sighhswolf

I just read through the posts in response to your inquiry concerning Jesus.
It does not really matter to me if there was in fact a flesh and blood human being known as Jesus.
It does however matter that the early christians found no problem spreading lies, misrepresentations, and a huge amount of embellishment concerning this figure.
The usual Christian response to those who question the historicity of Jesus is to palm off various documents as "historical evidence" for the existence of Jesus. They usually start with the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The usual claim is that these are "eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus made by his disciples." The reply to this argument can be summed up in one word--pseudepigraphic. This term refers to works of writing whose authors conceal their true identities behind the names of legendary characters from the past. Pseudepigraphic writing was particularly popular among the Jews during Hashmonean and Roman periods and this style of writing was adopted by the early Christians. Christians claim that several reliable historians recorded information about Jesus. Although some of these historians are more or less accepted, they do not provide verifiable information about Jesus.
Christians claim that the Jewish historian Josephus recorded information about Jesus in his book Jewish Antiquities (published c. 93 - 94 C.E.). This book contains information about the three false Messiahs, Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Benjamin the Egyptian, and that the character of Jesus appears to be based on all of them in part, but none of them can be regarded as the historical Jesus. In the Christian edited versions of the Jewish Antiquities there are two passages dealing with Jesus as portrayed in Christian religious works. Neither of these passages are found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E. and so the conclusion is that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added in. Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief. Next the Christians will point to the Annals by Tacitus. In the Annals XV,44, Tacitus describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome in 64 C.E. He mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person named Christus who had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias. It is true that the name "Christians" is derived from Christ or Christus (Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made by the Christians themselves. They appeared in the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, which had already been widely circulated when the Annals were being written. (The Annals were published after 115 C.E. and were certainly not written before 110 C.E.) True, the Annals contains a sentence in which "Christus" is spoken of as a real person, this sentence was based purely on Christian claims and beliefs which are of no historical value. It is amazing to me that modern Christians use Tacitus to back up their beliefs since he was the least accurate of all Roman historians. He justifies hatred of Christians by saying that they committed abominations. Besides "Christus" he also speaks of various pagan gods as if they really exist. His summary of Middle East history in his book the Histories is so distorted as to be laughable. So based on his track record of reliability his single mention of Christus cannot be taken as evidence of an historical Jesus. Once Tacitus is dismissed, the Christians will claim that one of the younger Pliny's letters to the emperor Trajan provides evidence of an historical Jesus. (Letters X, 96.) The letter in question simply mentions that certain Christians had cursed "Christ" to avoid being punished. It does not claim that this Christ really existed. The letter in question was written before Pliny's death in c. 114 C.E. but after he was sent to Bithynia in 111 C.E., probably in the year 112 C.E. Thus it provides nothing more than a confirmation of the trivial fact that around the beginning of the twelfth decade C.E. Christians did not normally curse something called "Christ" although some had done it to avoid punishment, it provides no evidence of an historical Jesus. Christians will also claim that Suetonius recorded evidence of Jesus in his book Lives of the Caesars (also known as The Twelve Caesars). The passage in question is Claudius 25, where he mentions that the emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome (apparently in 49 C.E.) because they caused continual disturbances at the instigation of a certain Chrestus. If one blindly assumes that "Chrestus" refers to Jesus then, if anything, this passage contradicts the Christian story of Jesus. Jesus was supposed to have been crucified when Pontius Pilate was procurator (26 - 36 C.E.) during the reign of Tiberias and, moreover, he was never supposed to have been in Rome! Suetonius lived during the period c. 75 - 150 C.E. and his book, Lives of the Caesars, was published during the period 119 - 120 C.E., having been written some time after Domitian's death in 96 C.E. Thus the event he describes occurred at least 45 years before he was writing about it and no one can be assured of it's authenticity. The name Chrestus is derived from the Greek Chrestos meaning "good one" and it is not the same as Christ or Christus which are derived from the Greek Christos meaning "anointed one/Messiah." If we take the passage at face value it refers to a person named Chrestus who was in Rome and who had nothing to do with Jesus or any other "Christ." The term Chrestos was often applied to pagan gods and many of the people in Rome called "Jews" were actually people who mixed Jewish beliefs with pagan beliefs and who were not necessarily of Jewish descent. Thus it is also possible that the passage refers to conflicts involving these pagan "Jews" who worshipped a pagan god (such as Sebazios) titled Chrestos. On the other hand, the words Chrestos and Christos were often confused and so the passage might even be referring to some conflict involving Jews who believed that some person was the Messiah. This person may or may not have actually been in Rome and for all we know, he may not even have been a real historical person. One should bear in mind that the described event took place just several years after the crucifixion of the false Messiah Theudas in 44 C.E., and the passage may be referring to his followers in Rome.
Christians claim that the passage refers to Jesus and conflicts arising after Paul brought news of him to Rome and that Suetonius was only mistaken about Jesus himself being in Rome. However, this interpretation is based on blind belief in Jesus and the myths about Paul and there is nothing to suggest that it is the correct interpretation. So Suetonius also fails to provide any reliable evidence of an historical Jesus. All other writers who mention Jesus, from Justin Martyr in the second century C.E. to the latest expounders of Christian myth in the twentieth century, have all based their references to Jesus on the sources that have been discredited.

Many non-christian scholars believe that there is absolutely no reliable and acceptable historical evidence of Jesus. All references to Jesus are derived from the superstitious beliefs and myths of the early Christian community. The majority of these beliefs only came into existence after the persecution by Nero and the tragedy of 70 C.E. Many of these beliefs are based on the pagan legends about the gods Tammuz, Osiris, Attis, Dionysus and the sun god Mithras. Other myths about Jesus appear to be based on various different historical people such as the convicted criminals Yeishu ben Pandeira and ben Stada, and the crucified false Messiahs Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin, but none of these people can be regarded as an historical Jesus.
All of the above information is readily available from many different sources.
I dont claim to be a historian, but you really dont have to look very hard to find this information, you can visit any of the Jewish anti-missionary web sites and find reams of this type of info, which is where most of this information did in fact come from.
The fact that the information came from anti christian sites is of no real importance, because it does not change the information.
Just because the people who present the information are biased doesnt discredit the information itself.

Along with the information above I find it difficult to believe anything written in the New Testament gospels.
Why?
Quote from Paul, "For if the truth of god hath more abounded by my LIE unto his glory, why yet am I adjudged a sinner?"
Romans 3:7

Volume 2 chapter 3 of the visions of Hermas, "O
lord I never spoke a true word in my life, I have always affirmed a lie as truth to all men and no man contradicted me: instead they all gave credit to my works".

Gregory of Nazanius a 4th century church father and Bishop of Caesarea wrote to St. Jerome, " A
little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people.
The less they comprehend, the more they admire".

In "The decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
Eusebius himself indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has "suppressed" all that would tend to the "disgrace" of religion. (chapter 16)

Augustine of Hippo said, " It is lawful then to him that discusses disputes and preaches of things eternal or to him that narrates of things temporal pertaining to religion or piety to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed."

In the "History of Christianity" Gibbon states,"Orthodox theologians were tempted by the assurance of impunity to compose fictions which must be stigmatized with the epithets of fraud and forgery.
They ascribed their own polemical works to the most venerable names of christian antiquity".

Yes a quote is just that a "quote" and I certainly cannot prove the validity of these quotes either way but, the same argument that theologians use to validate biblical texts and the historicity of Jesus, "the proponderance of evidence" can be used against them in this particular area.
When early church fathers are known to embellish the truth, and lie to the glory of their icon, it
casts doubts in my mind as to the authenticity
or validity of anything written in the NT.
Examine some of the statements attributed to early church fathers.
Eusebius said on some occassions the bodies of martyrs who had been devoured by wild beasts, upon the beasts being strangled were found alive in their stomachs.
Augustine when he was bishop of Hippo, records a trip into Ethopia to preach the gospels.
He says he saw many men and women with no heads, who had two great eyes in their breasts.
And in countries further south he saw people who had one eye in the middle of their foreheads.
Come on......how could you believe a word these people said??

I find it very interesting to read Moshe Maimonides and the Jewish code of law.
It is recorded there, the exact prerequisites and conditions that must be fulfilled in order to wear the mantle of "Messiah", and what accomplishments will be used to qualify the Jewish messiah.
Mishne Torah--Kings 11:4
"If a king will arise from the house of David, who is learned in the Torah, observant of the commandments as prescribed by the written law and oral law as David his ancestor was,
And he will compell all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and reinforce the breaches in it's observance, and he will fight the wars of god, we may presume that he is the Messiah.
If he does these things and is FULLY SUCCESSFUL
builds the third temple in it's place and gathers the dispersed of Israel then he is definately the Messiah.
If he did not succeed to this degree, or was killed, he surely is NOT the Messiah promised in the Torah".
Are there two different Jesus'?
The one written about in the new testament, and the one the Jews had contact with, and lived with?
Ahhhh yes the "second coming".
That is a total fabrication of doctrine on the parts of early church fathers.
There is absolutely no concrete information, or prophecy that says anything at all about a second coming in Jewish oral and written law.
Zero...nada...zip...you only get one chance to wear the mantle...sorry Jesus failed, according to his contemporaries.

So was there a real flesh and blood historical figure called Jesus?
I would not go so far as to comment that Jesus did not exist. I can say that there is a huge amount of data that indicates that he was not the person depicted in the New Testament.
I would see him as a revolutionary, a champion obsessed with breaking the bonds of the Jews from the Roman oppressors.
He preached a very clear message..and that message was NEVER intended to be aimed at anyone other than the Jews, and that was that the kingdom of god on earth was at hand.
"I come quickly"....Jesus was convinced that gods kingdom on earth would be established within his own lifetime, and that the lost sheep of Israel were to be rounded up and brought into the kingdom.
He had no care in the world about gentiles.....
he preached to the lost sheep of Israel.
If you are still looking for good material to read
here is a list you may want to check out.
Have a nice day,
Wolf

1) J. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991. (Examines how ancient myths were misused by the early church and misrepresented as history.) 2) J. Campbell, Occidental Mythology, Penguin Books, reprinted 1985. (An exposition of religious mythology in western civilization. Includes important evidence concerning the borrowing of pagan myths by Christianity.) 3) E.D. Cohen, The Mind of the Bible-Believer, Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991. (Uncovers the psychological ploys around which the New Testament is built and exposes the adverse effects of Christian fundamentalism.) 4) R. Helms, Gospel Fictions, Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991. (Exposes the gospels as being largely fictional documents composed as a culmination to an extensive mythological tradition.) 5) S. Levine, You Take Jesus and I'll Take God: How to Refute Christian Missionaries, revised edition, Hamoroh Press, Los Angeles, 1980. (Exposes the tricks used by missionaries and the misquotations of the Tanach in the New Testament.) 6) J.M. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity, 2nd Ed., Watts & Co., London 1913. (One of the first serious academic investigations into the origins of Christianity. Exposes the elements of the Jesus story borrowed from pagan myths.)

BLoggins02

Yes

gixxer750

This is perhaps the worst miss-quotation of scripture I have ever seen. It puts a bad taste in my mouth. However, as easier as it would make my life, I know that I cannot discount the other things you said based on this one thing !

Well, to you and to BLoggins, I have to confess that I really don't have a response to the "meat" of your arguments. What I can tell you is that you have shown me how much I have to learn. The whole of Christianity either stands or falls with the resurrection (Paul DID say that if Christ did not rise from the dead [our] faith is in vain). And the resurrection really stands or falls with the New Testament gospels. I have people telling me that the gospels are reliable historically, and I have others telling me that they are not, so what am I to do???

Well, I will start by examing it myself. I have already had a number of books reccommended to me by a regular of this web site, so I will look into those. I will have to return once I have some answers I guess... I simply am not equipped to deal with your responses. Anyway, its been fun, and BLoggins - if you get into riding, get a Gixxer - its red and white and it goes like stink!

DAVE

sighhswolf

Dave,
When I first started a quest looking for some truth.......whatever that turned out to be,
I had never questioned the historicity of Jesus.
I took part in an email discussion group moderated by Earl Doherty and Elaine Pagels.
It never once dawned on me that maybe this person never even existed.
But the more I read, the more information I looked at, and taking part in discussions with
some of the people working within the Jesus Seminars, the more damning was the conclusion.
Without the character of Jesus, there is no
christianity, be aware that gods "chosen people"
do not recognize Jesus as messiah and for some really good reasons.
If you take a really objective look at all of the evidence pro/con and come to your own conclusion
that is really the only thing that matters, you will have looked at both sides and not blindly followed the rest of the sheep.
Wolf

Danya

gixxer750,

I hope no matter what happens you decide to return here and continue to post. I have found your posts to be sincere and mature in all of the threads you have participated in.

BLoggins02

gixxer: You've done the right thing. I never took anything based on other people's word. I always did my own research. Only then can you come to what YOU truly believe. And yes, if I decide to start riding a gixxer will probably be my second bike, too much power for my first bike.

sighhswolf:

I have to agree with gixxer on the Romans 3:7 thing. While I'm certainly not the biggest fan of Paul, in reading the surrounding context of the quote I can see that Paul is probably not advocating what he is saying. It looks more like a slippery slope argument (3:8 "And why not then say..." 3:9 "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all..."). Indeed his whole point seems to be to drive home the oft-quoted "As it is written 'There is none righteous, no, not one.'" 3:10

Of course if anyone has a better perspective on the quote, please feel free to chime in and enlighten, but I do believe that this was taken out of context.

However, I applaud Gixxer for not using that as an excuse to dismiss the entire argument. Intellectual honesty is so refreshing these days.

And wolf, as for the rest of your post: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />