Why People Doubt Jesus Existed

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

Christian debates have set the standard in their arguments for information resources and proof of historical data and accuracy and have thus shown there is ABSOLUTELY no historical evidence of Jesus character actually existing.
Only historical references are of Yeshu son of Mary of 100BC Yehuda the Galilean of 6 BC and Theudas of 45ad and Benjamin the Egyptian as well.
There is no historical reference however to Jesus and nobody on this forum has yet to come up with evidence that there was.

You killed Jesus yourselves by setting the standard and not living by that same standard. :run:

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

As it relates to coins and other physical evidence

Funny you should bring this up because coins are the biggest exposure to the combining of characters to the mythical image called Jesus.
The NT mentions the Widows Mite which is a Jannaeus Alexander coin (100BC) not a King Herod coin (4BC).
Later on Rome had Jesus coins which Arabs couldn't "buy or sell" without and these coins had columns of numbers which totaled and said 666 on them just as John of Patmos warned in REV 13 about.
I told you Jesus accounts were taken from Baal passion play well
Baal (lord) Jesus =666 in Gematria used to secret numbers from names.
:yes:

 

[roger_pearse]

I did they were censored/removed from the forum.
It did survive however one reply by someone who tried to make false claims against the texts existence. Must be nice to claim a text doesn't exist when it does just to avoid it proves the persons other claims wrong.

It is always depressing to find someone willing to be dishonest. I notice that you didn't attempt to respond to my comments!

Here's what you dodged last time.

Here's what they removed previously:
1. Strabo (ca.63bce-24ce) Greek geographer
"They [The Persians] honor also the Sun, whom they call Mithras"
- From "Geography", XV, 3, written around 20bce. His book was an early "travel guide" to the then-known world, and was one of the first western references to the Mithrasic Faith.

Not a reference to Mithras but to Persian Mitra. See previous reply for details.

2. Plutarch (ca.46ce-120ce) Greco-Roman historian and biographer
"They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time, having received their previous insitution from them."
- from "The Life Of Pompey", chapter 24.

Written ca. 100 AD, so not exactly evidence of Mithras before 50 AD.

3. Lucius Agrius (ca.107bce-41bce) Roman soldier and Mithrasic High Priest (ca.67bce- 41bce)

"Among these soldiers was a strong and mighty warrior, whose personality drew many of the Cilicians to him. By enquiry, I discovered that he was a holy man, and was therefore sought after as a man of wisdom. He led the Cilicians in Prayer at dawn, and again at mid-day and at dusk, never failing to praise his God, Whom he called Mithras."
- from "The Conversion of Lucius Agrius", paragraph 2, written ca.67bce. Lucius Agrius was a soldier in Pompey's army and became the first Roman to serve Mithras, converted by Cilician immigrants to Italy after their defeat by Pompey's army. Lucius Agrius served as the first Roman High Priest, and his book is included in the Mithrasic Canon of Scripture.
4. Marcellinus (ca.95bce-33bce) Roman soldier and Mithrasic High Priest (41bce-33bce)
"...and the soldiers of the Faith vow to be chaste for months at a time, in dedication to the Lord. And when we marry, we marry women of pure heart, quiet disposition, and clean spirit, for women of ill repute are despised by the men of the Mysteries."
-from "The Fragment of the Letter of Marcellinus", paragraph 1, written between 41bce and 33bce.

Both of these two "texts" are fake. There is no ancient text by either author, containing either.

This, too, is included in the Mithrasic Canon of Scripture.

No ancient text refers to any such thing as a "Mithras canon of scripture" and the idea is absurd.

5. Statius (ca.45-96ce) Historian and writer
"These rites were first observed by the Persians from whom the Phrygians received them, and from the Phrygians, the Romans."
- from "The Thebans", 717.

As you have already been told, this is not from Statius but a 5th century commentator called Lactantius Placidus.

I notice that you ran away and are reiterating rather than offering evidence for your claims <contempt>

Now some fresh hearsay, which you post without reference. Let's be straight: these are lies.

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years.

No literary or archaeological evidence for Mithras exists prior to around AD 70. The ancient Persian cult of Mitra is neither here nor there.

Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:
Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th.

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

He was called "The Good Shepherd."

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

He was considered "The Way, the Truth and the Light."

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

He was considered "The Redeemer," "The Savior, "the Messiah."

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

Evidence?

He had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter.

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

He had 12 companions or disciples.

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so. The moron who invented this lie was confused by a depiction of Mithras surrounded by 12 symbols. Unfortunately for him, the symbols were the zodiac!

He performed miracles.

Evidence?

He was buried in a tomb.

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

After three days he rose again.

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

His resurrection was celebrated every year.

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

In view of your determination to say things like this, and the fact that you know you don't know whether they are true, and your reiteration of a collection of lies, rather than discuss the rebuttal, I think we can only conclude that you don't care about honesty.

Isn't it funny how so many of the Christian-haters turn out to be dishonest?

Roger Pearse

 

[Oberon]

I did they were censored/removed from the forum.
It did survive however one reply by someone who tried to make false claims against the texts existence.

So you are relying on G. R. S. Mead, whose work is not only a century old, completely out of date, and wrong in many respects, as modern scholarship shows?

Here's what they removed previously:

1. Strabo (ca.63bce-24ce) Greek geographer
"They [The Persians] honor also the Sun, whom they call Mithras"
- From "Geography", XV, 3, written around 20bce. His book was an early "travel guide" to the then-known world, and was one of the first western references to the Mithrasic Faith.
2. Plutarch (ca.46ce-120ce) Greco-Roman historian and biographer
"They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time, having received their previous insitution from them."
- from "The Life Of Pompey", chapter 24. Pompey was a Roman general who defeated the nation of Cilicia, where Mithras had been worshipped. The "Mount Olympus" doesn't refer to the mythical dwelling of the Greek gods, but can refer to any holy mountain, probably in Cilicia itself.
3. Lucius Agrius (ca.107bce-41bce) Roman soldier and Mithrasic High Priest (ca.67bce- 41bce)

Once again, you are making several mistakes:

1) I doubt you've read these primary texts. Rather, you are simply using them as someone else has.
2) Your information has been addressed over and over again in contemporary scholarship, where the difference between the persian Mithra and the hellenistic Mithras are made clear, not only by examining hellenistic sources but also persian. I gave you several modern scholarly citations, which you ignored.
3) Ancient historians, and the gospels show, were often wrong. Plutarch talk about Mithras existing prior to christianity, but he was probably wrong, just like Herodotus starts his histories by claiming a whole lot of myths are histories, and just like Luke gets his information about the census wrong.

As for you other primary texts, I suggest, rather than using a questionable websites which quote the texts you refer to, you attempt to actually locate the primary texts you are talking about.

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years.

Wrong. Again you make the mistake of confusing the persian deity with the Roman one. Again:

"As we know them, the Mithraic mysteries are a Roman phenomenon that flourished in the Roman Empire from the second century C.E. on." p. 199.

Meyer, M.W. ed. (1987). The Ancient Mysteries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

"The Roman cult of Mithras, documented from the end of the first century CE, spread widely throughout the Roman empire over the next three hundred years." p. 188.

Martin, L. H. (2005). Performativity, Narrativity, and Cognition: “Demythologizing” the Roman Cult of Mithras. In Braun, Willi (Ed). Rhetorics and Realities In Early Christianities. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, pp. 187-217.

"A second impouls behind the growth of pagan monotheism was the influence of Christianity itself. Jan Bremmer has noted how, from the second century onwards, apparently new mystery religions appeared, devoted to gods who die and resurrect, such as Atis, or act as personal saviors, such as Mithras." p. 89

Hutton, R. (2003). Witches, Druids, and King Author. London: Hambledon and London.


"Archaeologically, the cult of Mithras first appears in the Roman world in the Flavian-Trajanic period [well after Jesus], when traces of it (inscriptions, mithraea) are suddenly found at several widely separated sites, in Rome, Germania Superior, Raetia/Noricum, Moesia Inferior, Judea. The contexts are those we might expect: the military, the provincial toll system, harbor towns; the big surprise is Alcimus at Rome, the rich slave-bailiff of Tiberius Claudius Livianus, praetorian prefect from ad 102 (ILS 4199). No less striking is the fact that the first clear literary reference dates from the same period: the poet Statius refers to Mithras, identified with solar Apollo, “twisting the recalcitrant horns in a Persian cave,” Persaei sub rupibus antri/indignata sequi torquentem cornua Mithram (Thebaid 719f.), a passage probably written in the mid-80s. p 395."

Gordon, Richard. (2007) Institutionalized Religious Options. In Rüpke, Jörg. (ed). Companion to Roman Religion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 392-405.

Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:
Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He was called "The Good Shepherd."
He was considered "The Way, the Truth and the Light."
He was considered "The Redeemer," "The Savior, "the Messiah."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
He had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.

I have no doubt you are regurgitating secondary information you found somewhere. Some of what you say is more or less accurate, but very little (and none of it matters, given the dating of the cult). So, from what actual mithraic texts (and make sure you can link to the ACTUAL texts (you probably have enough posts by now to link) or at least provide a name and some way of finding these texts.

Christian debates have set the standard in their arguments for information resources and proof of historical data and accuracy and have thus shown there is ABSOLUTELY no historical evidence of Jesus character actually existing.
Only historical references are of Yeshu son of Mary of 100BC Yehuda the Galilean of 6 BC and Theudas of 45ad and Benjamin the Egyptian as well.
There is no historical reference however to Jesus and nobody on this forum has yet to come up with evidence that there was.

Amusing. In the same post, you refer to historical figures of which we have barely any information, call them historical, and then write off a figure for whom much more exists. Additionally, the debate on the historicity of Jesus goes well beyond christians. Many non-christians scholars for a decades have entered into the debate, and yet virtually no one claims he never existed.

 

[Agnostic75]

Isn't it funny how so many of the Christian-haters turn out to be dishonest?

Plenty of Christians are dishonest, and I can produce plenty of evidence of quote mining by Christians if you wish.

You live in Britain. Christians in Britain do not try to legislate the Bible nearly as much as Christians who live in the U.S. If Christians in the U.S. stopped unfairly trying to legislate religion, there would be a lot more peace in the U.S., and many skeptics, including me, would stop debating religion.

As you know, three of the chief proponents of the mythical Jesus theory are Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Robert Price, and Earl Doherty, and you have had a number of discussions with Earl at the FRDB (Freethought Rational Discussion Board). As far as I know, you refused to read and critique Earl's latest book even though he asked you to, no doubt because you know that he has studied the mythical Jesus theory for decades, is intelligent, and is not a pushover. You are happy to have discussions about the mythical Jesus theory at this forum because you know that your opponents are not as well-prepared as the aforementioned skeptics are. I know you quite well from the FRDB. You are very scholarly, and intelligent, and you will successfully refute some of your opponents' arguments in this thread, but taking on the aforementioned skeptics would be another matter entirely, and you know it. A mere hand wave regarding Earl's latest book will not do. If you are actually interested in the mythical Jesus theory, you ought to be willing to take on its leading proponents.

 

[roger_pearse]

So, from what actual mithraic texts (and make sure you can link to the ACTUAL texts (you probably have enough posts by now to link) or at least provide a name and some way of finding these texts.

Well said. This is the ONLY way for any of us on any subject to address the contents of ancient texts. English translations of most of these texts are online these days, so there is really no excuse for quotations that are too vague to identify.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

Isn't it funny how so many of the Christian-haters turn out to be dishonest?

Plenty of Christians <snip hate>

Refutation indeed! This kind of 'reply' is another reason why atheists enjoy the reputation they do.

As you know, three of the chief proponents of the mythical Jesus theory are Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Robert Price, and Earl Doherty (etc)

No doubt there is some way in which this demonstrates that atheists are not dishonest? Or are you trying to change the subject again?

Since no professor of ancient history at any university in any country in the world has any time for this crap, we need not either. Price is an atheist polemicist; Carrier likewise; Doherty is an amateur.

Funny how its only atheists advocating this silliness.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Agnostic75]

Doherty is an amateur.

Yes, an amateur that you cannot handle, and a very gifted amateur. Some of the most intelligent people in the world do not have college degrees. Apparently, if you can't kill the message, you will try to kill the messenger.

Funny how it is only atheists advocating this silliness.

Atheists advocate all kinds of things, and many times they are right regarding issues where many Christians are wrong. Thus, it obviously depends upon the issue, not upon a person's worldview.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Atheists advocate all kinds of things, and many times they are right regarding issues where many Christians are wrong. Thus, it obviously depends upon the issue, not upon a person's worldview.

Besides, that ad hominim does not apply here.

Oberon is agnostic, and he's the leading authority on this forum regarding the historical Jesus. No one else comes close - perhaps Jayhawker.

I would love to see an intelligent conversation on this topic rather than plagairism followed by obstinate refusal to engage the material.

 

[roger_pearse]

Doherty is an amateur.

Yes <snip>

Best not to quote him as an authority, then!

Funny how it is only atheists advocating this silliness.

Atheists advocate all kinds of things, and many times they are right

Not much of a reply, is it?

I do feel for you, tho, being obliged to respond to an evident truth by ignoring it and changing the subject. But ... wouldn't it be better to just adopt a more rational position? Why try to defend a load of crap?

But perhaps we can now return to the post, to which you responded, then, where your coreligionist wrote about Mithras:

He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.

Nope. Produce any ancient text that says so.

In view of your determination to say things like this, and the fact that you know you don't know whether they are true, and your reiteration of a collection of lies, rather than discuss the rebuttal, I think we can only conclude that you don't care about honesty. Isn't it funny how so many of the Christian-haters turn out to be dishonest?

Now you tell us that "Atheists advocate all kinds of things, and many times they are right", and you objected to my characterisation that so many Christian-haters turn out to be dishonest, when we had a specific example of dishonest behaviour before us. (Not that I objected to him posting nonsense once; but ignoring the reply and just reposting, as if nothing had been said... that was not honest behaviour).

I was wondering when you are going to condemn your coreligionist's behaviour here. Is it acceptable to do what he did?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps addressing the OP would be constructive?

 

[kai]

MOD Advisory

OK folks lets keep the discussion on topic​

 

[logician]

Again, those who take the "pro-existence" position are appealing to authority, not posting arguments. The fact that no historian alive during the time of some supposed Jesus ever heard of him is very damning to the case that a "real" Jesus existed that started Christianity.

 

[dogsgod]

Besides, that ad hominim does not apply here.

Oberon is agnostic, and he's the leading authority on this forum regarding the historical Jesus. No one else comes close - perhaps Jayhawker.

I would love to see an intelligent conversation on this topic rather than plagairism followed by obstinate refusal to engage the material.

If Oberon is agnostic, what do we call those that are firmly entrenched in a belief that Jesus is historical?

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

>>>>>>

:
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.

Ok we have to start testing your knowledge of your own icon since your claim he existed then these simple questions should be basic to your knowledge of the character you say was real.

Question 1) how many days did your historical figure rise?
2)what age did he live to before his sentence to die?
3) and by who's hands was he sentenced and why?
4) did he ascend to heaven or descend to hell?
5) when was he born month day and year?
6) what was his real Hebrew name?
7) what was his mothers name?
8)how tall was he?
9) what was his home town?
10) was he the first fallen messiah aka Lucifer or was he the second Messiah Liberator and overturner of the first fallen one aka Lucifer?
11) was he hanged and stoned or crucified?
12) was Jesus the perfect/sinless Christ (anointed) Nazarene (guardian of the people)?
These should be easy for a real historical person but take your time if you need to.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

>>>>>>

Ok we have to start testing your knowledge of your own icon since your claim he existed then these simple questions should be basic to your knowledge of the character you say was real.

Question 1) how many days did your historical figure rise?
2)what age did he live to before his sentence to die?
3) and by who's hands was he sentenced and why?
4) did he ascend to heaven or descend to hell?
5) when was he born month day and year?
6) what was his real Hebrew name?
7) what was his mothers name?
8)how tall was he?
9) what was his home town?
10) was he the first fallen messiah aka Lucifer or was he the second Messiah Liberator and overturner of the first fallen one aka Lucifer?
11) was he hanged and stoned or crucified?
12) was Jesus the perfect/sinless Christ (anointed) Nazarene (guardian of the people)?
These should be easy for a real historical person but take your time if you need to.

For the historical Jesus only the following questions are relevant:


2)what age did he live to before his sentence to die?
3) and by who's hands was he sentenced and why?

5) when was he born month day and year?
6) what was his real Hebrew name?
7) what was his mothers name?

9) what was his home town?

11) was he hanged and stoned or crucified?

 

[logician]

If Oberon is agnostic, what do we call those that are firmly entrenched in a belief that Jesus is historical?

The problem is they don't say WHAT Jesus existed. Most of the stories about Jesus in the NT include miracles, (healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead, walkng on water, the loaves and fishes, changing water into wine). Throw out the miracles, and the stories become meaningless, and you basically have nothing but a madman running around claiming to be god. IS this the Jesus they claim exists?

 

[fallingblood]

Again, those who take the "pro-existence" position are appealing to authority, not posting arguments. The fact that no historian alive during the time of some supposed Jesus ever heard of him is very damning to the case that a "real" Jesus existed that started Christianity.

Refer back to the original posts. Oberon does a very good job explaining the last part of your statement.

Also, saying that the "pro-existence" position only appeals to authority clearly shows that you are not reading what is being written. Have not the "pro-existers" posted arguments refuting what the nay-sayers are saying? Has not Oberon posted arguments in his original posts? I suggest you reread what has been said, especially in the first posts.

Finally, we may not call Paul a historian, but we do know that he existed. We also know that six to seven years after Jesus died, he was in Jerusalem with James (who he termed the brother of Jesus, and we know James existed) and Peter. Are we just suppose to ignore Paul then? He may not have been an eyewitness, but seldom was history written by eyewitnesses (to clear that up, I'm not saying that history has no eyewitnesses, but the level of eyewitness accounts do not compose the entire history. Looking at Augustus, we can see this very clearly).

Paul may not have been an eyewitness, but he would have had access to eyewitnesses. Which, in the case of a peasant, I think pretty darn good. Leading me to another point. Jesus was a peasant. His message was nothing radically new, there was nothing that was very unique about him. He did not gain a massive following (as in people who physically followed him) and he did not have a massive congregation (as in an actual group). He was a wondering preacher who had a relatively small entourage. There is very little reason that he should have been heavily documented as he did nothing to bring much attention on him.

There are accounts of other individuals that are similar to Jesus, and we see that they have even less written about him. Some of them, such as John the Baptist, a large amount of information comes from the Bible. So it is not surprising that there was not much written about him, and probably nothing written about him during his life.

That is something that must be understood.

 

[fallingblood]

The problem is they don't say WHAT Jesus existed. Most of the stories about Jesus in the NT include miracles, (healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead, walkng on water, the loaves and fishes, changing water into wine). Throw out the miracles, and the stories become meaningless, and you basically have nothing but a madman running around claiming to be god. IS this the Jesus they claim exists?

Yes, we can throw out the miracles. However, what is left is still important.

We throw out the myth on many ancient characters. It is only logical to do so with Jesus. The miracles make up a small portion of his life. Many of the miracles also aren't what we would consider miracles in today's standards. We can look at the story of Jesus healing those with leprosy. In today's sense, that is definitely amazing. A problem arises with translation. What we know today as leprosy was known in NT times, but is not what Jesus was healing. We can know this by the Greek that is used.

What Jesus was healing was called lepra (in the Greek). It was basically a scaly or flaking skin condition. An example would be eczema. This Biblical leprosy, lepra, did not just apply to the body. In Leviticus, we see it also dealing with objects such as closing. What we do know is that lepra was not contagious. It was a symbolic contamination. The Jewish society was very much concerned with purity (partly as a way to keep their individuality, as opposed to being absorbed by which ever power had conquered them.

What these individuals were suffering from was not a disease (being physical), but an illness (being psychological). Jesus would have healed that illness by simply not observing the purity codes, and refusing to accept it's ritual uncleanness. Understanding the background goes a long way.

The message that Jesus taught though also was important. Jesus did not claim to be God. It is quite certain that if he had done so, he would have been executed much quicker. Claiming to be the son of God was a certain death wish. The Roman Emperor was the Son of God, and to try to exult oneself to that same place meant death. Rome was a political-religious society.

So the idea that Jesus ran around claiming to be God simply did not happen. As for him having a message, I do not believe that really even needs to be discussed. The Gospels are full of his teachings. So the burden of proof would be on you.

 

[dogsgod]

Finally, we may not call Paul a historian, but we do know that he existed. We also know that six to seven years after Jesus died, he was in Jerusalem with James (who he termed the brother of Jesus, and we know James existed) and Peter. Are we just suppose to ignore Paul then? He may not have been an eyewitness, but seldom was history written by eyewitnesses (to clear that up, I'm not saying that history has no eyewitnesses, but the level of eyewitness accounts do not compose the entire history. Looking at Augustus, we can see this very clearly).

Paul may not have been an eyewitness, but he would have had access to eyewitnesses. Which, in the case of a peasant, I think pretty darn good. Leading me to another point. Jesus was a peasant. His message was nothing radically new, there was nothing that was very unique about him. He did not gain a massive following (as in people who physically followed him) and he did not have a massive congregation (as in an actual group). He was a wondering preacher who had a relatively small entourage. There is very little reason that he should have been heavily documented as he did nothing to bring much attention on him.

Why did Paul make a statement such as the following if the James he referred to in the same letter was an actual brother of the Jesus in question?

galatians11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.


Isn't it reasonable to assume that if this James was the actual brother of Jesus, Paul would have learned something from him?

Can you quote Paul referring to James as the brother of Jesus?