Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-26-2012, 08:33 AM

After being on this forum for over 6 years I will now present my Myth Jesus theory.

After having read thousands of post from many contributors, the NT Canon, Apologetic sources and Non-apologetic sources I have come to the conclusion that the Jesus movement was INITIATED by Belief in an anonymous story about an invented character called Jesus the Son of God sometime in the 2nd century

The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger do NOT show any new religion related to any character called Jesus who was Sacrificed for the Sins of all mankind.

So up to c 115 CE, based on Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger, there was NO stories about a character called Jesus the Son of God.

All arguments and controversies about the Jesus story by non-apologetic sources are found for the first time ONLY from around the mid 2nd century.

I would expect these arguments and controversies to have occured earlier if a Jesus story was known and circulated since the 1st century.

In the supposed early Pauline writings it is claimed that preaching Christ Crucified was a Stumblingblock to the Jews and Foolishness to the Greeks yet we see NO arguments and NO controversies document in Jewish and Roman writings when the supposed Paul preached Christ Crucfied--NOTHING.

The Pauline writer gives the impression that he preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected in many parts of the Roman Empire but again the supposed early evangelist and his NEW SAVIOR of the world are NOT mentioned at all in any credible Jewish and Roman writings but ONLY in forgeries.

Forgeries to place Paul and Jesus in the 1st century is a clear indication that they were NOT 1ST century characters. See the Paul/Seneca letters and Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

It was starting around the mid 2nd century that we have all the ARGUMENTS for and against the Jesus story but NOT only arguments we have sources that explain what Christians Believe and the Nature of Jesus as we approach the 3rd century.

We have two Non-Apologetic sources from the 2nd century, Lucian and Celsus who show that a Jesus story was known in the 2nd century and Nothing but forgeries from the 1st century.

Now, the Jesus character supposedly was in Galilee and Jerusalem between c 1-36 CE, was WELL-KNOWN and had Thousands of people following him on a daily basis, he even claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of the Blessed on the day he was crucified and a character called Paul supposedly preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected and that Jesus was the End of the Law along with other Disciples ALL OVER the Roman Empire.

Jesus Christ was supposed to be the NEW SAVIOR of the Roman Empire in the 1 st century---but we have NOTHING about the Jesus character--NOTHING from non-apologetic sources that wrote about events in the 1st century.

Jesus if he did exist should have had a DIRECT IMPACT on people who lived at the same time as himself. He supposedly had THOUSANDS of followers on a daily basis. He was supposedly a Miracle-Worker

The Jesus character had NO IMPACT on any person living between c 1-36 CE based on Non-apologetic sources. The Jesus character was completely unknown.

However, about 130 years later, there is a story that Jesus is the Son of God based on a Non-Apologetic writer Celsus in "True Discourse".

The 2nd century Jesus story had IMPACTED the Roman society NOT Jesus

It was a 2nd century Jesus story that was BELIEVED to be true.

It was a 2nd century Myth Fable about a crucified Son of God that Initiated the Jesus movement.

There was NEVER EVER any real character called Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God who had Thousands of followers and was Sacrificed for the Sins of Mankind.

ALL we have are Myth Fables of the 2nd century that was BELIEVED.

Justin Martyr a 2nd century writer BELIEVED a Myth Fable called the "Memoirs of the Apostle" and NEVER did produce any evidence whatsoever that Jesus did exist from the 1st century.

Celsus, based on Origen, in his "True Discourse" NEVER presented any credible evidence whatsoever that the Jesus character did exist in the 1st century.

Jesus was just a 2nd century story, a 2nd century fable, that people of antiquity BELIEVED was true and is NO different to people of today.

Up to now, as we speak, people still BELIEVE the Jesus character did exist although we have FIVE Myth Fables from the 4th century in the Existing Codices.

The Protestant religion was started based SOLELY on the Belief of the Jesus stories written hundreds of years earlier.

Today, Christians and HJers BELIEVE Jesus existed based on the Jesus stories written hundreds of years ago.

My theory is that the Jesus movement STARTED the very same way in the 2nd century.

People of antiquity BELIEVED a 2nd century fabricated Jesus story about a Son of God that was crucified because of the Jews.

Iskander · 04-26-2012, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

After being on this forum for over 6 years I will now present my Myth Jesus theory.

After having read thousands of post from many contributors, the NT Canon, Apologetic sources and Non-apologetic sources I have come to the conclusion that the Jesus movement was INITIATED by Belief in an anonymous story about an invented character called Jesus the Son of God sometime in the 2nd century

The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger do NOT show any new religion related to any character called Jesus who was Sacrificed for the Sins of all mankind.

So up to c 115 CE, based on Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger, there was NO stories about a character called Jesus the Son of God.

All arguments and controversies about the Jesus story by non-apologetic sources are found for the first time ONLY from around the mid 2nd century.

I would expect these arguments and controversies to have occured earlier if a Jesus story was known and circulated since the 1st century.

In the supposed early Pauline writings it is claimed that preaching Christ Crucified was a Stumblingblock to the Jews and Foolishness to the Greeks yet we see NO arguments and NO controversies document in Jewish and Roman writings when the supposed Paul preached Christ Crucfied--NOTHING.

The Pauline writer gives the impression that he preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected in many parts of the Roman Empire but again the supposed early evangelist and his NEW SAVIOR of the world are NOT mentioned at all in any credible Jewish and Roman writings but ONLY in forgeries.

Forgeries to place Paul and Jesus in the 1st century is a clear indication that they were NOT 1ST century characters. See the Paul/Seneca letters and Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

It was starting around the mid 2nd century that we have all the ARGUMENTS for and against the Jesus story but NOT only arguments we have sources that explain what Christians Believe and the Nature of Jesus as we approach the 3rd century.

We have two Non-Apologetic sources from the 2nd century, Lucian and Celsus who show that a Jesus story was known in the 2nd century and Nothing but forgeries from the 1st century.

Now, the Jesus character supposedly was in Galilee and Jerusalem between c 1-36 CE, was WELL-KNOWN and had Thousands of people following him on a daily basis, he even claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of the Blessed on the day he was crucified and a character called Paul supposedly preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected and that Jesus was the End of the Law along with other Disciples ALL OVER the Roman Empire.

Jesus Christ was supposed to be the NEW SAVIOR of the Roman Empire in the 1 st century---but we have NOTHING about the Jesus character--NOTHING from non-apologetic sources that wrote about events in the 1st century.

Jesus if he did exist should have had a DIRECT IMPACT on people who lived at the same time as himself. He supposedly had THOUSANDS of followers on a daily basis. He was supposedly a Miracle-Worker

The Jesus character had NO IMPACT on any person living between c 1-36 CE based on Non-apologetic sources. The Jesus character was completely unknown.

However, about 130 years later, there is a story that Jesus is the Son of God based on a Non-Apologetic writer Celsus in "True Discourse".

The 2nd century Jesus story had IMPACTED the Roman society NOT Jesus

It was a 2nd century Jesus story that was BELIEVED to be true.

It was a 2nd century Myth Fable about a crucified Son of God that Initiated the Jesus movement.

There was NEVER EVER any real character called Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God who had Thousands of followers and was Sacrificed for the Sins of Mankind.

ALL we have are Myth Fables of the 2nd century that was BELIEVED.

Justin Martyr a 2nd century writer BELIEVED a Myth Fable called the "Memoirs of the Apostle" and NEVER did produce any evidence whatsoever that Jesus did exist from the 1st century.

Celsus, based on Origen, in his "True Discourse" NEVER presented any credible evidence whatsoever that the Jesus character did exist in the 1st century.

Jesus was just a 2nd century story, a 2nd century fable, that people of antiquity BELIEVED was true and is NO different to people of today.

Up to now, as we speak, people still BELIEVE the Jesus character did exist although we have FIVE Myth Fables from the 4th century in the Existing Codices.

The Protestant religion was started based SOLELY on the Belief of the Jesus stories written hundreds of years earlier.

Today, Christians and HJers BELIEVE Jesus existed based on the Jesus stories written hundreds of years ago.

My theory is that the Jesus movement STARTED the very same way in the 2nd century.

People of antiquity BELIEVED a 2nd century fabricated Jesus story about a Son of God that was crucified because of the Jews.

I like it , aa. It is as good as others i have read and it is free on the web!! Thank you.

aa5874 · 04-26-2012, 04:06 PM

In the NT Canon it is CLEARLY stated that Jesus was Well-known with Thousands of followers, that he Performed Miracles, and that he claimed he was the Messiah and Son of the Blessed on the day he was crucified.

If Jesus was indeed was a figure of history then we would expect he would have an IMPACT on his contemporaries, not Only his supposed disciples, but the People in the region where he lived and operated.

From the start, the supposed Jesus made ZERO impact on any Jewish or Roman writers.

But, there are at least two apologetic Canonised writers who were NOT followers of Jesus but we will see that even though Canonised they too were NOT influenced or IMPACTED by Jesus as a figure of history.

In the Canon, the author of Acts claimed he travelled with Paul and the same Paul claimed he Met Apostles Peter and James.

The authors of Acts and Paul IMPLY that they are Contemporaries of Jesus and of the Apostles.

Remarkably, Neither the author Acts Nor Paul, were IMPACTED by the historical Jesus.

The author of Acts wrote about the Ascension of Jesus--a non-historical event and the Pauline writer knew of a story that Jesus died for OUR Sins, was buried and Resurrected on the Third day according to the Scriptures.

The very Apologetic Contemporaries of Jesus did NOT write anything of the supposed ACTUAL Life of their Jesus.

The author of Acts and Paul did NOT a real Jesus--they ONLY need to BELIEVE Jesus was resurrected.

But, it does NOT matter whether or NOT Jesus lived-- he still could NOT resurrect.

The author of Acts and Paul needed a non-historical act for their stories about their resurrected Jesus.

Not a single detail of the supposed actual life of Jesus was recorded by the author of Acts and Paul.

Acts had DETAILS of the Ascension of Jesus and Paul had DETAILS about the Resurrection.

Remarkably, the author of Acts and Paul don't CARE at all about the supposed ACTUAL LIFE of the LORD and Savior Jesus Christ--they ONLY Cared about the Resurrection and Ascension.

If the supposed Historical Jesus had NO impact on Canonized Apologetic sources then it is NOT expected that he would have any INFLUENCE on Non-Apologetc sources.

And that is PRECISELY the case.

ALL SOURCES--Apologetic and Non-apologetic-- did NOT write about Jesus or did NOT write about him as human.

We have a Big Black Hole for an historical Jesus in the 1st century even if it assumed Apologetic sources were in the 1st century.

Once there was NO actual historical Jesus we are ONLY left with Stories and it was the Stories that were Believed in antiquity.

The evidence suggests that it was Anonymous stories of Jesus that were Believed in the 2nd century.

tanya · 04-26-2012, 05:11 PM

Thank you aa5874, for taking the time to develop your ideas, in a systematic summary. Well done.

Your effort, industriousness, and credibility are noted, with enthusiasm, here.....

aa5874 · 04-26-2012, 07:10 PM

Another major piece of evidence that clearly show that the Jesus movement was Initiated by as story rather than a human character is found in the Gospels.

It is claimed in the Jesus stories that the disciples were Commissioned to tell people of Jesus.

This is EXTREMELY significant--the very story of Jesus BEFORE it was WRITTEN was supposedly told to people in the Roman Empire.

In Acts of the Apostles, an Apologetic source, AFTER the day of Pentecost the disciples ORALLY propagated the Jesus story.

But, who DELIVERED the Commission to the disciples???

Who TOLD them to Preach the Jesus story???

Was it a Man or a Myth??

It was the RESURRECTED Jesus, the Non-Existing Jesus, the Myth Jesus that Commissioned the Disciples to Tell THE WHOLE WORLD of the Jesus story.

Remarkably, the Jesus stories that we have in the Existing Codices are about the Resurrected Jesus--NOT the human Jesus.

The Jesus stories that we have EXISTING TODAY was supposedly Commissioned by the Resurrected Myth Jesus.

If you have a Bible with the Four Canonised Gospel then the stories in them are supposedly from the resurrected Myth Jesus.

Even the authors of the Jesus stories SHOW that a Human Jesus was OBSOLETE and that ONLY BELIEF matters.

The Cmmission by the RESURRECTED Jesus can ONLY be BELIEVED to have happened whether or NOT Jesus lived.

Only the story counts--the Actual Life of a Human Jesus was NOT necessary.

An actual human Jesus DESTROYS the story of the Commission to TELL the Jesus story by the Resurrected Jesus.

Mark 16

Quote:

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature...

The Jesus story that we have in the Existing Codices is the product of Mythological Jesus, the Resurrected Jesus.

We have the Story of the MYTH in our hands and people BELIEVE it-- Even today.

A human Jesus had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the story itself NOR did a human Jesus Commission anyone to Preach the story of a resurrected Jesus.

We have stories of Jesus and they were NOT from an Historical Jesus but people still BELIEVE them. Even today.

The stories of Jesus were DERIVED from Myth and people of antiquity who BELIEVED Myth fables accepted them as history and even today.

aa5874 · 04-27-2012, 06:32 AM

In my last post it is shown that it was NOT a real Jesus that Commissioned the supposed disciples to tell people about the Jesus story.

It was a Resurrected Myth Jesus. See the Interpolated gMark 16.15.

Myth Jesus gave the ORDER to preach the Jesus story to mankind in the Romam Empire and the Whole world.

Now, I will show that it was ALSO a Myth that can SAVE people from their Sins.

Without Myth Jesus there can be NO Salvation of Mankind.

The human Jesus is OBSOLETE--IRRELEVANT to the supposed Jesus movement.

Paul a supposed contemporary of the Apostles and Jesus CLEARLY states that Jesus MUST perform a non-historical act in order for people of antiquity to be saved.

Romans 10:9 KJV

Quote:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

Galatians 1:1 KJV

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.)

It is Clear.

It is the Resurrected Myth Jesus that is the Savior of Mankind in the Pauline writings.

In the Pauline writings if you BELIEVE Jesus was historical then you CANNOT be saved.

In the Pauline writings if you BELIEVE Jesus was HUMAN then you CANNOT be saved.

The Pauline writer himself OPENLY ADMITTED that his Jesus was NOT human.

The Pauline SAVIOR was a MYTH.

Without the resurrected Myth Jesus there can be NO Salvation.

Without the resurrected Myth Jesus there can be NO Jesus story.

The Jesus stories in the Existing Codices were DERIVED from the Resurrected Jesus.

The Salvation of all Mankind in the Existing Codices is DERIVED from the Resurrected Jesus.

Jesus of the very Canon is Myth.

An human Jesus was OBSOLETE--USELESS--IRRELEVANT for the Jesus movement.

Only the resurrected Myth can save Makind from their Sins.

The early Jesus movement ONLY requires BELIEF--their Jesus can ONLY be a character in a story.

The story was a Myth Fable of the Resurrected Son of God called Jesus.

People of antiquity BELIEVED the Myth Fable in the 2nd century which is NO different to HJers today.

another1 · 04-27-2012, 07:55 AM

I was under the impression that the Bible is a relatively accurate record of lineage (regardless what has been added ot taken away) and Jesus was a man who did live.

I'm pretty sure that there was a man named Jesus who did have some sort of political career that shaped history significantly. Did he have magic powers? Probably not, because magic is not real in my opinion.

Are you stating that you think Jesus never lived, or that superhero Jesus never lived?

aa5874 · 04-27-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by another1

I was under the impression that the Bible is a relatively accurate record of lineage (regardless what has been added ot taken away) and Jesus was a man who did live.

I'm pretty sure that there was a man named Jesus who did have some sort of political career that shaped history significantly. Did he have magic powers? Probably not, because magic is not real in my opinion.

Are you stating that you think Jesus never lived, or that superhero Jesus never lived?

Please, name the source that made you PRETTY SURE Jesus was a man???

I AM SURE in the Most Prettiest Fashion that Jesus was NOT a man in Your Relatively accurate Bible.

That is PRECISELY what I wanted you say--that the Bible is relatively accurate.

Well, you MUST accept the very ACCURATE description of Jesus in the Bible.

Matthew 1.18-21

Quote:

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example , was minded to puther away privily.20But while he thought on these things, behold , the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying , Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS...

Jesus was NOT a man in your ACCURATE Bible. He was the Son of a Holy Ghost.

Please, do NOT deny your Bible's Relative accuracy.

It was NOT accurate to claim Jesus had Relatives on earth as a man.

Jesus' RELATIVES were Gods.

aa5874 · 04-27-2012, 06:56 PM

It has been shown that the Jesus Salvation story was the Product of Mythology and was Commissioned by Myth Jesus.

Pauline writers claimed Salvation is a product of a non-historical act.

But, I want to go back to a writer called Pliny the younger to show that the Jesus story was UNKNOWN up to c 112 CE.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger

Quote:

Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, born Gaius Caecilius or Gaius Caecilius Cilo (61 AD – ca. 112 AD), better known as Pliny the Younger, was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome....

Pliny was supposedly the Contemporaries of the Bishops of Rome like Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus and Alexander.

Christianity was SUPPOSEDLY well established in the Roman Empire DURING the time of Pliny the younger c 61- 112 CE

Characters called Paul and Peter were SUPPOSEDLY in Rome TELLING the Romans about Jesus Christ. Peter and Paul were claimed to have been EXECUTED in Rome under Nero since c 67 CE for TELLING Romans about Jesus.

The Gospels and the Pauline writings should have been Already been written including an Epistle to the Roman Church.

But, it will be EXPOSED that Pliny the younger knew NOTHING of Jesus and NOTHING at about the Belief of Christians at c 112 CE.

The very fact that Pliny did NOT REALIZE that Christians BELIEVED in Christ shows that up to 112 CE there was NO established Jesus movement.

ThE VERY NAME of the CHRISTIANS MEANT nothing to Pliny.

As soon as the name Christian is mentioned Pliny should have know what they Believed.

Christians BELIEVED in Jesus CHRIST.

How in the world did Pliny NOT even know the name CHRISTIAN described the BELIEF???

Pliny EXECUTED and Tortured Christians but did NOT know that CHRISTIANS BELIEVE in CHRIST!!!

There were NO established Jesus movement up to 112 CE based on Pliny letter to Trajan.

Pliny the younger

Quote:

.... Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed.

For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished...

Pliny the younger

Quote:

.....Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition....

another1 · 04-27-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by another1

I was under the impression that the Bible is a relatively accurate record of lineage (regardless what has been added ot taken away) and Jesus was a man who did live.

I'm pretty sure that there was a man named Jesus who did have some sort of political career that shaped history significantly. Did he have magic powers? Probably not, because magic is not real in my opinion.

Are you stating that you think Jesus never lived, or that superhero Jesus never lived?

Please, name the source that made you PRETTY SURE Jesus was a man???

I AM SURE in the Most Prettiest Fashion that Jesus was NOT a man in Your Relatively accurate Bible.

That is PRECISELY what I wanted you say--that the Bible is relatively accurate.

Well, you MUST accept the very ACCURATE description of Jesus in the Bible.

Matthew 1.18-21

Quote:

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example , was minded to puther away privily.20But while he thought on these things, behold , the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying , Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS...

Jesus was NOT a man in your ACCURATE Bible. He was the Son of a Holy Ghost.

Please, do NOT deny your Bible's Relative accuracy.

It was NOT accurate to claim Jesus had Relatives on earth as a man.

Jesus' RELATIVES were Gods.

Like I tried to state clearly in E Prime for you friend, I think I have a very limited understaning of this. I Would quote sources and paste some smarty jargon, but I don't like giving the concept power over me.

Type some more doubting statements about it so that it has more validity in all of our realities, please... its all we need. :huh:

04-26-2012, 08:33 AM	#1
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The Myth Jesus Theory of aa5874 After being on this forum for over 6 years I will now present my Myth Jesus theory. After having read thousands of post from many contributors, the NT Canon, Apologetic sources and Non-apologetic sources I have come to the conclusion that the Jesus movement was INITIATED by Belief in an anonymous story about an invented character called Jesus the Son of God sometime in the 2nd century The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger do NOT show any new religion related to any character called Jesus who was Sacrificed for the Sins of all mankind. So up to c 115 CE, based on Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger, there was NO stories about a character called Jesus the Son of God. All arguments and controversies about the Jesus story by non-apologetic sources are found for the first time ONLY from around the mid 2nd century. I would expect these arguments and controversies to have occured earlier if a Jesus story was known and circulated since the 1st century. In the supposed early Pauline writings it is claimed that preaching Christ Crucified was a Stumblingblock to the Jews and Foolishness to the Greeks yet we see NO arguments and NO controversies document in Jewish and Roman writings when the supposed Paul preached Christ Crucfied--NOTHING. The Pauline writer gives the impression that he preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected in many parts of the Roman Empire but again the supposed early evangelist and his NEW SAVIOR of the world are NOT mentioned at all in any credible Jewish and Roman writings but ONLY in forgeries. Forgeries to place Paul and Jesus in the 1st century is a clear indication that they were NOT 1ST century characters. See the Paul/Seneca letters and Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1. It was starting around the mid 2nd century that we have all the ARGUMENTS for and against the Jesus story but NOT only arguments we have sources that explain what Christians Believe and the Nature of Jesus as we approach the 3rd century. We have two Non-Apologetic sources from the 2nd century, Lucian and Celsus who show that a Jesus story was known in the 2nd century and Nothing but forgeries from the 1st century. Now, the Jesus character supposedly was in Galilee and Jerusalem between c 1-36 CE, was WELL-KNOWN and had Thousands of people following him on a daily basis, he even claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of the Blessed on the day he was crucified and a character called Paul supposedly preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected and that Jesus was the End of the Law along with other Disciples ALL OVER the Roman Empire. Jesus Christ was supposed to be the NEW SAVIOR of the Roman Empire in the 1 st century---but we have NOTHING about the Jesus character--NOTHING from non-apologetic sources that wrote about events in the 1st century. Jesus if he did exist should have had a DIRECT IMPACT on people who lived at the same time as himself. He supposedly had THOUSANDS of followers on a daily basis. He was supposedly a Miracle-Worker The Jesus character had NO IMPACT on any person living between c 1-36 CE based on Non-apologetic sources. The Jesus character was completely unknown. However, about 130 years later, there is a story that Jesus is the Son of God based on a Non-Apologetic writer Celsus in "True Discourse". The 2nd century Jesus story had IMPACTED the Roman society NOT Jesus It was a 2nd century Jesus story that was BELIEVED to be true. It was a 2nd century Myth Fable about a crucified Son of God that Initiated the Jesus movement. There was NEVER EVER any real character called Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God who had Thousands of followers and was Sacrificed for the Sins of Mankind. ALL we have are Myth Fables of the 2nd century that was BELIEVED. Justin Martyr a 2nd century writer BELIEVED a Myth Fable called the "Memoirs of the Apostle" and NEVER did produce any evidence whatsoever that Jesus did exist from the 1st century. Celsus, based on Origen, in his "True Discourse" NEVER presented any credible evidence whatsoever that the Jesus character did exist in the 1st century. Jesus was just a 2nd century story, a 2nd century fable, that people of antiquity BELIEVED was true and is NO different to people of today. Up to now, as we speak, people still BELIEVE the Jesus character did exist although we have FIVE Myth Fables from the 4th century in the Existing Codices. The Protestant religion was started based SOLELY on the Belief of the Jesus stories written hundreds of years earlier. Today, Christians and HJers BELIEVE Jesus existed based on the Jesus stories written hundreds of years ago. My theory is that the Jesus movement STARTED the very same way in the 2nd century. People of antiquity BELIEVED a 2nd century fabricated Jesus story about a Son of God that was crucified because of the Jews.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-26-2012, 04:06 PM	#3
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	In the NT Canon it is CLEARLY stated that Jesus was Well-known with Thousands of followers, that he Performed Miracles, and that he claimed he was the Messiah and Son of the Blessed on the day he was crucified. If Jesus was indeed was a figure of history then we would expect he would have an IMPACT on his contemporaries, not Only his supposed disciples, but the People in the region where he lived and operated. From the start, the supposed Jesus made ZERO impact on any Jewish or Roman writers. But, there are at least two apologetic Canonised writers who were NOT followers of Jesus but we will see that even though Canonised they too were NOT influenced or IMPACTED by Jesus as a figure of history. In the Canon, the author of Acts claimed he travelled with Paul and the same Paul claimed he Met Apostles Peter and James. The authors of Acts and Paul IMPLY that they are Contemporaries of Jesus and of the Apostles. Remarkably, Neither the author Acts Nor Paul, were IMPACTED by the historical Jesus. The author of Acts wrote about the Ascension of Jesus--a non-historical event and the Pauline writer knew of a story that Jesus died for OUR Sins, was buried and Resurrected on the Third day according to the Scriptures. The very Apologetic Contemporaries of Jesus did NOT write anything of the supposed ACTUAL Life of their Jesus. The author of Acts and Paul did NOT a real Jesus--they ONLY need to BELIEVE Jesus was resurrected. But, it does NOT matter whether or NOT Jesus lived-- he still could NOT resurrect. The author of Acts and Paul needed a non-historical act for their stories about their resurrected Jesus. Not a single detail of the supposed actual life of Jesus was recorded by the author of Acts and Paul. Acts had DETAILS of the Ascension of Jesus and Paul had DETAILS about the Resurrection. Remarkably, the author of Acts and Paul don't CARE at all about the supposed ACTUAL LIFE of the LORD and Savior Jesus Christ--they ONLY Cared about the Resurrection and Ascension. If the supposed Historical Jesus had NO impact on Canonized Apologetic sources then it is NOT expected that he would have any INFLUENCE on Non-Apologetc sources. And that is PRECISELY the case. ALL SOURCES--Apologetic and Non-apologetic-- did NOT write about Jesus or did NOT write about him as human. We have a Big Black Hole for an historical Jesus in the 1st century even if it assumed Apologetic sources were in the 1st century. Once there was NO actual historical Jesus we are ONLY left with Stories and it was the Stories that were Believed in antiquity. The evidence suggests that it was Anonymous stories of Jesus that were Believed in the 2nd century.

04-26-2012, 05:11 PM	#4
tanya Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: middle east Posts: 829	Thank you aa5874, for taking the time to develop your ideas, in a systematic summary. Well done. Your effort, industriousness, and credibility are noted, with enthusiasm, here.....

04-27-2012, 07:55 AM	#7
another1 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: eastern united states Posts: 693	I was under the impression that the Bible is a relatively accurate record of lineage (regardless what has been added ot taken away) and Jesus was a man who did live. I'm pretty sure that there was a man named Jesus who did have some sort of political career that shaped history significantly. Did he have magic powers? Probably not, because magic is not real in my opinion. Are you stating that you think Jesus never lived, or that superhero Jesus never lived?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.