Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

Mythbuster said:
The Shroud of Turin was false. Worms where the cause and also paint. It was busted in 1993. Also it doesn't prove jesus anyways.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reply, Mythbuster, but I was not referring to the Shroud of Turin in my post. The link answers two questions, “Did Jesus really exist? And what's with the Shroud of Turin?” It was the first question and the first answer that was highlighted in my post that points to the historicity of Jesus.

"Certainly the non-Christians who wrote about him in the years following his putative death did not doubt he had once lived. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody." From http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html

“There is plenty of historical evidence, from a variety of sources, that Jesus existed. No one who takes the trouble to familiarize herself with the evidence can doubt it. The "Enlightenment" position that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth, itinerant Jewish preacher, is quite dead.” (quoted from Dan Berger, Faculty Chemistry/Science, Bluffton College)
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb99/919714996.Sh.r.html
 
On a slightly disruptive side note, I thought the saying was "cut to the chase", not "cut through the chase". :confused:
 
"Chase" slightly better on the thread list than "bullcrap".

Jesus existed all right. Here's my proof: when they wrote the Gospels it was very important to them to emphasise that He was the Jewish Messiah, consequently it was necessary for Him to be in direct line of descent from King David, and that He be born in Bethlehem-Ephrata.

Therefore the two Evangelists who decided to include a Nativity tale in their biographies of Jesus, chose those tales that had Jesus being born in Bethlehem. As a matter of interest, they chose completely different and inconsistent tales: In Matthew, Joseph and Mary live somewhere, probably Bethlehem. Mary falls pregnant, and Joseph is ready to cancel the betrothal The Angel comes to Joseph and tells him that the baby was conceived through the Holy Spirit and to "take Mary home", ie go through with the betrothal. After Jesus was born "in Bethlehem", the Magi come from the East and visit Herod in Jerusalem, asking where the new King is. Herod is concerned and wants to know about the new King (so he can have him killed) and sends them in the direction of Bethlehem (where scripture tells him any Messiah will be born). They visit Mary in a house, please note, and pay homage. An angel comes again and advises Joseph to get out of Bethlehem, and to flee to Egypt. From Egypt Joseph is scared to return to Bethlehem because he trusts Herod's successor there, Archelaus, no more than he did Herod himself, so he takes himself and his family to Nazareth in Galilee.

In the book of Luke, Mary is kinswoman of Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Mary lives in Nazareth in Galilee, and it is there that she is visited by the angel Gabriel, who tells her about her conception by the Holy Spirit. Later Augustus Caesar announced the census which caused Joseph to take Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem (it's quite specific), where Jesus is born. It does not say whereabouts he was born, but there is no mention of a stable, of ox and ass or anything more barnyard-specific than the one mention of a manger.

So what can we deduce from this? What do these stories have in common? Why, only that Jesus was a Galilean from the town of Nazareth - a factor common to all the Gospels. It was necessary to the Evangelists, to the early Christian community as a whole, to believe that Jesus was the promised Davidic Messiah, and that therefore he had to have been born in Bethlehem. It certainly wasn't part of any substantial prophecy that the Messiah be a native of Galilee (quite the opposite, in fact - the Davidic Messiah was predicted to be born in Bethlehem in order to ensure that at the very least He would be a Judahite. But Galilee is in Samaria (formerly Israel).

If the early Christians were making up a Davidic Messiah out of whole cloth, surely He would be Bethlehem born and raised, a Judahite who was perfectly at home in Jerusalem. But it seems that Jesus being a Galilean was simply too well known by people who would remember having seen Him - and of course, the Apostles carrying the new Church forward were themselves Galilean.

It is quite clear, then, that a fictional Jesus would never have been depicted as having come from a Northern backwater fishing port, with the retroactive fitting of one or other Bethlehemite birth story. He would have been depicted as coming from Bethlehem in Judah, and no-one would ever have heard of Nazareth. Clearly Jesus was a Nazarene, a Galilean, then, and just as clearly He must have existed in real life.

I'm afraid that Luigi Casciola is quite evidently a nutter. First of all, his theory is specifically designed to deal with the Galilee/Bethlehem dilemma, and brings in all sorts of nonsense such as Jesus never being called Jesus. Secondly, what kind of serious scholar would publicise his work through a court case? That makes him a mere publicity seeker. And thirdly, to have specifically picked on his old Seminarian mate, an apparently perfectly blameless priest, indicates to me that Casciola is working out some agenda that undoubtedly involves some personal slight from his youth
 
Ooh, if you're online, Devil, I'm quite keen to know your opinion of my theory.
 
Silas said:
"Chase" slightly better on the thread list than "bullcrap".

Jesus existed all right. Here's my proof: when they wrote the Gospels it was very important to them to emphasise that He was the Jewish Messiah, consequently it was necessary for Him to be in direct line of descent from King David, and that He be born in Bethlehem-Ephrata.
Click to expand...

correct. there are more requirements, but this one is true. the messiah must be of davidic lineage.


Silas said:
Therefore the two Evangelists who decided to include a Nativity tale in their biographies of Jesus, chose those tales that had Jesus being born in Bethlehem. As a matter of interest, they chose completely different and inconsistent tales: In Matthew, Joseph and Mary live somewhere, probably Bethlehem. Mary falls pregnant, and Joseph is ready to cancel the betrothal The Angel comes to Joseph and tells him that the baby was conceived through the Holy Spirit and to "take Mary home", ie go through with the betrothal. After Jesus was born "in Bethlehem", the Magi come from the East and visit Herod in Jerusalem, asking where the new King is. Herod is concerned and wants to know about the new King (so he can have him killed) and sends them in the direction of Bethlehem (where scripture tells him any Messiah will be born). They visit Mary in a house, please note, and pay homage. An angel comes again and advises Joseph to get out of Bethlehem, and to flee to Egypt. From Egypt Joseph is scared to return to Bethlehem because he trusts Herod's successor there, Archelaus, no more than he did Herod himself, so he takes himself and his family to Nazareth in Galilee.

In the book of Luke, Mary is kinswoman of Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Mary lives in Nazareth in Galilee, and it is there that she is visited by the angel Gabriel, who tells her about her conception by the Holy Spirit. Later Augustus Caesar announced the census which caused Joseph to take Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem (it's quite specific), where Jesus is born. It does not say whereabouts he was born, but there is no mention of a stable, of ox and ass or anything more barnyard-specific than the one mention of a manger.

So what can we deduce from this? What do these stories have in common? Why, only that Jesus was a Galilean from the town of Nazareth - a factor common to all the Gospels. It was necessary to the Evangelists, to the early Christian community as a whole, to believe that Jesus was the promised Davidic Messiah, and that therefore he had to have been born in Bethlehem. It certainly wasn't part of any substantial prophecy that the Messiah be a native of Galilee (quite the opposite, in fact - the Davidic Messiah was predicted to be born in Bethlehem in order to ensure that at the very least He would be a Judahite. But Galilee is in Samaria (formerly Israel).

If the early Christians were making up a Davidic Messiah out of whole cloth, surely He would be Bethlehem born and raised, a Judahite who was perfectly at home in Jerusalem. But it seems that Jesus being a Galilean was simply too well known by people who would remember having seen Him - and of course, the Apostles carrying the new Church forward were themselves Galilean.

It is quite clear, then, that a fictional Jesus would never have been depicted as having come from a Northern backwater fishing port, with the retroactive fitting of one or other Bethlehemite birth story. He would have been depicted as coming from Bethlehem in Judah, and no-one would ever have heard of Nazareth. Clearly Jesus was a Nazarene, a Galilean, then, and just as clearly He must have existed in real life.
Click to expand...

the only thing i have to add to this is that there is speculation that the "of nazareth" actually refers to a group of fellows jesus was associated with, called "Nazoreans", which translates to "little fish". they were basically a cult of gnostic/jews that lived in the wilderness. but i fully agree with the rest of what you wrote here.

Silas said:
I'm afraid that Luigi Casciola is quite evidently a nutter. First of all, his theory is specifically designed to deal with the Galilee/Bethlehem dilemma, and brings in all sorts of nonsense such as Jesus never being called Jesus. Secondly, what kind of serious scholar would publicise his work through a court case? That makes him a mere publicity seeker. And thirdly, to have specifically picked on his old Seminarian mate, an apparently perfectly blameless priest, indicates to me that Casciola is working out some agenda that undoubtedly involves some personal slight from his youth
Click to expand...

yes, i agree that jesus having a day in court is ridiculous. is that what the italians pay taxes for? *shrug* i suppose that you are correct in saying that mr. casciola is just fishing for some publicity, and a little fame from his local atheists club.
i mean...who cares if jesus existed? does it change anything really? no.
the christians will just keep saying that he did, regardless of what evidence is found for his nonexistence.
i personally believe he did, but again...who cares?
:m:
 
Also, when will you uptight atheistic fools realize that all the science of today is also not true and you are living a BIG FAT LIE. Science in 100 years will be completely different from now. So that means there are many LIES in science that exist right now, but you fools believe it to be 100% true. How unnaturally ignorant.
Click to expand...

It's dip-shits like these that really tick me off!.

Hey dip shit! quit using the fucking computer, it's a BigFatLie, because it took science to make it work, quit using electricity, it took science to make it's discovery, quit using shit that a scientist first thougt out hypothesis, and today it's actual product!.

The ingnorant jackass that make statements like these, are the proof! that idiots still exist who claim science has done nothing, to better their life, and yet they don't realize that it took science to by typing their idiotic shit, in an electonic forum.

Pathetic idiots!.

Godless
 
Godless said:
Pathetic idiots!.
Click to expand...

Now, now...

You're apt to offend regular idiots who'll feel left out.

You wouldn't want to have to explain to them why they can't be pathetic also.


:p
 
Mythbuster said:
Medicine Woman,

Crtics claim that Josephus was forged. That, however is a silly argument.First of all, there is no proof that such insertions into the text were ever made. They may be authentic. The Testimonium is found in every copy of Jesusphus in existence. Second, Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute.This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things.Third, this refrence to Jesus is found in all surviving manuscripts. Fourth, Quoted in full by Eusebius(Chruch historian), c. 324 CE. Fith, the Vocabulary and style are generally consistent with that of Josephus. sixth, A more accepted reference to Jesus in Book 20 indicates that he must have been described earlier in the Antiquities, logically at the discussion of Pilate. So, the burden of proof is on the person who denies this refrence. As for Taticus, he affirms what is written in the Gospels.

Sorry im a bit confused.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: The following link provides a thorough study of the works of Josephus, Tacitus, and other writers of their day:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

The following reference provides additional testimony toward the discrepancies in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, et al.:

http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

And, the following link provides additional comparison on the works of the classical writers:

http://www.new-tradition.org/classical.htm
 
Discrepancies and inconsitency only support the idea that Jesus was a real person. If he was fake, it would have been simple to tell one consistent story.
 
spidergoat said:
Discrepancies and inconsitency only support the idea that Jesus was a real person. If he was fake, it would have been simple to tell one consistent story.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Not so. None of the classical writers knew Jesus personally, therefore, everthing written about Jesus was penned after his alleged death. The church had absolute possession and control of all the early writers' works, and the forgeries were most likely done by the early church fathers. Did you read the references?
 
But the was no one "church" in the early days of Christianity, there were many, often disagreeing with each other.
 
Something that still happens to this day. Even now the multitude of different christians believe different things and aspects to be true or false. The reason for this is that they're making a guess from the meager writing they have to work with. It is an indication that truth is not a part of the whole affair and never was.

You would think that god's disciples would all sit down together and write the most important story in universal history while managing to get the details right. It is of utmost importance to know what god's last words were, what time he died etc etc - and yet even the disciples that were supposedly there cannot agree with each other.

Any other source is from after his supposed death and thus has no relevance to the issue.
 
Last edited:
i mean...who cares if jesus existed? does it change anything really? no.
the christians will just keep saying that he did, regardless of what evidence is found for his nonexistence.

Exactly, many of todays Christians ignore hard facts in favor of fantasy, it's a far stretch to think they would suddenly appeal to rationality, especially when it comes to questioning their idol's very existence.
 
According to the Gnostics, the manner of death of Jesus had little significance. They also believed that being able to generate a variety of ideas was a sign of religious health. I also don't think Jesus was trying to establish truth, but rather create a new kind of social order.
 
spidergoat said:
Discrepancies and inconsitency only support the idea that Jesus was a real person. If he was fake, it would have been simple to tell one consistent story.
Click to expand...
wrong: the stories were verbally told and retold, just like chinese whispers, hence so many inconsistencies, also what of the many translation this would also make for a lot of inconsistencies.
 
jesus only taught human truths, really.
it WOULD be nice if everyone loved their neighbor, gave their stuff away to folks that needed it, gave aid to the sick, etc.
the problem with ideas like this is that humans in general cant digest these kinds of selfless concepts without adding structure, order, and hierarchy to it.

our very natures are selfish.
jesus just tried to get folks to stop being such giant assholes. i agree with him.
:p
:m:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top