Christianity: Was Jesus A Fraud?

[Vercingetorix]

Well, I had this up earlier, but that conflict over its deletion has been resolved, and I will not eat up so much bandwidth with this one.

at http://www.jesuswasaterrorist.com/did_jesu...really_live.htm, you will find an explanation of how there is no real proof of the existence of this certain unperson came to be (or not), and he is proven to not have proof for his existence here by the dating of books and an explanation of how he was not mentioned in any contemporary literature. His existence is explained, as well as who he is really based off, in the 9-part series on Apollonius the Nazarene. I must warn you, however, that it is a really long read--when I read this a while ago, I printed ALL of it off and read it before I went to sleep for two days. Even if you are Christian, it is worth reading, and the site also attacks the other religions in the "big three."

Well, to make this thread into a debate, I will say that I basically agree with what the site has to say. If you wish to contest what is in here, this is the thread for it. Enjoy!

[Hugo]

he was not mentioned in any contemporary literature.

But he is mentioned in contemporary literature. Tacitus Suetonius' work "The Twelve Caesars", which was written within living memory of his death, records his existence. He is also mentioned in the works of Flavius Josephus, and in some anti-Christian Hebrew writings.

[SirRiff]

But he is mentioned in contemporary literature. Tacitus Suetonius' work "The Twelve Caesars", which was written within living memory of his death, records his existence.

its not beyond the scope of reason to believe that writings about the 1st century AD are not reliable in terms of historical accounts. for every one that mentions jesus there are 100s then talk about all sorts of voodoo and bizarre accounts of why things happen that are obviously untrue and were just the product of ignorance at the time.

do we really belive that noah took 2 of everythign on the ark too ?

its about as sound as the jihad clauses that are causing so much trouble these days.

SirRiff

[Ender]

Another story that is hard to belive: Adam and Eve.

Its simple, God puts them in a beutiful garden and tells them one thing, don't eat the apples. Suprise, they eat an apple.

Its not like the two really had a choice because if God really had the mentality to do that, he would have kept trying to get them to eat the apples so sooner or later they would have.

Got that from a very good book "Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy"

For those of you who know the book, I realize it is very, um, incorrect from front to back, but some arguments can be stated in a good light.

[Hugo]

The Ark and Genesis are irrelevant. The issue is the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

its not beyond the scope of reason to believe that writings about the 1st century AD are not reliable in terms of historical accounts.

Is that your counterpoint - that it's not "beyond the scope of reason" that these sources are unreliable?

[Vercingetorix]

He is also mentioned in the works of Flavius Josephus, and in some anti-Christian Hebrew writings.

The passage in Josephus was obviously added later by the church--the idioms used in the writing, IIRC are not those of the 1st century AD. Go to the site and READ before responding, please. A lot of the "proof" used is obvious forgeries.

[Pellaken]

oh, I think he existed.

50%+1 of the people on earth follow religions that think Jesus was around (Islam and Christianity)

Jesus Christ the man was indeed alive

son of joseph

[Neal.F.]

One way or another, you will ALL find out that not only did Jesus exist, but that he still exists!

I pray you don't find out the hard way!!!!

Let's look at some other factors not already mentioned by others.

Look at Paul. He persecuted Christians. He existed. that is historical fact. He was nearly killed by stoning (left for dead, and dragged out of town) he was also spirted out of another place, lowered down in a basket outside the walls. Untimately he was decapitated in Rome. Would he have gone through all he did, if Jesus did not exist and reveal himself to him?

Peter is another example. He is historically verifiable, as is the manner of his death, to wit, being crucified upside down, because he did not consider himself worthy of dying in the same manner as Jesus did. Why would he do that if he did not walk with Jesus?

John was totured by being boiled in oil. All he would have had to do was deny the whole story.

It is even said that over 500 people in the time of Paul testified to seeing Jesus ressurrected. a claim that cost many their lives.

I think the problem with those who wish to turn him into a myth, is that they do not want to be held accountable for their actions, especially where sex is concerned.

But as Churchill said, the thing about the truth is, that it is.... and wishing Jesus away or pretending that you will not be held accountable is a dangerous, and erroneous course of action.

This begs another question: What kind of society will you end up with if ever you succeed in convincing enough people of your fraud, to wit that there is no accounting at the end of one's life?

If I will not be held responsible for what I've done, then why should i not go and kill those who are inconvenient... Shortchange people in business, lie cheat and steal ,and trample others...after all, it's the law of the jungle isn't it?

Do anything... just don't get caught.

And Pellaken, Jesus did and does exist.... Son of God. Joseph was his stepfather.

[Vercingetorix]

Neal F., do you have any of that documented in anything other than the bible? The articles I provided links to make that a source not worth citing--it proves nothing.

And appeals to emotion, as you made, do not prove anything.

[daniel]

I think Jesus existed as a man who challenged the authority and common thought of the day. He preached stories about morality the same as Aesop did.

Naturally, the authorities didn't like to be challenged nor were open to it and you might say, as a commoner, Jesus did step over the line a few times.

For example, when Jesus went into the Temple and made some statement with "...my temple..." in it, that would be equivalent to any one of us stepping right into the Chambers of Parliament and claiming it was ours. In fact, it is but we don't have the authority to manage it.

I don't believe he claimed that we was directly the son of God any more than he would acknowledge all people were the children of God.

When he died, his worshippers and followers created a stigma that turned him into a demigod. You can do the same thing today with any famous dead person. All you have to do is come up with some pretty good slogans and keep on repeating them until they are believed.

Examples are: WMDs, Common Sense Revolution, Tax-cuts, etc, etc.

And with people, you can turn anybody into a saint or a demigod: Princess Diana, John Lennon, JFK, Mother Teresa etc. You just have to paint an extraordinary picture of person's life and achievements.

No, Jesus was not a fraud. Maybe his handlers were.

[Neal.F.]

Anything to avoid accountability.....

Jesus had more influence over the course of history than anyone else who ever lived....

And as for unbelief in the resuurection, if the authorities ever wanted to put an end to Christianity before it was born, all they would have to do is produce the body, something they could have done easily, since it would be impossible to steal the body away as the Pharisees and the Romans tried to get people to believe. Producing the corpse would have ended it right there.

Firstly Jesus was seen by many who testified to seeing him at the risk of their very lives.

There was a Roman Guard of, if I remmeber correctly 12 men at the tomb. Outside of divine intervention what are the Odds of 12 professional soldiers, charged with a task carrying death as the penalty for failure, falling asleep at the same time, and not being awakened by the sound of the stone which weighed several tonnes being moved?

And Vercingetorix, what makes your links holy writ, and discount the Biblical account as worthless?

I return to my original pouint is that militant secularists want to do what they want with whom they want and not have to answer for it.

[Hugo]

Excellent points, Neal. To be honest, the story of Christ is an extremely improbable and, frankly, ridiculous one - were it not true. It seems very odd to me that hundreds, if not thousands, of people would stick to this wild tale through ridicule, torture, imprisonment and death, and not a single one would speak out against it.

The article that Vercingetorix references is pretty much invalid as a piece of historical analysis. In the opening paragraphs, the extract

[Christianity] has stayed the march of civilization... and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete.

should clue us in that the author is not interested in historical fact or analysis, but in proving a pre-conceived point or prejudice. To make a valid historical analysis, you must begin from an unbiased viewpoint and attempt to ascertain the facts, which this author does not do.

It also casts serious doubts on the validity of this document to even say the above, for it is blatantly a fantasy. The author claims that Christianity is the "greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social... improvement", when he should know that it was Christians who ended slavery and segregation and that it was Christians who opposed Nazism and Communism. While speaking of Nazism and Communism, it must also be noted that even withstanding the Crusades and the Inquisition, the crimes waged in the name of Christ are utterly insignificant compared to the horrors unleashed by secular humanists: the Holocaust, the Great Terror and more.

It is also obvious that the author of the document has not really studied Christian history or theology in any depth. For instance, he remarks that "The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be artificial by the numerous contradictions in his character and teachings."

Do contradictions prove that a person does not exist? If this is the case, then many people on this very forum must not exist! The fact is that Christ was never given to precision of speech and did not leave any written words behind anyway, which is where a lot of Christian schism has arisen from.

Basically, due to the biased, unscientific and self-delusional nature of Gauvin's text I see no reason to take it too seriously.

[SirRiff]

It seems very odd to me that hundreds, if not thousands, of people would stick to this wild tale through ridicule, torture, imprisonment and death, and not a single one would speak out against it.

how can you possibly know what these people said or did 2000 years ago? the actually events are so muddled and lost to history that its seems most likely that the creation of religions thousands of years ago were similiar to the many other popular beliefs that swept the primative societies of man. wild erratic surges of prevailing politics, which the masses accepted or rejected based on fleeting moods of the world. look at what the church has made people believe and altered ancient society and you see there was no sense of predictability to what people believed back then. humans were a primative and rodent like culture, the vast majority barely eeking out an existance by whatever way they could. no knowledge whatsoever besides what the church said.

no rational argument can be made that we know from ancient accounts that jesus existed, or that miracles occured, or that the creation of religion was as has been written through history. these people were still centuries away from accepting the world was round, that evil spirits didnt cause common colds and knowing even the obvious about how babies were made.

maybe jesus did live, but there is no reasonable body of evidence that shows more likely then not that he resembled the churchs account of existance.

personally my faith in all things beyond me is self contained and in no need of absolute confirmation. because it cant be proven. that is why its called faith.

Sirriff

[Neal.F.]

It seems very odd to me that hundreds, if not thousands, of people would stick to this wild tale through ridicule, torture, imprisonment and death, and not a single one would speak out against it.

how can you possibly know what these people said or did 2000 years ago? the actually events are so muddled and lost to history that its seems most likely that the creation of religions thousands of years ago were similiar to the many other popular beliefs that swept the primative societies of man. wild erratic surges of prevailing politics, which the masses accepted or rejected based on fleeting moods of the world. look at what the church has made people believe and altered ancient society and you see there was no sense of predictability to what people believed back then. humans were a primative and rodent like culture, the vast majority barely eeking out an existance by whatever way they could. no knowledge whatsoever besides what the church said.

no rational argument can be made that we know from ancient accounts that jesus existed, or that miracles occured, or that the creation of religion was as has been written through history. these people were still centuries away from accepting the world was round, that evil spirits didnt cause common colds and knowing even the obvious about how babies were made.

maybe jesus did live, but there is no reasonable body of evidence that shows more likely then not that he resembled the churchs account of existance.

personally my faith in all things beyond me is self contained and in no need of absolute confirmation. because it cant be proven. that is why its called faith.

Sirriff

Liberal elitist. Even though many Northern Europeans were still running around in bearskins at that time, the Mediterreanian and Asia Minor were home to very advanced cultures at the time.

These were not hunters and gatherers, but rather an urban and agricultural mix.

People who became Christians at the time were from every walk of life from soldiers, to farmers to academics, tradespeople and businesspeople.

They did so at great risk. Christians did not rule the roost, in fact by becoming Christian, your very life was placed in jeopardy. Hedonists & pagans back then hated moral absolutes even as they do now.

One Muslim scholar said "I have read your New Testament, and nowhere do I see anything that teaches Christians to be a majority religion. In the Koran, I find nothing that teaches Msulims to be a minority religion."

Suffice it to say, that in the first four centuries of Christianity, one did not join in order to attain social standing. One accepted the teachings as the truth, and the ostracism that went with it. In fact at the Council of Nicea, circa 330 AD, of the 320 odd delegates that attended, only about a dozen or so were not scarred, diabled, disfigured, or missing limbs from tortures suffered on account of their faith. They stood for truth. One does not persevere for a patent lie.

We accept the Biblical accounts, backed up by historians of the time as fact, on the same basis that we accept Socrates, who lived about 400 years BC as a historical personage.

We know also that Nebuchadnezzar was really the King of babylon. And nobody disputes the existance of the Egyptian Pharoahs of 3000 or more years ago. We know where Rachel & Joseph were buried, so their lives are also historical fact.

So in one sense we do accept on faith that which has gone before us. but isn't it amazing how this faith keeps on being confirmed by archaeology and science?

The dead sea scrolls , for example, laid waste to many claims made by skeptics that the scriptures we have today do not likely conform to the originals. The scroll of Isaiah, which was found conformed EXACTLY to the oldest manuscripts that were theretofore known.

The list goes on....

Western civilization was built on te the teachings of Christ, and became more restrained and less barbaric as a result. Christians built hospitals, universities etc. British Common law traced back to @ 700 AD was based on the law given to the Hebrews in Exodus.

Whether you wish to believe in God as He is revealed in scripture is up to you, however, you should by no means wish that His legacy is removed from the public square, for it is the foundation on which all your precious "rights" are founded on. To remove Judeo-Christian values will result in a narcissitic, nihilistic society which will dehumanize everyone. People's value will be dtermined solely on what they are able to produce, and after their productive days are done, their right to continue to live wil be dependent on their ability to pay for goods and services, ie: consume.

You will cease to be a person, and become a "consumer".

The weak and disabled will be considered a burden, and done away with.

In fact it may well come to the point in such a utilitarian society, that people will be massed produced to suit the interests of the elites, for whom everyone else will exist.

Physically strong but mentally inept people will be produced for manual labour, and done awy with when they are no longer useful, and others will serve in other capicities for which they will be produced, and will be kept complacent by means of drugs, freelove, and entertainment. The "throwaway society" run amuck.

Is this the kind of world you want? If so, then continue your fight to eradicate Christianty and Judeo-Christian culture. One day they will come for you too.

[Vercingetorix]

This is exactly what I was hoping for: a very good debate.

I return to my original pouint is that militant secularists want to do what they want with whom they want and not have to answer for it.

Do you have proof outside the Bible and Josephus (whose accounts are generally known to have been forged due to the anachronistic idioms used) that says he does? I do not mean the one which speaks of Christus; that says their leader, living at the time, went by Christus. Look at the date of that account.

There was a Roman Guard of, if I remmeber correctly 12 men at the tomb. Outside of divine intervention what are the Odds of 12 professional soldiers, charged with a task carrying death as the penalty for failure, falling asleep at the same time, and not being awakened by the sound of the stone which weighed several tonnes being moved?

Once again, you only use information from the bible to back up your point, thus proving nothing.

Jesus had more influence over the course of history than anyone else who ever lived....

No...whoever INVENTED Jesus had more influence...and besides, even if you are right you are wrong...I would say Abe had far more influence; you know, he kind of was father to all three major western religions today.

And Vercingetorix, what makes your links holy writ, and discount the Biblical account as worthless?

They both can be disproven, I am sure. However, you do not have access to any contemporary outside works proving his existence that have not been proven to have been forged.

People who became Christians at the time were from every walk of life from soldiers, to farmers to academics, tradespeople and businesspeople.

They did so at great risk. Christians did not rule the roost, in fact by becoming Christian, your very life was placed in jeopardy. Hedonists & pagans back then hated moral absolutes even as they do now.

One Muslim scholar said "I have read your New Testament, and nowhere do I see anything that teaches Christians to be a majority religion. In the Koran, I find nothing that teaches Msulims to be a minority religion."

Suffice it to say, that in the first four centuries of Christianity, one did not join in order to attain social standing. One accepted the teachings as the truth, and the ostracism that went with it. In fact at the Council of Nicea, circa 330 AD, of the 320 odd delegates that attended, only about a dozen or so were not scarred, diabled, disfigured, or missing limbs from tortures suffered on account of their faith. They stood for truth. One does not persevere for a patent lie.

Do you know why a lot of pagan rulers of the time converted? Do you?

The Roman army, when its had become Christian, were also nearing the end of their height of power. While they were this powerful, they were mostly conquering the Germanic barbarians (discounting Verus's screwup, but that was >300 years before the time period I speak of) whenever they had a chance. These barbarians, being extremely superstitious (a lot of these superstitions carry over today...what do you think tomorrow, Samhain, is?), decided that the Christian God must be more powerful if the Romans were conquering their forces. This was they heyday of missionaries, when they were converting masses of barbarians. IIRC, Atilla had to convert before he was allowed to marry the sister of the Emperor (which I don't think happened in the end...)

Well, there you go. The story of the conversion of great masses of Europe after Constantine's legalization of the religion.

If you want to know why people converted before, all you have to ask is: why do people do illegal things today?

Christians who ended slavery and segregation and that it was Christians who opposed Nazism and Communism. While speaking of Nazism and Communism, it must also be noted that even withstanding the Crusades and the Inquisition, the crimes waged in the name of Christ are utterly insignificant compared to the horrors unleashed by secular humanists: the Holocaust, the Great Terror and more.

These are not the same people, and you must remember that most of these were also started by Christians. Hitler was NOT a secular humanist...IIRC, he was a Protestant of some sort.

Do contradictions prove that a person does not exist? If this is the case, then many people on this very forum must not exist! The fact is that Christ was never given to precision of speech and did not leave any written words behind anyway, which is where a lot of Christian schism has arisen from.

I agree there is a great amount of opinion mixed with fact in the article; however, there is also a good amount of fact that can be backed up, as well.

[Hugo]

Hitler was NOT a secular humanist...IIRC, he was a Protestant of some sort.

He was born a Catholic, but renounced his faith. Some notable quotations of Hitler on the subject of Christianity:

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity."

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless"

"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't"

While Hitler did make mention of God and Christianity in his earlier speeches and writings, it should be noted that by the time he rose to power he had pretty much abandoned his faith and had committed himself to secular humanism. The quotes I cited were all said by Hitler after he had embarked upon his worst crimes.

I agree there is a great amount of opinion mixed with fact in the article; however, there is also a good amount of fact that can be backed up, as well.

I believe that the self-contradiction, glaring errors and obvious prejudice and bias throw the whole document into disrepute. After what I have read, I would take nothing in it at face value.

[SirRiff]

the Mediterreanian and Asia Minor were home to very advanced cultures at the time.

so we are saying that Jesus was asian?

what is the point of anything other then the people who wrote the history of the events of jesus?

SirRiff

[Vercingetorix]

Then check it. IIRC, it DOES have some errors in it, but is generally accurate factually.

[Hugo]

the historian [Josephus] made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history... It was... easy to add to or change what an author had written.

Says who? This is said, as though it were generally accepted fact, without citation or reference to the original documents. In a piece of historical analysis, one should quote sources. Has Gauvin read the original works of Josephus, and if so, how is he sure they are the originals? Or is he quoting someone else who was, and if so, who are they, and what study is he citing? He does not say.

Gauvin doesn't even mention Tacitus Suetonius, or the Hebrew critics of Christ. What of these? This just illustrates the lack of knowledge of the author, to claim that contemporary authors do not mention Christ, without even being aware of quite possibly the most important Roman historian of the day. This is like claiming to be a physicist without having heard of Isaac Newton.

Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion... The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial...

Only Roman citizens had this right, and even that could be over-ridden. Jews were not generally Roman citizens, Christ had done nothing to be awarded citizenship, and he could very well have been summarily executed by Pilate. These are, after all, the days of the Emperors, who had power of life and death over anyone. The proxy of the Emperor also carries this power to be exercised in the interest of the Emperor. This all began when Sulla overthrew the Republic (although that was hardly a model of democracy and justice), a long time before Christ walked the earth.

I don't believe this document is "generally accurate factually." It is full of glaring errors and omissions, and is obviously written by someone with little knowledge of the subject.

[Vercingetorix]

About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.

OK...I could have sworn Josephus was Jewish. But he calls Jesus the Messiah, which would have made him a Christian. Does you see something VERY wrong here?

This is also the ONLY mention of Jesus in the whole book, IIRC. I was being proselytized by some friends one night, and they pulled out this book as proof, and showed that this was the only mention of Jesus in the whole book.

Bad idea...

[Hugo]

Josephus... calls Jesus the Messiah, which would have made him a Christian. Does you see something VERY wrong here?

Not necessarily. The Arabic version contains the phrase "Jesus the so-called Christ". The phrase "Jesus was the Christ" was possibly (and only possibly) added later and appears only in the Greek version, but the bulk of the passage is almost certainly genuine.

Regardless, the fact is that every version of the Antiquities, Greek and Arabic, contains a reference to Jesus. The Greek version is more laudatory, but no version omits the existence of Jesus.

It should be noted also, that there is absolutely no evidence that the Antiquities were ever tampered with. Any theory that they were is pure speculation. It is unlikely that this passage was written entirely or even in large part by later Christians, because the language used does not correspond with Christian, New Testament language. For instance, it refers to James as "the brother of Jesus" whereas the standard Christian expression would be "brother of the Saviour" or "brother of the Lord." If an interpolator was foolish enough to have Josephus hail Christ as the messiah, it is extremely unlikely that he would have been able to refrain from using Christian terminology in favour of the Jewish.

The emphasis of the passage also lies not with Jesus, nor even with James, but with Ananus the Priest. An interpolator would be very unlikely to do this, as he would be very unlikely to deliberately contradict Hegesippus' account of the death of James, as Josephus has. None of the various translations of this passage mention a connection between Jesus and John the Baptist, furthermore, which does not tally with the account a Christian interpolator would give.

Basically, there is no concrete evidence whatsoever that Josephus' account of Jesus is anything but genuine, and speculation on the subject is easily refuted. The fact that Gauvin takes this unprovable theory as irrefutable truth, and fails to even mention Suetonius, proves to me that he is talking through his hat.

[Vercingetorix]

The Arabic version contains the phrase "Jesus the so-called Christ".

As long as we are getting into this kind of argument, I would like to see proof.

[Hugo]

My mistake. The Arabic version reads as follows:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

The "so-called Christ" comes from the Greek. Regardless, you can't find a version of the Antiquities that does not mention Christ, and my points stand.

I would like to see proof.

Me too. But Gauvin provides none.

[Nuclear]

Well, one hundred years from now when we're all dead, one of two things will happen.

1)Nothing at all.

2)Some of us will be in Heaven while some of us are bruning in Hell.

I believe I'll be in Heaven because of Jesus. If I'm wrong, by the time I realize it, it'll be too late to care. If I'm right.....

[cknykid]

The site in the first link is made by some Hindus in India. They fear the spread of Christianity in India and this site is made in an attempt to tarnish the image of Jesus not with any solid arguments but make believe garbage. It’s really shameful how these lowlifes tried to sell their agenda in the disguise of an intelligent debate about religion.