." His brutal treatment of Raymond, without any trial, earned the censure even of the king of France.

He stopped the crusade after two years of almost unparalleled butchery, then yielded to the fanaticism of the monks and the greed of the soldiers, and reopened it. He was plainly sickened by the slaughter and the vile passions of his servants, but he made vast material profit for the Papacy out of the monumental crime, and he left the world, which he soon left, a gift as deadly and revolting as his massacre—the foundation-stone of the Inquisition.



It would take too long to describe in detail the manner in which these same Manichaean heretics preach and teach their followers, but it must be briefly considered here.

In the first place, they usually say of themselves that they are good Christians, who do not swear, or lie, or speak evil of others; that they do not kill any man or animal, nor anything having the breath of life, and that they hold the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel as the apostles taught. They assert that they occupy the place of the apostles, and that, on account of the above-mentioned things, they of the Roman Church, namely the prelates, clerks, and monks, and especially the inquisitors of heresy persecute them and call them heretics, although they are good men and good Christians, and that they are persecuted just as Christ and his apostles were by the Pharisees.

Moreover they talk to the laity of the evil lives of the clerks and prelates of the Roman Church, pointing out and setting forth their pride, cupidity, avarice, and uncleanness of life, and such other evils as they know. They invoke with their own interpretation and according to their abilities the authority of the Gospels and the Epistles against the condition of the prelates, churchmen, and monks, whom they call Pharisees and false prophets, who say, but do no.

Then they attack and vituperate, in turn, all the sacraments of the Church, especially the sacrament of the eucharist, saying that it cannot contain the body of Christ, for had this been as great as the largest mountain Christians would have entirely consumed it before this. They assert that the host comes from straw, that it passes through the tails of horses, to wit, when the flour is cleaned by a sieve (of horse hair); that, moreover, it passes through the body and comes to a vile end, which, they say, could not happen if God were in it.

Of baptism, they assert that the water is material and corruptible and is therefore the creation of the evil power, and cannot sanctify the soul, but that the churchmen sell this water out of avarice, just as they sell earth for the burial of the dead, and oil to the sick when they anoint them, and as: they sell the confession of sins as made to the priests.

Hence they claim that confession made to the priests of, the Roman Church is useless, and that, since the priests may be sinners, they cannot loose nor bind, and, being unclean in themselves, cannot make others clean. They assert, moreover, that the cross of Christ should not be adored or venerated, because, as they urge, no one would venerate or adore the gallows upon which a father, relative, or friend had been hung. They urge, further, that they who adore the cross ought, for similar reasons, to worship all thorns and lances, because as Christ's body was on the cross during the passion, so was the crown of thorns on his head and the soldier's lance in his side. ( MY WORDS - this is not to imply that they believe in the cruifiction) They proclaim many other scandalous things in regard to the sacraments.

Moreover they read from the Gospels and the Epistles in the vulgar tongue, applying and expounding them in their favor and against the condition of the Roman Church in a manner which it would take too long to describe in detail; but all that relates to this subject may be read more fully in the books they have written and infected, and may be learned from the confessions of such of their followers as have been converted.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

122. It is believed that after the fall of Montsegur in 1244

the Knights Templar absorbed a large influx of Cathar artifacts and followers.

[snippy]

29. Could be poor record keeping.

[Cat Atomic]

30. I could swear Seutonius makes reference to it in

his biography of the Caesars. I could look it up if you like.

*EDIT*

Yeah, here it is:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."- it's in The Twelve Caesars, Life of Claudius.

Seutonius lived during the reign of Hadrian, so he wasn't really a contemporary of Jesus, but still.

[Dookus]

71. That only tells us that

in 120 AD, there were christians in Rome.

[Cat Atomic]

90. Seutonius was writing about Claudius' reign (41-54 AD).

[Dookus]

92. I'll clarify

that tells us that in 120AD, it was REPORTED there had been christians in Rome.

[Cat Atomic]

95. If you like.

History- especially ancient history- is often pieced together from small bits of information. A penniless, itinerant preacher wandering through the backwaters of the world wouldn't have left much in the way of historical evidence.

[teknomanzer]

96. besides that...

Chrestus was a common name at the time.

[Cat Atomic]

98. That I've never heard.

Can you back that up? I've never read another mention of the name "Chrestus".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

125. Sorry, "Christ" isn't a name, but a title

It's from the Greek word "Christos" meaning "the anointed one."

[teknomanzer]

132. No you are wrong...

The name mentioned by Seutonius was 'Chrestus' not Christos. And Chrestus was in fact a common name.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_ST.html

Added a link for ya'll... since no one else want to back up thier stuff.

[Cat Atomic]

134. Again, I'd like to see something to back that up.

I've never read another instance of a "Chrestus".

[teknomanzer]

139. More for 'Chrestus'

another link

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/HistJesus7.htm

[Cat Atomic]

140. Got it.

Thanks for the info, teknomanzer.

[Cat Atomic]

138. Ah- I take it back.

I just found a few references to it. Apparently it was a common slave name.

[teknomanzer]

148. I went through a whole period...

searching desperately for God, faith and all the rest. I started the search for the historical Jesus a long time ago... found a lot of interesting things, but not one independent source on Jesus. I was very familiar with the Suetonius quote and researched that too. That search for Jesus has since evolved into a search for human prehistory locked away in our oldest myths. I may have lost my religion but I found something far more intriguing.

[kcwayne]

97. Seutonius was born in 69 CE

So he was not a contemporary of Jesus, so anything he has to say is hearsay.

[Cat Atomic]

106. Sure it is.

But at least it's an account of a non-Christian, just 80 years or so after the occurrence.

Could it be wrong? Of course it could. "Chrestus" might be someone else, or Seutonius may have only been repeating some dogmatic story an early Christian told him, or any number of things. You can interpret it any way you like.

[kcwayne]

123. Obviously someone had to mention Jesus, or Christianity would not exist

But the fact that someone started writing about Jesus 40-80 after his death does not correlate to any evidence that he actually existed. The interesting point is that no contemporary historian thought to write about Jesus during his supposed time on earth, when supposedly (according to the Gospels) he was known far and wide by pauper and king. Using current day assumptions about logic and reasoning, one would think that a well known story about a god on earth performing miracles would have generated at least one paragraph by someone.

[Cat Atomic]

126. Well, personally, I think it's the stories of miracles and fame that

are fabricated or exaggerated. So a lack of corroborating documentation isn't exactly surprising.

[kcwayne]

152. So I am not following your position

Are you saying that God arrived on earth via Jesus, and they decided to keep it a close knit secret?

That would be curious given that the Gospels say if you don't accept Jesus as your personal savior that you are dammed to hell for eternity (at least according to the fundier interpretation)

[Cat Atomic]

164. You're assuming a religious argument.

I wasn't making one. I'm an atheist.

The thread's author insisted that there is no corroborating evidence that a man named Jesus existed in that time and place, and was crucified. I attempted to offer a piece of evidence.

On further discussion, that piece of evidence seems less convincing than I originally thought. Considering the fact that Chrestus was a common slave name, and Seutonius' mention of him seems to suggest than the Chrestus in question was living in Rome at the time, I think I'd now put that passage in the "non evidence" category.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. Uh, he was known far and wide in a radius of fifty miles

and the paupers didn't write and the kings' records were destroyed in the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Have you ever studied ancient history of any culture and learned how sparse the records are of ANYONE from that period?

[kcwayne]

144. I am not claiming he was known far and wide, but the Gospels say he was

The Christians burning the great libraries in Alexandria surely didn't help matters. Presumably they didn't burn things that were of importance to Christianity since much like the modern day fundies, they were interested in eradicating "heresy".

Nevertheless, we have a great deal of factual data and artifacts from Hammurabi , Nebuchadnezzar, Tut, Chepren, Ramses, Plato, Aristotle, Xi Zezong, and Mayan culture that existed thousands of years before Jesus. Someone managed to leave artifacts of note around, and these were just the lives of mortals. Again, one would think the presence of God on earth would rate as something worth noting and preserving, at least a little higher than accounting records of withdrawls from the corn silos that the Egyptians kept from 4000 years ago.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

151. The early Christians were not into leaving stone tablets

around for posterity, since they were too busy running for their lives.

The preservation of Egyptian records is due to their being buried in the desert.

Look, I've done work in medieval Japanese, which is much more recent. Here has what has survived: imperial court records, works of literature that the nobles liked, poetry, diaries of nobles, samurai epics that were told by wandering storytellers and not written down till the end of the period, Buddhist sermons, and four collections of fables and short stories. That's it. If you were going to prove that anyone outside the nobility existed, you'd have a hard time, because there was no printing, and many of the evidently "contemporary" accounts survive only in manuscripts that were copied centuries later.

[kcwayne]

160. Deny evidence all you want,, I don't care

but a number of early Christians were Roman, and they left alot of stone tablets. There were the Gnostics who left numerous documents. We have documents from 2000 years before Galileo of a Chinese Astronomer sighting Jupiter. We have massive amounts of information about the past.

What we don't have is a single piece of hard evidence, let alone a first hand account of the existence of Jesus.

[teknomanzer]

161. Very passionate argument indeed...

But Jesus is not portrayed as an ordinary pauper, in fact he pissed off some very important people... people who could in fact write and yet they chose to remain silent on the subject. There are plenty of instances of slaves and ordinary people doing things which pissed of the powers that be... and guess what... someone wrote about it.

So which is more likely that a traveling minister came to Jerusalem and pissed off the priests, caused a ruckus at the temple damn near sparking a riot and attracted the wrath of the Roman prefect, and no one bothers to write one iota on the subject

or

The Jesus story is the result of Mediterranean mystery cults combining with a Judean Messianic movement that never quite found its king?

[starroute]

162. Records from that period are actually pretty good

For example, I believe there is independent confirmation of the existence of John the Baptist and of his beheading. And Josephus gives an extensive rundown on even rather minor prophets and sects of the period.

Also, the Christians of the 2nd-3rd century were eager to collect any possible references to Jesus. It's not as though this was someone who had been totally forgotten for two thousand years. If the sources had existed at the time, they would have been preserved

Something else to remember is that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were hidden at the time of the destruction of the Temple and which appear to be a jumble of materials from many strains of Judaism, include no Christian writings or mentions of Jesus. That seems rather strange if Christianity was as well developed at the time as the New Testament presents it as being.

One possibility is that Christianity actually developed either in Antioch or in Alexandria (or in both), where there were many Jewish mystery schools with gnostic and salvationist teachings and with a wisdom literature that incorporated both Egyptian and (apparently) Buddhist elements. This would explain why the Gospels are often wildly inaccurate when it comes to the actual history, geography, and legal practices of Judea in the early first century.

[stopbush]

178. "Just" 80 years?

The life expectancy back then was about 30 years, maybe 40, tops. That's two full generations "after the occurrence."

In today's parlance, that's akin to a person born in 1980 deciding to write a book in 2000 about the American Civil War based purely on hearsay and the oral tradition.

Authoritative? Hardly.

[kcwayne]

181. Its worse than that

Between 1865 and 2000 a wealth of communications technology vastly superior to what was present in 0 CE either existed or developed subsequently.

Things like printing presses, telegraphs, photographs, television, radio, public libraries, and computers make hearsay of the last 150 years likely to be far more accurate than that of the 1st century. Even with this advanced technology, modern hearsay is worthless as evidence. Consider all the urban legends that prevail in the public concious today.

For example, how many people "know" that Richard Gere has a penchant for putting hamsters where the sun don't shine?

How many people "know" that Bush is a "moral, Christian man". Yeah right.

[oneighty]

58. Might be some dental records someplace.

180

[LiberalFighter]

104. Payroll records?

[dionysus]

119. good one!

nt

[teknomanzer]

47. Sorry friend but you are wrong...

there are NO corroborating accounts outside of Christian writings that make any mention of Jesus. None made by the Romans, none made by Jewish contemporaries, or anyone else. None, nada, and not one thing. Understand? There IS NO historical evidence of Jesus.

I searched for more than five years to find a historical account of Jesus outside of the Bible and found nothing. What I did discover is that early Christianity was very different from what we know today, and may have been the result of the combination of a Mediterranean mystery cult and a Judean messianic movement.

I am amazed at how little people really know about their own religion, but I don't expect people to learn about such things in sunday school. Church authorities like to have tight control of the flock.

[NashVegas]

121. You Wanna See Marketing?

from USA Today:



•Witness cards. More than 1 million "witness cards," which promote the movie on one side and have an evangelical message on the other, have been distributed, Robinson says. A pack of 25 cards — intended to promote Christianity — sells for $5.95.

•Jewelry. Siemon shipped about 100,000 small and large pewter nail pendants on a leather string in the past week. They cost $12.99 and $16.99. "The nail is a symbol of the Crucifixion, just like the cross," says Tara Powers, spokeswoman for Family Christian, the country's largest chain of Christian specialty stores with 320 locations in 39 states. The chain is carrying Siemon's full line of Passion goods. "It's a way to share faith with other people," Powers says.

•Books. The biggest seller at Family Christian is a colorful, behind-the-scenes coffee-table book about The Passion, selling for $24.99. "We sold 3,000 copies in just one week," Powers says.

•NASCAR. Interstate Batteries Chairman Norm Miller asked that the hood of the race car his company sponsors, Bobby Labonte's No. 18, be emblazoned with the Passion logo in the recent Daytona 500. Miller wanted to contribute to the film's promotion.

•Art. Carpentree in Tulsa is selling framed paintings and prints based on the movie for $30 to $100 as part of a three-year licensing deal with Icon.

"Sales have skyrocketed," says Golda Browne, marketing director for the Passion line. "We're working frantically to keep up with demand." The company has sold 20,000 prints and pictures in just three weeks. Coming soon are signed and numbered oil-on-canvas paintings.

•Co-op commercials. Ad company faithHighway has the rights to a 20-second movie clip and has signed up 300 churches, at $795 each, to air the trailer on TV with an additional 10-second plug for their church. For $1,790, the company will put the church's pastor in the ad. "We're seeing record sales, and for salespeople that means record commissions," says Dan Hedman, director of conferences and training.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

2. Hmmm. Something tells me this thread may get a wee bit heated.

[LoZoccolo]

5. All the while...

...having nothing to do with politics.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

10. Give it 50 posts. It'll have everything to do with politics by then.

[LoZoccolo]

15. By 40 it should have the word "fundy" or "fundies" in it.

This isn't for money or nothing. Just bragging rights.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

18. We don't need a bet, it's a scientific fact!

[LoZoccolo]

21. Ha...not counting mine of course.

Took me a bit to figure it out.

[DennisReveni]

3. You may want to read

You might start with Holy Blood Holy Grail, by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh. They have a couple more after that.
But what the claim was later copied to The DaVinci Code.

[demsrule4life]

4. I always thought it was a bunch of guys that got drunk

and decided to write a book as a joke that would fuck with peoples minds for a couple of years.

[teknomanzer]

100. The idea that Christianity is the result of some fratboy joke...

is abhorant even to an avowed agnostic like myself. Mythology and religion are serious and telling subjects which shed light on the human experience. A religion as complex and profound as Christianity could not be the result of a practical joke.

[Walt Starr]

109. Beware religion

for it benefits only the pwoer of the priests.

Sorry, fratboy crap is pretty much what I consider all organized religions.

[teknomanzer]

115. become your own priest then. (n/t)

.

[Walt Starr]

124. I am my own priest

:evilgrin:

[teknomanzer]

166. Me too

O8)

[ChiefJoseph]

6. I am not a Christian

But there is a good amount of historical evidence -- independent of the Christian church -- that supports the fact that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. You can debate all day long about whether that gentleman was the son of God, but I don't think many serious people suggest that he never lived or that he wasn't crucified.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

12. Well, there was no Jesus of Nazareth. But that's just because

there was no such place as Nazareth. It's most likely a corruption of Jesus, the Nazorean.

[Dookus]

37. Can you link us to some

of that evidence?

In my research, there are NO contemporary writings about Jesus. There is a mention in Josephus' writings, but now most scholars consider it to be a later redaction.

[einniv]

39. Bzzzzzsttt.

Sorry but that is not correct.
There is only one document that mentions Jesus and has any reasonable claims to being authentic.
There are a couple more but they are generally considered to be later forgeries (and very poor ones at that... think Niger uranium level bad).
Still it is not clear as the author had no first hand knowledge and could very well be quoting heresay. There are several credible theories that Jesus was originally not of the flesh but of the mind/spirit.

Here is a book that propses that theory.
The Jesus Puzzle:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0968601405/qid=1077668676/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5190080-8783129?v=glance&s=books

Some consider it the most consistent explaination for the inconsistencies of the bible yet propsed.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml

What follows is a critical review of The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus, a work by Earl Doherty (Canadian Humanist Publications: Ottawa, Canada; revised edition, 2000). This does not address anything on Doherty's website (http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/) or what he has written elsewhere. It only refers to his book, in its entirety and on its own terms. The reviewer: Richard Carrier has an M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, with a graduate major in historiography, religion, and intellectual history, and has several years experience in Greek linguistics, including palaeography and papyrology.

[teknomanzer]

51. I have to call you on this...

bring up some sources that give any accounts of Jesus (Yeshua, Joshua whatever...) his ministy and his execution. I have look long and hard and found nothing. Put it in writing, Tell us where you found these sources. I am saying for the record there are NONE!

[knight_of_the_star]

88. What is that evidence?

I'm curious as to what it is.

[stopbush]

157. There is NO "Historical Evidence" independent of the Xtian church

or otherwise. How can you make such statements? You're believing pure fabrications. The Gospels are the ONLY sources available that purport an historic Jesus. Mark was probably written in 90CE and the other Gospels are embellishments of Mark. And Paul - whose writings pre-date the Gospels - sees Jesus as a spiritual figure, NOT as a human-incarnate figure.

You may find this interesting...the "historic" question is addressed pretty well:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jhcjp.htm

[aquart]

7. What makes you think myths aren't true?

Recall the humbling over the existence of Troy.

Because people keep seeing Elvis in the supermarket, does that mean Elvis did not exist? Elvis lived!

[mike1963]

17. Uh, how can a myth be true? That seems to be the penultimate oxymoron

:eyes:

[teknomanzer]

56. All myths contain a kernel of truth...

Mythology is about the collective psychology of human experience. We postmoderns who can barely see the night sky through the bright city lights have lost our connection to our primordial past. Mythology is the key to prehistory and early human experience. Read up on some stuff by Joseph Campbell perhaps with a sprinkling of Carl Jung.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

55. Elvis lives...

[Book Lover]

8. I recommend reading

The Passover Plot by Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield - a scholar looks at what can be understood historically from the Christian Testament. A bit dry, but I think we could all use some disinterested commentary on this subject...

[mike1963]

24. I have the Passover Plot and have read it. You're right it sure is dry,

like a martini made with gin and the shadow of a vermouth bottle passed over it. ;-)

But I don't consider it definitive any more than the bible...(I have 7 different bibles and can't help noticing the plethora of impossibilities...and I'm not willing to accept the proposition that some parts are right and others are wrong.)

[Book Lover]

53. Well, that's the nice thing about scholarship...

You sometimes don't get definitive, just your best guess with what you've got in front of you.

I don't understand exactly what you mean when you say, "and I'm not willing to accept the proposition that some parts are right and others are wrong." Are you saying that the Christian Bible (both parts) must all be completely right? Also, when you say right and wrong, do you mean historically correct?

[mike1963]

70. I suppose I was trying to be a bit too clever. What I mean is this:

Either the bible (or one of its incarnations) is either divinely inspired/written and is therefore perfect, or it, well, isn't.

There isn't any distinction between "historically", "scientifically" or "logically" correctness in a book purported to be the product of omniscience...right? How could it be otherwise?

So in any of those 3 memetics (there are others), I say it has to be
100% right, or failing that, it's wrong. Think of writing a computer program: (I do a fair amount of that) - if it doesn't work right, it's junk. Think Windoze.
;-)

[LiberalFighter]

110. Several problems with the bible

Why would it be written by man when god could had written it all itself.

Why did the Roman Catholic church determine which writings would be included in the bible? How did they determine which writings would be included?

Why are there conflicts within the bible and why are other portions contrary to natural law?

[DennisReveni]

182. Forgot this

"Why did the Roman Catholic church determine which writings would be included in the bible? How did they determine which writings would be included?"

You may want to check out the Council of Nicea.
Before Roman Catholics existed.

[not systems]

9. What about that virgin birth thing?

Doesn't exactly make me confident in the reliability of the data source.

[mlawson]

14. No, I do NOT believe that! n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

137. Surprise! I don't either

Neither do most mainstream Christian scholars.

By Jesus' time, the Hebrew Bible had been translated into a Greek version called the Septuagint for the benefit of the already existing Jewish diaspora. Somehow, the Hebrew word for "young woman" got mistranslated into Greek as "virgin" in the prophecy that reads "And a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and call his name Emanuel."

The story of the virgin birth is found only in Matthew, who does a lot of "retro prophecy," telling a story about Jesus and then finding an Old Testament verse that supposedly prophesies it.

Matthew was evidently Greek speaking (he certainly wrote in Greek) and may have cribbed his prophecies from the Septuagint. He may have made up the story of the angel visiting Mary, or it may have been floating around, but his "proof text" was based on a mistranslation.

The Biblical literalists have long accepted only the King James Version of the Bible because it's the only English version that preserves this mistranslation of "young woman" as "virgin."

[mlawson]

11. It's not hard to believe that the Romans would have

crucified 'trouble makers' like what Jesus has been described as; they were ruthless, brutal people. hitler had nothing on some of them.

But did it actually happen? I've no way of knowing, but I suspect it did. As for a reseurrection, that is a diferent thing.

[teknomanzer]

59. There is no doubt in my mind...

If a Judean radical like Jesus had existed his end would have been the same... Crucifixion. Roman leader were cruel and ruthless, and any trouble maker would have to be made an example of. However, with as famous as Jesus is made out to be in the Gospels you would think someone be they Roman, Greek, or Judean would have mentioned something about such a person. It would be like finding no mention of Gandhi or MLK in independent sources.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. Jerusalem, where the records would have been

was destroyed in 70AD, and the records of a Judaean troublemaker who was crucified like so many others would not have been considered important enough to copy and send back to Rome.

Remember, the Romans didn't know that they were dealing with someone who would be the central figure of a world religion. There were lots of "troublemakers" with lots of followers. Remember that the Bible talks of John the Baptist having disciples. Jesus wasn't the only one.

And as Andrew Lloyd Weber reminds us, "Israel in 4BC had no mass communications." Both Gandhi and MLK had twentieth century communications to make themselves famous worldwide while they were in the midst of their campaigns.

[Malva Zebrina]

13. I think it a myth also

It follows the midrash practice.

A son is sacrificed by a father is the theme. Sound familiar to anyone?

. It is a theme embellished by /scribes/writers rehashing over the ancient, tried and true, scriptures in an attempt to make the god speak to the more modern--

this god of the new testament, written by pious Jews who did not abandon their religion, is talking to those people in those times, but his message is the same as it was a thousand years previously--there were no copyright laws.--the writers just took the theme and applied it as they thought the god was , would have been,speaking to them in the present time. It was an attempt to discern the god's lesson to humanity as applied to those times. Only human beings can do that.

The theme of the father killing the son, had been around for thousand or thousand more years in mythology.

[coloktm]

16. Are there no more democratic Christians left?

I'm finding a lot of language on this website really offensive. Fundies??? Does anyone get away with calling people Jewies...or Musies? Why is it ok to bash Christians around here? Are Christians not welcome? This is outrageous

[not systems]

20. I thought I might be the last secularist.

It just shows that people see what they want to see.

[LoZoccolo]

23. Dingdingdingdingdingdingdingding!

Not what I thought it would be, but I say it counts if you do!

(I'm like the dog that sees two people arguing and starts barking.)

[Screaming Lord Byron]

28. Quicker than I thought, but there you go.

[LoZoccolo]

34. This girl I met said that Lord Byron had this way of looking at women...

...that was so sexy or whatever to them that they'd faint. You ever heard of this?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

Well, It's not genetic. But my predecessor was 'mad, bad and

dangerous to know', although by all accounts he resembled Keith Richards. Wouldn't he have been more interested in boys, anyway?

p.s. Back in the day, corsets were pretty tight. Women would faint over anything.

[mike1963]

31. Um, I did not use the word 'fundies' in my op. Please do not put words

in my keyboard. If you wish to disagree with anything I said, please address them specifically. Thank you.

[coloktm]

33. So this time...

So this time they were just ancient goat herders...much more dignified! Remember...these people are very important to many of us

[not systems]

38. Umm... they did herd goats.

:crazy:

[mike1963]

48. How about "itinerant animal tenders"? Santa Claus is very important to

many people too.

[Malva Zebrina]

36. I agree with you on that

"fundies" is a derogatory name applied to the extremist Christian right. That fundamentalism is not necessarily extremist, is a fact that does not seem to be appreciated here by those who would insist their brand of Christianity is better than the other.

Fundamentalist Christians believe in the "fundamentals" and those can be researched and found out by a google search.

It is no different in it's essence, than the beliefs of Catholics in their Catechism.

The way it is used here on DU, often is derogatory and often associated with "whackos" or those like the TAliban and such. Fundamentalists believe and have faith in sincerely in their "fudamentals" It is no different than the Amish believing that owning a car is against the bible, ans so use horses instead.

Such is the nature of beliefs.

What most people refer to as "fundies" using the term often a derogatory manner, are actually bible literalists who are extremeist and far to the right, such as the Reconstructionists. In any event, fundamentalists are believers no less than any other Christian. They are both Christians.

[wellstone_democrat]

46. ah, here you are again!

mr. one issue:

by the way, if you actually read threads you would see plenty of us Christians and non-Christian religious types. Also, many many devout Christians don't like Fundamentalists of any type.

Nice strawman once again, obviously "visiting" us tonight aren't you. Enjoy your short time.

[alcuno]

50. I am a Catholic and find many Evangelical Christians offensive.

I didn't start it but I am willing to finish it. When fellow "Christians" tell me as well as others that I am going to hell because I don't believe in the way that they believe, then it's okay for me to bash them. They do not represent the teachings of Jesus and I believe that I have an obligation to call them on it.

[Malva Zebrina]

62. Obviously they do believe in the teachings of Jesus

It is just that the teaching of Jesus are wide open to any interpretation, all legitimate, because, man made the gods and man can make the gods fit any condition he likes.

An example of this is slavery in the US, and predominantly but not limited to the south. Many, many Christian ministers and preachers taught the justification of slavery from their pulpits as a regular routine.

It took death and blood and much of it, a whole lot of it, to do away with that institution and to respect the rights of all human beings. ]And, it was done away with.

Yet, the bible has not changed one bit. It still contains the same chapters and verse that the ministers were quoting to justify slavery.

How can one explain that?

[alcuno]

66. That's the thing about Catholics.

We have not really been encouraged to read the Bible because of interpretation by the individual; the Church likes to have control over the message.

[teknomanzer]

112. If that is so...

then why would you be offered an indulgence for reading the scriptures? The Catholic church does not discourage reading the bible like it used to. The church gave up on literalism ages ago. Ask any priest if he has the same interpretation of Revelations as Jerry Falwell. Most priests will tell you the beast (aka 666) was most likely the Roman emperor Nero. I think some sections of the Protestant movement are now more controlling than the Catholic Church.

[alcuno]

136. Indulgences have been gone for a while now.

In my old Catholic bible, there used to be a list of indulgences. However, in my New American Bible (Official Catholic Bible) there is no reference at all to indulgences.

I'll change my position and say that while the Church does not discourage reading the Bible, it does not encourage it. You are absolutely correct that Falwell would have a completely literal take on Revelations. My Catholic Bible, so I not stray too far while reading it, says that Revelations is actually an outstanding example of the apocalyptic literature popular at that time. It also outlines the historical context in which it was written.

[teknomanzer]

142. I must have an older bible then...

Got mine in 1992... has a list of indulgences.

[alcuno]

163. You are right. Although I think this refers mainly to prayer, not

Bible reading.

http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/Indulgences_Roman_Cath.html

They modified a lot after Vatican II. Old habits die hard. I haven't heard mention of indulgences in a long while so I thought they had disappeared.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

79. I do too-the Catholic Church may have its conservative wing

but with the exception of a few radical right sects, it's pretty inclusive. I grew up during the "liberation theology" era of the Catholic Church, and many of the nuns and brothers who taught me took the social message seriously and went to Central and South America to help those less fortunate. You still find a lot of Catholic nuns in the peace movement.

I have been told I was going to hell by Evangelical Christians. My father was ostracized by these "Christians" when he served in the airforce down South. The women wouldn't date him (and my father looked like Paul Newman when he was young), and people would say nasty things to him.

That is my experience with fundamental Christianity. It's very unfortunate that they reject 90% of the teachings of Christ, and don't understand his message.

[LiberalFighter]

113. And I found it strange when I saw on DU that...

fundies do not consider Catholics, Lutherans and a few others to be Christians.

[alcuno]

141. That is because we have not been "born again."

There is actually a great deal of disdain for Catholics by evangelicals because of a) the pope and b) the official Church position stating that Jews are not excluded from entering heaven.

The recent hook up between Evangelicals and Israeli Jews has been a complete mystery to me. I understand why it's happening, but it still doesn't make any sense.

[teknomanzer]

154. Makes no sense to me either

outside of what Isrealis might gain politically with our right wing. But in the end don't these Jews know that they are expected to accept Jesus or perish for all eternity, according to fundamentalist doctrine? It is a partnership that cannot last.

[pop goes the weasel]

81. not all Christians are fundies

Though most of the fundies I know think only fundies can be Christians. I find it outrageous that you equate dislike of fundamentalism to anti-Christianity. I personally am not real fond of Jewish fundies or Muslim fundies, either. It's the fundamentalism that's the problem, not the religion.

[teknomanzer]

169. I never said that...

a disliking of fudamentalism is equal to anti-christian sentiments. I am aware that not all christians are fundamentalists, and that some faith is based on profound personal experiences that cannot be easily explained or discounted. I will even state for the record that not even all Evangelicals are fundamentalists. Christianity has many divisions that cannot be painted with a broad brush.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

19. I don't have hard facts but there are historical records..

which hold Pontious Pilot as reporting the death by crucifixion of a Jesus of Nazareth. I wonder if what you're asking is "is the divinity of Jesus a myth". The movie Spartacus said that a man named Spartacus was crucified. Doucuments show that that was a fact. What are you really asking?

[roguevalley]

35. I believe it happened and that he existed historically. I also believe

that it was rewritten by Roman Christians to take the
onus off them and to add, over the next two or three
hundred years aspects of divinity that would help catch
people's imaginations.

People in the past had little problem believing in
fantastical things, rising from the dead, virgin
births. Those things I don't believe in but I believe
he existed, gave a good path to follow for those who
would listen. I love a book called Jesus the Heretic
by Douglas Lockhart by Element Press.

It postulates that Jesus survived the crucifixion and
carried on teaching, probably dying in the fall of
Jerusalem by Titus around 66 or 67. It explains gnosis
and freed me from the teetering edifice of the 'church'
that keeps the truth obscured. If you feel a queasy
thing about all that is expected for you to believe,
then read this book.

After all, the idea of rising from the dead, healing
sickness and much of what is credited to Jesus is
actually paganism. Think about that for a while. :)

RV, who has nothing against paganism. I believe all
thought has value, especially paganism which was all
of our beliefs for what ... thirty, fourty thousand
years?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

40. Please don't think that I'm a zealot.But, how can you survive crucifixion?

When the Romans decimated the Jews they ran out of trees to crucify the Jews that they were wiping out, after they destroyed the temple. How do you survive such a thing?

[teknomanzer]

73. Crucifixion was more about torture than execution...

In the ancient world for execution a simple beheading would suffice to do away with the offender, but crucifixion is really good for making an example. Its a human billboard that says "defy us and you too will die slowly like this." Death can take hours, even days on the cross. Given the right chemical substances I think a death could be faked in a crucifixion. If you believe the biblical accounts though Jesus was stabbed and it was not likely he would have survived that wound. Which makes the resurrection more incredible for the reader. Its all fun speculation and like all fantastic stories remains very entertaining. Me? I believe in that which is substantiated with evidence. That would exclude the bible almost in its entirety.

[smirkymonkey]

89. You could get rescued by the Judean People's

Front...

[mike1963]

41. I understand your point. I omitted reference the alleged 'resurrection'

because I find that concept so outrageously absurd, I do not address it.
However, you have properly pointed out that I should have spent a bit more time formulating the proposition. My concern is that so much of the public discourse around this proceeds from what seems to be a given; that there was actually a human/god or god/human who was literally nailed to a cross. I do not say it could never have happened, but the story really doesn't make much sense outside the realm of his supposed divinity.

Nobody has ever explained to me to with any degree of rationality just why an omnipotent 'creator' would find it necessary or useful to send his or her child to be tortured to 'save' others. That is bizarre behaviour, to say the least and bears directly on the discussion of whether the story lays claim to any sort of truth.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

63. I won't evangelize to anyone. Especially a DUer - a Friend no matter what

What I believe has nothing to do with what you believe. Of course the whole Christian concept hard to swallow - hence the word FAITH. I feel that public discourse is the ABSOLUTE WRONG FORUM for this whole topic, as faith is as personal as love. In fact, it is love. I appreciate your understanding. I am the kind of guy who can divorce my religious convictions from proselytizing (SP?). You keep on exploring, and I got your back no matter what! That's what separates us from these born again fundamentalists. It's called understanding, I have learned alot from Gandhi, Treat a person with respect and let them know that thats what's really the key. It'll all fall into place. ____SOLIDARITY,MY FRIEND___

[mike1963]

158. May I extend a bit of congratulation for properly spelling Gandhi.

Far too many people claim to embrace his principles and write it "Ghandi". It is a small thing, I know, but it always rankl....er, pisses me off. :D

[teknomanzer]

77. Story of divine sacrifice make sense...

in the context of human religious history. You see many eons ago we primitive humans used to sacrifice our sons and daughters to the god or gods that we thought would save us... from famine or some other catastrophe. As we collectively matured in our psychology the myth had to change and now god returns the favor by sacrificing his son to save us. That is putting it rather simply but that is the gist of it.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

61. "What are you really asking?"

...I would ask you...are YOU Spartacus? or are you Crassus?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

67. Are you kidding? I'm asking. if a historical figue was cricifird..

There is historical record. Are you wondering if his crucifixion was a myth or his resurrection was a myth? Well?

[I AM SPARTACUS]

69. No, I'm serious.

Are you Crassus, or do you stand up and say "I am Spartacus"?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

78. i wonder why you ask this queston

If you're asking me to stand up to my principles then explain (no hostility, I want to understand what you're asking - I have a history of being ignorant). I have no cleft in my chin so need to make sure :)

[I AM SPARTACUS]

82. "why" I ask - does that matter at all?

Crassus, or I am Spartacus?

...there are infinite other alternatives. But you brought up Spartacus. No hostility.

[stopbush]

149. Cite your sources for this statement.

You can't because there are none. It's more BS put out there to convince Xtains that there was a historic Jesus. How could there possibly be a Roman record stating that Pilate had put to death one "Jesus of Nazareth" when Nazareth didn't even exist at the time?

[El Supremo]

22. Most doubters question the resurection not the crucifixion

There is some outside evidence (Josephus?) about the crucifixion, and many doubters admit that Jesus was crucified - but survived. It requires a lot of faith to believe in his resurection, but that was his real purpose, not just teaching "love your enemies".

[mouse7]

43. Josephus mentions of Jesus in wrong ink 500 years younger

They analyzed the texts of Josephus, and the place/s where Jesus was mentioned, the writing was writen in ink that was 500 years too young to have existed at the time of Josephus. The writing also seems to be added in all squinched up.

It seems there were probably some monks that got busy with the Josephus manuscripts.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

45. I ask again - how do you survive a Roman crucifixion?

I've never heard anyone say Spartacus survived crucifivxion - nor the hundreds of others crucified with him

[Bridget Burke]

54. Xena, Warrior Princess, did.

IN fact, she was crucified more than once--and survived.

[Dookus]

74. It's actually quite possible

He was on the cross for a few hours - some people survived days on the cross. It's MEANT to be a very slow way to die. The death actually comes from suffocation - the body pulling down on the diaphragm makes it very difficult to breathe.

It's quite possible for someone to be brought down from a cross, unconscious, after a few hours, but still be alive and be able to recover.

[El Supremo]

167. Jesus! I didn't say he survived!

I just said that some perceived that he did so he could have children by Mary Magdaline and perpitrate that Da Vinci Code hogwash.

Actually, I think he could have already married Mary Magdaline but probably didn't have children. His brother, James, was the leader of the church until Paul said that the only way to spread the Gospels to the Gentiles was to forget all the Jewish Laws. Paul was the most influetial man in the written history of the whole world. If it wasn't for Paul, nobody today would even know who Jesus was.

[Jawja]

25. I don't know if

historically the crucifixion is a myth; but I do believe the resurrection is a myth. Christianity, in my opinion, is a marriage of ancient Judaism and Hellenistic paganism as created by Paul of Tarsus.

[maveric]

27. I believe that a radical teacher named "Jesus" was crucified by

zealots for showing dissent against the status quo of that times.
As for the resurrection, like the virgin birth, that is fiction used to deify the man and form a following in order to control the masses.

[alcuno]

32. That's why it is called faith.

Christians who read the Bible as if it's some sort of history book leave out the strength of the teaching of faith. Was Jesus crucified? Given the brutality that existed and the fact that crucifixion was a reasonably popular punishment, I have no reason to think that he was not.

I have no reason to see Gibson's film because of my faith. I don't need to read the Bible or watch a movie to believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Thomas, who it is likely was discredited by John, said that he wanted to stick his finger in the hole in Christ's hand. While I don't believe that Jesus would have loved him any less, he was speaking directly to the glory of faith.

[Philosophy]

49. Why is faith good?

Why is it an admirable thing to believe in something despite a lack of or even contrary evidence? What you call "glory", I call "stupidity".

[alcuno]

57. I've seen no contrary evidence to the existence of God.

If you choose not to believe, that is your choice. I would never call you stupid for not believing. However, I do believe that Jesus would consider faith to be a glorious thing. That's not to say that you're not glorious. I believe that he loves us all.

[teknomanzer]

80. The person making the fantastic claim...

holds the burden of proof. If you say that some omniptent being created the world in seven days... I would say that would be a fantastic claim.

[alcuno]

91. Sorry. I'm no bible-thumping Old Testament kind of Christian.

Did I say the world was created in 7 days? Nope. It's not a deal-breaker for me. Do I believe in the existence of God? Absolutely. And I owe you no proof; it's simply my faith.

[teknomanzer]

130. Not saying that you personally...

believe that the world was created in 7 days, but some do because of their faith in a written document. If your 'faith' is based on some profound 'personal' experience I can accept that. Things can happen to people physically and psychologically that are not easily explained away by science and logic. But if your beliefs are based on what someone else says you just fell for the oldest trick in the book. The conman makes his bread on faith.

[alcuno]

156. Faith in God existed before anything was written down.

I have never seen Mary's picture in a glass window or been visited by dead relatives. There are so many things in this world that require faith, and I don't just mean faith in God. Without it we would probably never take any risks at all.

Yes, there are people who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. And yes, they want to shove it down your throat. They want it in our courts and in our homes and in our schools. But by lumping the rest of us in with them, I think you do us an injustice.

[teknomanzer]

172. I would not lump all christians in the same group as fundamentalists...

just as I would not label all Muslims as terrorists. I am saying that it is better to find answers for oneself rather than relying on the interpretations of charlatans who will use that faith for their personal gain.

[stopbush]

159. But god separated the light and the darkness

and created day and night on the first day...and then waited until the fourth day to create the light-producing objects like the sun, moon and stars.

How'd he do that? Or, right...he's god.

[alcuno]

165. This is why I stick to my official Catholic Bible.

It has the words of Jesus highlighted in red so I don't get confused.

[orwell]

42. Give Me Barabas

What is almost truly myth is the notion that Pilate would have asked "the rabble" to choose between Barabas and Jesus. Pilate, a coldblooded Roman prefect was not known for his "mercy" nor his willingness listen to any crowd.

O

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. At a time-depth of 2,000 years

absence of written documentation is not proof of non-existence. Very few people were literate, there were no cameras, and few people traveled outside their home areas. (Even the Bible account has Jesus traveling only about 50 miles in his lifetime.)

We know that Pilate and Herod existed, because the Romans kept records of their officials, but from the Roman point of view, Jesus was probably just another one of many troublemakers. There may have been a written record of his trial at one time, but Jerusalem was destroyed and sacked in 70AD, so it is unlikely that ANY authentic written records that existed exclusively in Jerusalem survived.

As for Jesus being famous among the common people, even if he was, I don't know of any writings by ordinary people on any topic that have survived from that period.

However, there were reports of Christians before 100 AD or so, and the religion grew rapidly. Whether you believe that Jesus was divine or not, and whether you believe that the story was embellished with elements that were current in Middle Eastern religions, this isn't the type of movement that would grow up as a joke. Life was hard in the ancient Middle East, and these were serious people who lived short, difficult lives that we can't even imagine. They weren't frat boys sitting around getting drunk and thinking up practical jokes.

(By the way, the Hebrew scriptures already existed by the time the Romans showed up. There is plenty of Greek and Roman documentation of the existence of the Jews and their beliefs and practices.)

After recent political events, what is so hard to believe about a charismatic personality traveling around and gathering devoted followers?

[mac2]

52. Some of the books in the Bible were written two hundred years...

later. That's why it can't be taken literally. It was even changed to fit the group who interpreted it to English (the King James version).

We know more about Cesar than Jesus. We know more about Egyptian kings that Jesus. We knew more about his birth and death and little about his teenage years or life period.

Most the religions of today...have leaders we know little about. It's a mystery to me.

Worship as you please.

[megatherium]

Most of the books of NT were written within 70 yrs

of Christ's death. Some were written less than 30 years after his death -- certain letters of Paul. For example, serious scholarship (secular as well as religious) indicates that 1 Corinthians was written in the early 50s of the common era. (Paul died in about 66 CE.) This letter contains a strong statement affirming the reality of the resurrection (chapter 15). Bear in mind these letters were circulated among Christian churches in the mid first century; these communities already shared a clear idea of who Jesus was and what he did. None of this proves Jesus rose from the dead, of course; but skeptics who suppose that Jesus is mere mythology are mistaken.

The King James version was based on much older Latin and Greek texts, which have since been supplemented by earlier manuscripts. Modern translations are probably fairly accurate renderings of the original manuscripts. (It is likely that the original manuscripts were recopied with great care; such devices as counting every single word of the scriptures were used to ensure complete accuracy. They were considered to be the word of God.)

[einniv]

65. It isn't a question of whether or not it is hard to believe.

Is it hard to believe that someone made it up and a lot of people bought it?
I mean after all we have a lot of historical precedent for that kind of thing (think Zeus).
Does that make that theory true too?

[Cleita]

60. I think so too, but to say so often gets believers upset.

Some scholars consider Jesus compilation of many messiahs wandering around Palestine at that time. Most weren't crucified, but were stoned or hanged if they fell afoul of the authorities.

[Bridget Burke]

64. "Legend" is probably a better word than "myth"

According to the folklorists, "myths" are stories of how the world began, how it will end, & deeds of the gods & goddesses. Stories that may have been based on a real person (or persons) are called "legends"--Hercules, King Arthur, Davy Crockett.

There could well have been an itinerant preacher (or more) who fell foul of the authorities in Judea. But as Christianity developed, the story of Jesus incorporated numerous features from the various mystery religions that fluorished throughout the Roman empire. Then the mystery religions were forbidden & the evidence was hidden--but not very well.

[Dookus]

68. well

despite what people have said, above, there is NO contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence. Is that proof he didn't exist? Not at all - but it's telling.

Further, the "miraculous" aspects of Jesus' life seem to be borrowed from many other religious/mythic traditions. Virgin Birth, healing miracles, death by authorities and resurrection are themes found in many other belief systems in the area prior to Jesus.

There is little in the history of Jesus that is INCONSISTENT with the story being a myth.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

72. Actually you're wrong

there is evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth existed. And there is evidence that Pontious Pilot killed a man who claimed to ber the king of the Jews

[Dookus]

76. then please

provide a link to that evidence. Saying it exists doesn't make it so.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

86. Listen, I could plug in 100 sites. im not that type

I love all people - if you choose not to believe - then rock on. I'm not going to get into this tit for tat. You are a human being, therefore I'm with you, no matter what, That's what Christianity means for me. Is that enough? I could give you links across the spectrum - to me that's not what spirituality is about. If you would like to discuss you can find me easily - PEACE!!

[Dookus]

87. "I'm not that type"

what type? The type to back up your claims? The type not to change the subject?

Tell us what the evidence is that you're holding out on. Clearly, proving the existence of your lord and savior is worth a quick google search, no?

[teknomanzer]

168. look here bud...

I have researched the historical Jesus for YEARS and come up with nothing. If you have something I want to see it. Not just out of some need to have you back up your claim, but because I want to see the evidence and judge for myself. So if you don't have any just say so, don't digress into what Christianity means to you... blah blah blah... because that doesn't answer the question.

[peacetalksforall]

75. I don't care if there was an actual Jesus or if it was all allegorical...

I just care about the way centuries of people interpret the story, whether its his-story or not.

Some interpretations are ridiculous, some dangerous, some diabolical, some wishful thinking. It's a human tragedy that mere mortals have decided they know how to organize and dominate people around their interpretations of the stories.

[Mari333]

83. myth.

http://www.lastdaysreporter.com/myth_jesus.html

[rasputin1952]

84. i have yet to see any film that accurately depicts anything...

and that includes documentaries.

With that said, I might propose that the com temporary accounts of Jesus may have been 'scrubbed', much as bush's TX license was 'scrubbed'. It was not unheard of to get rid of all contemporary accounts of certain individuals. Some of the Pharaohs had their names removed from buildings, and the library at Alexandria may have held scrolls and other written accounts of Jesus, (the vast majority were burned to heat water for Roman baths). Just in the last 60+ years, the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' were found. Who knows what else is out there?

Until recently, there was no evidence of Sodom, Gomorrah or Jericho. Twenty years ago archaeologists seem to have found evidence to point in the direction that these places existed.

Jesus was a figure of importance, and a definite threat to the powers of the time. It would not surprise me if his records were 'scrubbed' in an attempt to discredit him; or even 'prove' that he never existed.

One thing is for sure though, the teachings of Jesus have had an enormous impact on the world. Some haver used those teachings to nefarious means, but if you read what Jesus spoke of and try to adhere to those teachings, your life would be better. So would the lives of those around you.

O8)

[DemoTex]

85. Didn't Calvin Trillin get fired from Newsweek for his comment ...

... regarding the "alleged" crucification of Christ? I think Trillin was Newsweek's religion editor at the time. Damn, I love old Trillin.

[smirkymonkey]

93. No, you are not the

only one. I am troubled by the way the crucifixion of Jesus has been set up as an historical event when there is absolutely no valid record to back it up.

It seems as though being able to pass it off as historic truth somehow legitimizes it's superiority over all other belief systems. I look at it as kind of an Arthurian Legend, probably fictional but having some merit as a tool to inspire people.

[Walt Starr]

94. Most definitely a myth, IMO

And it corresponds to many myths, such as Odin hanging on Yggdrasil, the Tree of Life, for three days in order to bring knowledge of the Futhark Runes to mankind.

[teknomanzer]

174. thanks Walt...

forgot about that myth... which is further proof of a common theme in our collective unconscience. Our myths are shared with many other cultures and point to a common human experience. That is the importance of myth and religion.

[HighTide]

99. myth - ever hear of the albigensens (sp)

an early christian sect - some say they still exist

they did not believe in the crucifiction

[Screaming Lord Byron]

111. Just call them Cathars, it's easier to spell.

A very interesting bunch of people, more like Sufi mystics than regular Christians.

[stopbush]

101. Good spots to visit

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The Jesus Puzzle: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Secular web: http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml

creationist BS exposed: http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

[Alex146]

108. He pissed the romans off

and when the romans get pissed shit happens.

I think crucifixion is quite probable.

[Walt Starr]

114. There was a point when the Romans were crucifying

dozens of "messiahs".

Yeshua was a fairly common name. There were dozens of Yeshuas crucified by the Romans.

[NashVegas]

120. Well I Don't Know About the Crucifixion

But that combined with rising from the dead's a whole 'nuther deal.

[cryofan]

128. umm... the entire Jesus thing is just a myth

Jesus is a myth based on earlier redemptive godman myths from Eurasia.

See www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

[arewethereyet]

129. I do not think it is a myth

its a historically normal form of execution for that day.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

145. I'm puzzled by the insistence of some

that the story of Jesus is a total fabrication. That was never any such person even remotely like that.

I can understand not believing that he was the son of God. I can understand not believing in the miracles or the resurrection or any of the other supernatural elements. Fine. Don't.

But what is so odd about there being an itinerant preacher who attracted a following and was crucified by the Romans and whose death precipitated a religious movement?

If you've done any work in ancient history, you know how MUCH of what we know is third hand or fourth hand. An example is the reference to Suetonius above. If we can't trust his reference to Christians being in Rome in the first century, can we trust ANYTHING he says?

It seems that your anti-religious emotions are getting in the way of logic.

[arewethereyet]

153. I hear you

but the response doesn't puzzle me in the least. There are fairly simple and mundane explinations.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

155. how does the presence of Christians prove that there was a real...

...person at the center of the belief?

[starroute]

171. I used to think the image of Jesus-as-guru was reasonable too

But then I read a bunch of books about "the historical Jesus," and the more I read, the more I realized that there was no there there.

There are large chunks of the Gospels -- like the stuff about the supposed Roman census in 4 BC -- that are just plain wrong. There are other large chunks that seem to involve taking Old Testament passages that were considered prophetic and making up a story about Jesus fulfilling them. And there is material from the general wisdom literature of the time which the Gospels put in Jesus's mouth but which certainly did not originate with him. (Even Paul uses some of these proverbial phrases without attributing them to Jesus.)

When you subtract all those things from the Gospels, there's nothing left. Nothing. There are no events or teachings or descriptions of personalities that seem to have that gritty, ad hoc quality of real history. It's myth all the way down. And that's why I stopped believing in a historical Jesus.

I'm not real sure about Buddha or Zoroaster, either. And even the existence of Confucius has recently been called into doubt. (See http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99apr/9904confucius.htm ) Religion is not history and history is not religion, and we really need to get that straight.


(I should also point out that Suetonius did *not* refer to Christians in Rome. He wrote, "As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." Unless you want to believe that Christ was actually a Jewish instigator living in Rome in the middle of the first century, there's no way you can tie that to Christianity at all.)

[teknomanzer]

175. Fine...

but you seem to be discounting the influence of other religious movements in the region may have had on the Jesus story. Why is it that the Jesus myth shares so much with the cult of Mithra? Christmas was once the day of feast for Mithra... I don't think that is just coincidence.

[leftofthedial]

133. no, you're not.

the only quibble is that myths typically grew out of oral tradition, while the jesus scam is the result of an overt political process perpetrated by Constantine, so it's actually more propaganda than myth.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

146. Sorry, there were Christians long before Constantine

:shrug:

and even somewhat of a church organization.

[leftofthedial]

147. none as we know them now.

contemporary christianity is a paint-by-numbers package invented by the Romans.

[Must_B_Free]

135. Crucifiction theme in surrounding history

"The Persian equinoctial ceremonies dedicated to Mithras seem to have involved crucifixion, when Haman the Wicked, standing for the winter sun, is crucified in Esther to arise as the summer sun who is the Saviour, Mithras. The slain Divine Intercessor of the Caucasians, Prometheus, suffered hung on a tree or a rock for the sins of mortal beings. Attis, Ixion, Tantalus were all hung on trees or wheels in crucifixion. Yet the Christian disciple hugs to his breast the bloody cross of the murdered Jesus, confident that he was the one god that ever died for the sins of man."

[Walt Starr]

143. The myth of a dying/resurrected god appears time and again

Osiris/Horus, Odin, Mithra, Krsna, the Buddha.

It's fairly unicultural.

[Must_B_Free]

150. more echoes of similarrity

"An attraction for the Romans of Oriental religions was that they had a long history and their gods a reputation for wisdom. This was true of Mithraism. Mithras was a redeemer but also offered a role model as an epitome of morality. Mithraism began to spread because it appealed to three main groups of people; to the merchant classes who valued its demand for high moral standards and therefore honesty, to the lowly and humble such as slaves poor freedmen, and particularly to the military. Its failing might have been that women were excluded—adherents were all male and were sworn to secrecy. It had strong elements of Freemasonry in its organisation.

Females worshipped Cybele, Isis and later, Jesus. Mithraism had no extensive priestly caste. Each small group of worshippers had a father. Major centres of worship had a father of fathers, equivalent to a Christian bishop. It always remained a private religion, never receiving huge state patronage, so the shrines and churches of Mithras remained humble and the worshippers pious and egalitarian. In Mithraic churches noble, freedman and slave met as equals. Mithraism had its male celibates and expected its initiates to repudiate worldly offerings expecting instead heavenly wealth. "

[BurtWorm]

170. No you're not alone! Thank the gods I'm not alone either!

I've been making the same point about this all along! Praise "Jesus," I'm not alone!

[GreenPartyVoter]

173. No, I believe it happened

But I don't use it as an excuse to beat up people who believe differently from me. And neither do many other liberal Christians. (See the Christian page of my website)

[Dookus]

177. questioning the historical accuracy

of a story is not "beating up" on anybody.

If the historical record showed Jesus existed, the christians would be touting it everywhere. What's wrong with pointing out the LACK of historical evidence for his existence?

[GreenPartyVoter]

180. There is evidence he existed

but the historical record, the Bible, contradicts itself in many places.

So believers either have to take it all at face value or with a grain of salt. I fall into group 2.

Try checking out a very short but illuminating book called "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" by biblical scholar Marcus Borg. He points out a lot of the inconsistencies in the historical texts about Jesus, if that sort of thing interests you.

[leesa]

176. I suspect he was executed by crucifixion because it was the

way the Romans executed political prisoners at that time. I imagine it was identical to any of the other crucifixions though, with none of the high drama in the bible story.

[RebelOne]

179. Personally, I think the whole Bible is a myth

and a lot of fairy tales.

[Moderator]

183. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.