Jesus Is Never Coming Back !

[EdwardAbbey]

Look up to the sky all ye Christian soldiers, for the return of the Lord is never going to happen !

 

It really must be extremely frustrating for Christians that the promise of Jesus has taken so long to come to pass. Those poor Christians. They’ve been believing this lie for so long now. When are they going to come to their senses and realize it’s never going to happen. Jesus is never coming back to save them from the imaginary “anti-Christ !

 

The fact of the matter is, how can the biblical Jesus ever come back anyway? He never came in the first place !

 

So why don’t all you Christians just abandon your irrational beliefs and enter into the world of the enlightenment already. Come up to the light of reason before it’s too late.

[xild]

But these are the end times. And when Jesus returns, after we all rapture up and you guys are all stuck down here, you'll be sorry....Oh yeh, you'll be cryin then...hoooweee...

[Ouroboros]

If the story in Revelation is true, the Antichrist will come first, and he will the most powerful leader in the most powerful country in the world, and claim that he brings peace, but will do it through wars... oh... that sure does sound familiar to some very Christian leader we all know of...

[Ramen666]

Babble Jesus is just a part of the Christian religion not the Jewish religion remeber that because technically the "Messiah" has still not even came once because Jesus is not him. The more and more I hear "Jesus will return." Lets look at this closely it is not possible. Another flaw ( I wonder how many flaws are in the Babble)

 

These verse which basically ends the argument and proves the whole thing is crap

 

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 24:29-35 NAB)

 

^

^

 

To Han Solo does bring up a good point, the whole Anti-Christ thing, however there is a flaw in that. Sorry Han I have to tell you, no one likes George Bush and the Senate is stepping on his power. Which I say is a good thing, democracy at work at least. Another thing about the Anti-Christ (which messess up Christianity even more) BILLIONS of people are suppose to follow him and worship him. The most that worshiped Jeezus was at least 1,000 plus. Sp even Christians will follow the Anti-Christ but since it is written in the Bible wouldn't they know?

[Ouroboros]

I don't remember the Revelations saying people would like antichrist, only that he would have power of the other countries int he world, but I could be wrong.

[freeday]

actually you are wrong. Jesus came back in 1914, you just missed out on the information because you are not one of the 144,000 and you are going to hell. well according to the JW's anyway. i think adding the impending doom really increased the percieved need for Jesus and increased the spread. when reading the apostle paul, you feel as if it is going to occurr in that generation. i guess he was mislead.

[Lycorth]

when reading the apostle paul, you feel as if it is going to occurr in that generation. i guess he was mislead.

 

Precisely - if one reads the plain text of the Babble, it is clearly stated (by Jebus himself) that he will return within the generation of the Apostles.

 

Since it hasn't happened, it's logical to infer that the Babble is in error.

[garrisonjj]

Look up to the sky all ye Christian soldiers, for the return of the Lord is never going to happen !

 

It really must be extremely frustrating for Christians that the promise of Jesus has taken so long to come to pass. Those poor Christians. They’ve been believing this lie for so long now. When are they going to come to their senses and realize it’s never going to happen. Jesus is never coming back to save them from the imaginary “anti-Christ !

 

The fact of the matter is, how can the biblical Jesus ever come back anyway? He never came in the first place !

 

So why don’t all you Christians just abandon your irrational beliefs and enter into the world of the enlightenment already. Come up to the light of reason before it’s too late.

 

 

One more example of tians holding the fuckin carrot out for you! I've so had it with religions,christs and fuckin gods. They don't exist for me and all that worship and devoutness just fucks a person up. Hows that for a second cumming?????

[Trancelation]

Agreed. Jesus is never coming back. Indeed, if he ever existed in the first place. I have no intention to play kissy-kissy with the Christians and admit there is even a remote possibility that Jesus Christ ever existed, even as a mortal man with stolen ideas that got turned into a Pagan-esque god-man by a closet homo. There is no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed, ergo, there is no reason to think he would have ever left to be able to come back.

[Mythra]

You guys are living proof that his return is imminent.

 

In the last days there will be scoffers. Ex-C is full of em..

 

In fact, this site could be the very thing that provides the proper fulfillment to allow the return of our glorious savior. And, he's bringing a sword. Run for the hills, you godless heathens. He's gonna scatter your ass from hell to breakfast. Then you won't think this shit is so goddamn funny. You just wait and see. I believe. I do. No, really. I do. He's coming. No bullshit. Seriously. He is. Soon.

 

Here's what you have to look forward to, you filthy minions of Satan:

 

[Mythra]

You want proof he's coming back? Take a look at the times he was predicted to be coming back, but never showed up:

 

From Heimdall's blog Bifrost the Rainbow Bridge

 

The End of the World is a common belief among all religions, but the Christians have really made a “career” of End of the World predictions:

 

2800 BCE – An Assyrian clay tablet declares, “Our earth is degenerate in these latter days, there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common.

634 BCE – Many Romans believe Rome will be destroyed 120 years following it founding as foretold by twelve eagles that once appeared to Romulus, each believed to represent 10 years,

6th Century BCE (actually written in 2nd Century BCE) – The Book of Daniel predicts the End of Time. He declares, “ I kept looking in the night visions and behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like the Son of Man was coming [7:13]. The author also mentions that many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. [12:2]

Early 1st Century CE??? – Jesus declared, “This generation shall not pass away until all will be fulfilled.” Early Christians believed the End would occur during their lifetime. Jesus also said, “Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” [Matthew 16:28]

66-70 CE – The Essenes, a Jewish ascetic sect with apocalyptic beliefs, man have interpreted the Jewish revolt against the Romans as the final battle.

70 CE – The founder of the founder of the 19th century Opeida sect, John Humphrey Noyes, claimed the Second Advent had already taken place with the fall of Jerusalem (naturally, with only believers seeing it).

Late 1st Century CE – The Book of Revelation foretells an apocalypse followed by the creation of a new heavens and a new earth.

The ecstatic Montanists held that Christ was to arrive during their generation and was to appear at Pepuza, in Phrygia (in modern Turkey), designated by the group as “New Jerusalem”.

247 CE – As Rome celebrates it’s thousandth anniversary, persecutions increase against Christians, making many of them believe the world was coming to an end.

365 CE – The famous Christian saint, Hilary of Poitiers, believes the world would end this year.

380 CE – A North African sect, the Donatists, asserted this year marked the End.

Late 4th Century – St. Martin of Tours declared, “There is no doubt that the Antichrist has already been born. Firmly established, already in his early years he will, after reaching maturity, achieve supreme power.”

500 CE – Julius Africanus (160-240) theorized that the world would end approximately 6000 years after the creation of the planet, hence the Second Coming would occur around 500 CE – The Christian apologist Irenaeus as well as Hippolytus also held to 500 CE as the date of the return of Jesus Christ.

793 CE – The Spanish monk Beatus of Lieband prophesied the end of the world on Easter eve 793, causing the present crowd to panic. Everyone fasted throughout the night and were relieved to discover they were alive and well the next day.

848 CE – The prophetess Thiota believed 848 was the final year.

970 CE – Catharingian felt they had calculated the exact date of the end of the world, with Christ’s arrival set for Friday, March 25 970 – for coincidentally both the celebration of the Annunciation and Good Friday shared this very same date. Furthermore, they were confident that this day also marked Adam’s creation, Isaac’s sacrifice, the Red Sea’s parting, both Jesus’s conception and crucifixion. They figured how could the End of Days manage to miss such a well-established tradition?

992 CE – Bernard of Thuringia believed the consummation of all things would occur in the year 992.

1000 CE – Many Christians in late antiquity and during the early medieval period (including St Augustine) were sure that the year 1000 marked the end of the world. Panic gripped many in western Europe and some people even left their homes to wait for the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem.

1033 CE – When Jesus did not arrive a thousand years after the date of his “calculated” birth, various Christian mystics asserted that the end would occur a thousand years after his Crucifixion. The entire early eleventh century was a period of constant rumors that the end was near (as recorded by the Burgundian monk Radulfus Glaber).

1100 CE – Somehow the year 1100 became the next year believed to mark impending doom for all humanity.

1184 CE – Rather than Christ, 1184 was the date set for the arrival of the Antichrist.

1186 CE – john of Toledo foresaw the end of the world as encoded within the cosmos, noting that the planetary alignment occurring in Libra on September 23, 1186 would spell certain doom.

1200 CE – Once again, the end predicted based on the neatness of the numbers matched in hundreds. One of the advocated of this date was Italian mystic Joahim of Fiore (1135-1202), but he also added the end could happen as late as 1260.

1284 CE – It is recorded that Pope Innocent III expected the Second Coming to occur 666 years following the rise of Islam – and so calculated the year 1284.

1290 CE – Followers of Joachim of Fione decided their mystic really meant 1290 to mark the End.

1306 CE – Establishing the idea that the beginning of the Millennium began with the advent of Roman emperor Constantine’s reign in the year 306, Gerard of Poehide(in 1147) determined the release of Satan would occur about 1306.

1335 CE – Not willing to give up on their teacher’s calculations, the followers of Joachim of Fiore extended his predictions to 1335.

1366 CE – French ascetic, Jean de Roquetailiade determined the Milennium would start between 1368 and 1370, with the Antichrist’s arrival set for 1366.

1367 CE – Militz of Mromeriz, a Czech archdeacon, asserted the End would occur around 1367.

1378 CE – Once more, the followers of Joachim of Fiore (now called Joachites) cam up with yet another date – this was set by

Arnold of Vilanova, in his De Tempore Ativento Antichristia in his reinterpretation, the antichrist’s reign would begin in 1378.

1420 CE – The Taborites (directly related to the Hussites of Bohemia) predicted the finality of all things to occur in 1420 and calculated this event right down to the month, February. The main proponent of this belief was the Czech prophet Martinek Hausha.

1500 CE – Enamored by the mystique of the double zeros, 1500 became the next target date of the end.

1524 CE – According to certain English astrologers, the end of the world would begin in London on the first of February. The report is that 20,000 people fled their homes, expecting the first sign to be a giant flood. February 1st ended up being a relatively calm, rainless day. Because of the planetary alignment with Pisces, astrologer Johannes Stoeffler determined the End (again with a flood because Pisces was considered a water sign) would occur on Feruary 24th.

1532 CE – Aviennese bishop by the name of Frederick Nausea believed the end was near when he heard about crosses dripped in blood manifesting beside a comet.

1533 CE – During this period in general, a group called the Anabaptists began to predict the end of the world on various dates. The End occurring in the year 1533 was advanced by their prophet Melchior Hoffman, who thought Christ would first come to Strasbourg. According to his theology only 144,000 people would be saved, with everyone else burned by fire.

1534 CE – Another Anabaptist, Jan Matthys, calculated the End on Easter Day, April 5, 1534. Only those at Munster would survive the impending destruction.

1583 CE – At exactly noontime on April 28th 1583, with the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, Christ was supposed to come again, at least that’s what astrologer Richard Harvey thought.

1600 CE – It is recorded that Martin Luther believed the world would end before 1600.

1603 CE – Tomasso Campanella, a Dominican monk, had this hot notion that the sun would collide with the Earth this year.

1648 CE – A rabbi from Smyrna, Turkey, by the name of Sabbatai Zevi calculated using the Kabbalah that the Messiah would appear this year and that his Messiah was indeed him!

1666 CE – The Great Fire of London this year only encouraged Christians and Jews alike to believe the End was at hand; in a rare display of ecumenical apocaplyptism. Jews believed the Messiah was to appear and Christians expected the second coming of Christ. Christians simply figured that the first 1000 years represented the millennium and that if they added the number of the Beast, 666 to this number, they would reach the time of the Apocalypse.

1694 CE – The German prophet Johann Jacob Zimmerman believed Jesus would return this year in the New World, after intensive biblical as well as astrological studies. He gathered pilgrims to accompany him to America, known as the Woman of the Wilderness, but died before they could leave. Johannes Kelpius took Zimmerman’s place and led everyone to the Americas, but Jesus never appeared.

1697 CE – Famous witch hunter Cotton Mather believed the End out occur this year.

1733 CE – Long before, Sir Isaac Newton predicted the End for this year.

1736 CE – William Whiston of Cambridge said the Apocalypse would happen on October 13, 1736, destroying the Sodom of what was London of his day.

1757 CE – Emanuel Swedenborg in a mystical vision, was told 1757 was the big year!

1763 CE – George Bell, a follower of John Wesley, prophesied that this year marked the End.

1792 CE – The Shaker’s designated apocalyptic year.

1805 CE – Presbyterian minister Christopher Love, in the 17th century foresaw this as the final year.

1814 CE – Joanna Southcott, the 64 year old virgin prophetess, believed October 19th would mark the day of the re-birth of Christ and that she was chosen to hold the new baby Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus was to be born on Christmas Day. While she did look pregnant, she wasn’t and actually died of dropsy on Christmas Day.

1834 CE – First date set by William Miller for the End.

1836 CE – Second date set by William Miller.

1843 CE – Third date set by William Miller.

1844 CE – Fourth year set by Miller – and set for March 21st, but after no arrival, re-set for October 22nd.

1856 – The Crimean War was believed by many to be the Battle of Armageddon predicted in the book of Revelation.

1874 CE – Charles Taze Russell, founder of the group that eventually became the Witnesses of Jehovah, proclaimed that Christ had indeed returned this year – But spiritually speaking.

1881 CE – The End of the World according to some Jehovah Witnesses.

1891 CE - Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, estimated in 1825 that the Second Coming would occur in about 56 years which brings it to this year.

1896 CE – Michael Boxter, in his book, The End of This Age About the End of This Century, set the Rapture for this year, with 144,000 real Christians worth of this journey.

1900 CE – The Brothers and Sisters of the Red Death, a Russian cult, believed this year was the End of the World – specifically on November 13th. In this belief, over 100 committed suicide.

1908 CE – a grocery store owner in Pennsylvania y the name of Lee T. Spangler believed the fires of Hell would consume the earth this year.

1910 CE – Many believed Halley’s Comet was the sign of the End of the World. Some even claimed that the comet was poisonous and took “comet pills” to protect themselves.

1914 CE – Some Jehovah Witnesses saw World War I as the Battle of Armageddon.

1919 CE – Meteorologist Albert Porta believed the conjunction of six planets would trigger a magnetic tug that would destroy the earth on December 17, 1919.

1925 CE – The angel Gabriel appeared before Margaret Rowan and told her the world would end on Friday the Thirteenth.

Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, believed the Rapture was a scheduled to occur this year.

1939 CE – World War II was seen as the beginning of the End of the World.

1953 CE – Agnes Carlson, founder of the Canadian Sons of Light, predicted this year as the End.

1954 CE – Dorothy Martin, leader of the Brotherhood of the Seven Rays, predicted a giant flood would destroy the Earth on exactly December 21, 1954.

1959 CE – The Founder of the Davidians, Victor Houteff, believed the End was near, but after his death, his wife Frances established the date as April 22, 1959. Many gathered on Mount Carmel near Waco, Texas, but nothing happened.

1966 CE – The Nation of Islam believed sometime between 1965 and 1966, the apocalypse would happen destroying the United States.

1967 CE – According to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the Kingdom of Heaven was to be established this year.

1970 CE – In his book “The Late Great Earth”, Hal Lindsey said that the End of the World was taking place now.

1973 CE – The guru of the Children of God, David Berg, believed the United States would be destroyed by a comet this year.

1981 CE – Chuck Smith of Cavalry Chapel of TV fame predicted the world would end in this year.

1988 CE – In his book, “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988”, Edgar Whisenam argued that Jesus would return on Rosh Hoshana, between September 11 and 13.

1989 CE – Since Jesus did not return in 1988, Whisenam revised his figures, because of a anomaly in the Gregorian calendar, to this year.

1990 CE – Whisenam next predicted this year as the End.

1991 CE – Whisenam tried again, predicting this year as the End.

1992 CE – In a fourth try, Whisenam predicted this year.

1993 CE – Figuring that the odds were with him, Whisenam predicted this year.

1994 CE – In his last try, Whisenam predicted this year and when this year came and went, quit trying….His book sales had tanked by then!

 

Heaven's Gate has not been mentioned. Along with several other recent cults and predictions, but this will show you why non-Christians take Christian worries and predictions of the End with a grain of salt and a sarcastic laugh! Incidentally for those worrying about 2012, the Mayans did not predicate the End of the World.

 

So, there you go. If that's not proof he's coming back, I don't know what is. You go ahead and mock. You - the unclean. Ye with uncircumcised hearts. You pornographers and all you who lie with a another man as unto a woman. You deceivers and marijuana lovers. You - you - fucking democrats. Jesus is overdue, as you can clearly see. You'd better turn now, before it's too late.Once you see him in the sky on his horse, all is lost. You're toast then. Fucking heathens

[Ouroboros]

Predicting the future doom is very easy. Actually, if someone each New Year say, "this year the world will be destroyed", if he keeps on saying it, one day he actually might be right. But he won't be around to say "look, I told you so."

 

Mythra, your "Any Gods: No-weh"... that's friggin' funny!

[Open_Minded]

1988 CE – In his book, “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988”, Edgar Whisenam argued that Jesus would return on Rosh Hoshana, between September 11 and 13.

1989 CE – Since Jesus did not return in 1988, Whisenam revised his figures, because of a anomaly in the Gregorian calendar, to this year.

1990 CE – Whisenam next predicted this year as the End.

1991 CE – Whisenam tried again, predicting this year as the End.

1992 CE – In a fourth try, Whisenam predicted this year.

1993 CE – Figuring that the odds were with him, Whisenam predicted this year.

1994 CE – In his last try, Whisenam predicted this year and when this year came and went, quit trying….His book sales had tanked by then!

That's OK .... I'm sure he raked in enough money over the years, invested wisely in his future and is having a very comfortable retirement...

 

Of course - the irony that someone was making a goodly sum of money to live off in the future never occurred to those buying books predicting the end is near.

[Amanda]

Great party here... and one that appropriately points out the dysfunctional thinking of fundamentalism, IMO. Hoping to be able to remain in the company of a very special group here, may I ask... what if the bible doesn't really say that? Maybe it is about a personal war within ourself, an end to an old nature and the beginning of a new one, individually, and collectively?

 

Revelations 1:1 says the book is written in signs and symbols. What if it is all good things, NOT bad things?

 

Rapture seems to mean to be caught up in the spirit of sacredness... such as a group being caught up in the spirit of patriotism

 

The bible says if any person should point to a man and say here is the christ or there is the christ, he is lying.

*I think christ, the anointed one, is NOT coming back as one man, but that we are collectively evolving into one body of people, "anointed" with similar appropriatness of respect and reverence for all things.

 

The antichrist was with them then too.

*antichrist just being selfishness and arrogance.

 

blah, blah, blah...

 

My point being that fundamentalists, IMO, are fostering beliefs that aren't even based on the premises they collectively assert is their resource. I knew history had twisted these NT teachings, yet coming here and finding out about the myth's history previous to these NT teachings, mostly from Mythra, and scientific relevency to some of my understandings changed my beliefs tremendously! It didn't change these teachings though, it helped me understand them better in regards to what they really are. I can still find respect in what I've gained beneficial and can understand how some would totally throw it in the trash and move on to something else. However, every generation of fundamentalists may think there is a disasterous end coming, but I don't think they bothered to interpret the signs and symbols of their resource, that intended its real message to be known by decoding them.

[Lucas Foxx]

I am certainly not a Christian. I would like to be clear about this up front, but I have a question regarding most of your statements. It seems that you are all convinced with 100% certainty that there was never a man, teacher, philosopher or any one whatsoever named Jesus that inspired in whole or in part any type of religious movement after his demise.

 

You all seem to be fairly intelligent people, and if you are anything like myself, one of your most challenging hang-ups with the religion of Christianity is its absolute requirement that one believe certain articles of faith on just that -- faith. There is zero proof of anything they claim, yet they expect the world to believe it. For me it is impossible not to become irritated with such antiquated notions in an age of knowledge and reason.

 

My observations concerning your current claims -- that there is no and could never have been an historical Jesus -- is that you appear to be practicing the same type of "belief without proof" that Christians practice to such annoyance of us all. If I have overlooked some marvelous discovery proving the non existence of Jesus, I would certainly appreciate being brought up to speed. If your proof is no more than logical deductions then you are once again in the same category with most Christians I know in your methodologies of forming beliefs.

 

If any of you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate a more clear presentation of your evidence to such a claim. I ask in all respect for your beliefs. I do not intend to impose my thoughts over yours. I am simply very curious regarding this subject.

[Open_Minded]

I am certainly not a Christian. I would like to be clear about this up front, but I have a question regarding most of your statements. It seems that you are all convinced with 100% certainty that there was never a man, teacher, philosopher or any one whatsoever named Jesus that inspired in whole or in part any type of religious movement after his demise.

Hello Lucas:

 

There is no way of knowing, for sure, whether a person named Jesus actually lived or not. But most scholars do feel that Jesus did live. See the following Wikipedia article, specifically look for the Recent Scholarship section of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth

 

In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few proponents in academia... <snip> Presently, most New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favour of Jesus' historicity. Nevertheless, Earl Doherty has infused the Jesus Myth theory with fresh vigour with his website and publication of his book, The Jesus Puzzle. Doherty's treatment of the issue has received much attention on the internet from both sides of the debate, including favourable reviews by skeptics Dr. Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier

 

No peer-reviewed work advocating the Jesus Myth theory exists and it has had little impact on the consensus among New Testament academics of Jesus' historicity.

But, the other side to the coin is that most New Testament scholars would also say that the Jesus of the Gospels is myth in the sense that legend and myth grew up around an historical figure.

 

This is not uncommon at all with ancient literature. Ancient cultures were very oral - and often an oral tradition of legend and myth would grow around a person for years. Then after a period of time oral legend and myth would be committed to writing. That is one of the biggest reasons that the gospels have conflicts between them.

 

All that is a very simple summary of things - volumes of books have been written on these issues and will continue to be written. Whether Jesus actually lived, or not is a separate discussion from whether there is mythology in the New Testament. No legitimate New Testament scholar would argue that there is a ton of mythology in the New Testament.

[white_raven23]

If I have overlooked some marvelous discovery proving the non existence of Jesus, I would certainly appreciate being brought up to speed. If your proof is no more than logical deductions then you are once again in the same category with most Christians I know in your methodologies of forming beliefs.

 

First off.....ther is the issue of "Burden of Proof". In any argument or discussion. Burden of proof lies on the party making the positive claim. Someone claims something exists....is is their obligation, and theirs alone to prove the existence.

 

Many christians try to reverse burden of proof. Ans even some nonbelievers (like yourself) have been subject to the reversal of burden of proof SOOOO much, it is mistaken for a valid argument.

 

It's not. It's ridiculous. You can say to me..."Prove that Jesus never existed". I can just as easily say, "Prove to me that fairies and unicorns have never existed".

 

Do you see the problem?

 

The only proof christians have for the existence of Jesus is in certain books in the bible. Period. And as Open-Minded points out, you cannot look at the jesus stories and definitevely class them as myth or history. The only way you can class anything in the bible as historically accurate or valid is by sources outside it.

[Ouroboros]

If any of you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate a more clear presentation of your evidence to such a claim. I ask in all respect for your beliefs. I do not intend to impose my thoughts over yours. I am simply very curious regarding this subject.

Actually, I'm very "agnostic" in the claim of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. I think there is a possibility a historical character existed, but I don't see it as necessary for the stories about Jesus to have been concocted. If there was a person, he might not have had the name Jesus, he might have been a magician - doing magical tricks, or maybe even a con artist, who knows. Maybe he was a teacher, or maybe all the stories are made up. I can see all these possibilities equally valid, but the scale doesn't tip to any direction and all that is left is a question sign after "did Jesus exist". And for the religious, the question is answered through faith and belief that it was so, without any confirming evidence.

 

What I consider the strongest argument (for me at least) that something is wrong about the historical Jesus and the miracles he supposedly did, is that Philo of Alexandria was of a similar religious mindset, wrote books about new interpretations of the Torah, even possible spent time in Jerusalem, and lived at the exact same time as Jesus. And the evidence that Philo existed are stronger than that Jesus existed, because we have Philo's books saved (by no other than the early Christians), and Philo didn't mention Jesus one single time. To me, that is a very strange situation. Why would Christian's save his books, Jesus never write any books, no other Christians writing any books or even anyone saving any such books, and Philo would have been excited to meet Jesus and yet he doesn't even mention the Christians... weird... Some suggests that Gospel of John got it's influence from Philo's work. Which would make the whole "historical Jesus" even more dubious. And then we come to the earliest Christian writings, St. Paul, that lived during the time of Jesus, persecuted the Christians, and yet never met Jesus in person. Not only that, when he converted, he didn't learn from the disciples but learned about "True Christianity" through dreams, revelations and reading the Torah in a distant place far away from Jerusalem, for years, before he came back and told the disciples what the "truth" was. Hmm... To me that sounds like Paul fabricated a new religion and imposed it on another sect, probably the Essenes or something. But it's all speculations, but I think this hypothesis at least it fits the facts better than "Historical Jesus the miracle man".

 

And lastly, it doesn't matter if a historical character existed that was the base for a legend, we still wouldn't take the "miracles" as facts, since other "historical" figures like Caesar and others also had miracles, but no Christian claims those miracles truly happened or came from god.

[Lucas Foxx]

Actually, I'm very "agnostic" in the claim of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. I think there is a possibility a historical character existed, but I don't see it as necessary for the stories about Jesus to have been concocted. If there was a person, he might not have had the name Jesus, he might have been a magician - doing magical tricks, or maybe even a con artist, who knows. Maybe he was a teacher, or maybe all the stories are made up. I can see all these possibilities equally valid, but the scale doesn't tip to any direction and all that is left is a question sign after "did Jesus exist".

 

Upon this we agree, however it does remains a question. Is it worthy of time spent in uncovering its answer? I don't think so, but a point of curiosity nonetheless. My confusion lies in the ascertainment of others posting in this thread of their absolute knowledge concerning the matter. I find it odd that such knowledge could exist outside the realm of that type of knowing that is speculative and requiring "faith" one way or the other. It is my goal to rid myself of beliefs requiring faith -- I extend this notion to unbelief as well.

 

What I consider the strongest argument (for me at least) that something is wrong about the historical Jesus and the miracles he supposedly did, is that Philo of Alexandria was of a similar religious mindset, wrote books about new interpretations of the Torah, even possible spent time in Jerusalem, and lived at the exact same time as Jesus. And the evidence that Philo existed are stronger than that Jesus existed, because we have Philo's books saved (by no other than the early Christians), and Philo didn't mention Jesus one single time.

 

It is not necessary for a historical figure to be noteworthy during his or her life. One may become so after death -- often with greater ease where the formation of religious cults are concerned, seeing that the defendant of said religious homage has deceased and thus beyond the scope of questioning. If Jesus, or the same by a different name, did exist some 2000 years ago, it is my speculation that he was of no great fame in his day and was known to a small group. Even in our era of great communication, it is possible, and often the case, that leaders of small bands of fanatics huddle away in remote corners of the world unnoticed. I suspect it would have been much easier for such a character to have gone even more without herald in antiquity -- not to mention the fact that it is also highly likely that the deeds of such a so called leader are more likely than not largely exaggerated.

[Amanda]

What I consider the strongest argument (for me at least) that something is wrong about the historical Jesus and the miracles he supposedly did, is that Philo of Alexandria was of a similar religious mindset, wrote books about new interpretations of the Torah, even possible spent time in Jerusalem, and lived at the exact same time as Jesus. And the evidence that Philo existed are stronger than that Jesus existed, because we have Philo's books saved (by no other than the early Christians), and Philo didn't mention Jesus one single time. To me, that is a very strange situation. Why would Christian's save his books, Jesus never write any books, no other Christians writing any books or even anyone saving any such books, and Philo would have been excited to meet Jesus and yet he doesn't even mention the Christians... weird...

 

HanSolo, I'm not challenging you, but sincerely asking you... Is there evidence that there was a movement against a sect we call Christians and that they were killed and all their literature and any documentation found would be distroyed? Would anyone blatantly found to be fostering his highly regarded reputation be killed too? Is there evidence that Saul/Paul was known for this?

[Open_Minded]

The only proof christians have for the existence of Jesus is in certain books in the bible. Period. And as Open-Minded points out, you cannot look at the jesus stories and definitevely class them as myth or history. The only way you can class anything in the bible as historically accurate or valid is by sources outside it.

 

White Raven:

 

You know I respect you. And you know I believe the greatest majority of the New Testament is myth and legend.

 

But, I am going to bring in some points here. "The only way you can class anything in the Bible as historically accurate or valid is by sources outside it" doesn't really take into account the full face of ancient historical studies.

 

The problem with that statement is that it doesn't take into account the great pains scholars go through in literary analysis of ALL Ancient civilizations. I'm NOT bringing this up as Christian - I'm bringing this up as an avid student of Ancient History. Literary analysis is extremely important in the study of ALL ancient civilizations where there are written, extant findings. I just can't emphasis this enough - we would know or understand very little of ancient history if we didn't have a systamatic approach to literary analysis and the reconstruction of original oral traditions.

 

This very issue came up in another thread several months ago. Just a warning - Jeff unintentionally hit a nerve with me and I unintentionally hit a raw nerve with him. There is a heated response in the middle of the dialog - but we both came to terms with it and the discussion went on. Overall - I bring it up here to point out that the study of ancient history is far more complex than most people understand. Scholars can glean a lot about the early days of Christianity by the study of the gospels using methodical literary analysis. The links follow:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=192842

 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=193163

 

Again - I respect you and am not trying to undermine your point. I agree with you - the largest majority of the New Testament can accurately be defined as legend &/or myth.

[Lucas Foxx]

First off.....ther is the issue of "Burden of Proof". In any argument or discussion. Burden of proof lies on the party making the positive claim. Someone claims something exists....is is their obligation, and theirs alone to prove the existence.

 

Let me clarify that I am making no claim whatsoever in my statements other than I do not know whether the man in question existed or did not exist. I do not need proof to make such a claim. Your statement above is spot on accurate -- thus the claims made in this thread that "Jesus, or the same by another name, never existed at all" calls for the burden of proof upon the claimant. In my opinion, the proper way to address the question of historicity as it pertains to Jesus is to admit to not knowing, rather than making bold claims to the positive or negative of such. You have made my point clear with the well used axiom of "burden of proof".

 

 

Do you see the problem?

 

I don't see any of this as problematic. It seems rather simple to me, and suspect it does to all those in exercising logic and reason. The phenomenon I do witness here are people make very bold claims within this thread for which they cannot offer supportive evidence, which would lead me to either disbelief what is being said, or to accept it on the word of those making the claim. The later option would require faith -- faith in the word of the claimant -- of which I am not in possession.

[EdwardAbbey]

You guys are living proof that his return is imminent.

 

In the last days there will be scoffers. Ex-C is full of em..

 

In fact, this site could be the very thing that provides the proper fulfillment to allow the return of our glorious savior. And, he's bringing a sword. Run for the hills, you godless heathens. He's gonna scatter your ass from hell to breakfast. Then you won't think this shit is so goddamn funny. You just wait and see. I believe. I do. No, really. I do. He's coming. No bullshit. Seriously. He is. Soon.

 

Here's what you have to look forward to, you filthy minions of Satan:

 

 

So how long have you had this deisre to perform stand up comedy??? LOL, you're hired!

[Ouroboros]

It is not necessary for a historical figure to be noteworthy during his or her life. One may become so after death -- often with greater ease where the formation of religious cults are concerned, seeing that the defendant of said religious homage has deceased and thus beyond the scope of questioning. If Jesus, or the same by a different name, did exist some 2000 years ago, it is my speculation that he was of no great fame in his day and was known to a small group. Even in our era of great communication, it is possible, and often the case, that leaders of small bands of fanatics huddle away in remote corners of the world unnoticed. I suspect it would have been much easier for such a character to have gone even more without herald in antiquity -- not to mention the fact that it is also highly likely that the deeds of such a so called leader are more likely than not largely exaggerated.

I agree. A person could have existed, of lesser importance and influence, and maybe had a very small following. But when we label this person "Jesus", are we thinking of this guy "Bob that kind of started the movement and later became a legend over things he never did", or do we mean "Jesus a miracle man according to the Gospels?" In a sense, where do we draw the line when we refer to this person as Jesus? Where does facts end and fiction start, and does this Jesus actually portray a historical figure when possible most or maybe all of the story is fictious?

 

Put it this way. Jesus according to the Bible had the name Jesus, and did miracles and had disciples.

 

Maybe the historical Jesus did exist, but his name wasn't Jesus, he never did any miracles, but he had a couple of buddies that he drank beer with...

 

Is it the same person then?

[Lucas Foxx]

I agree. A person could have existed, of lesser importance and influence, and maybe had a very small following. But when we label this person "Jesus", are we thinking of this guy "Bob that kind of started the movement and later became a legend over things he never did", or do we mean "Jesus a miracle man according to the Gospels?"

 

Why do you see a need to "label" it anything at all? As I see it, the man either existed or he didn't exist. To me, it doesn't matter either way. It has no impact on my life. The teachings that we find in the New Testament are not spectacular or extraordinary in any sense. Most all of them can be found among the teachings of all the reported great teachers of the world throughout recorded history. I simply do not understand the urgency to place a label on this particular character or the necessity of making claims about his nonexistence in the face of documents dating to the period in question which say he did exist. It is exceptionally noteworthy to add that I am witnessing this type of "proclamation-making" from agnostics and atheists who typically are the sort who abhor unsubstantiated statements of belief.

 

In a sense, where do we draw the line when we refer to this person as Jesus? Where does facts end and fiction start, and does this Jesus actually portray a historical figure when possible most or maybe all of the story is fictious?

 

Again -- why is there a need to draw lines around this subject? There seems to be an inordinate amount of fascination among so many here with a so-called non existent figure who holds zero stock in their lives. I am intrigued by it to say the least. I mean no disrespect to whatever may hold your, or anyone else's, attention. I would definitely like to learn more from all of you. As for me, it is unnecessary that I erase the potentiality of a historical Jesus. There is no threat -- be he a real and historical character or the figment of a 2000-year-old novelist's over zealous imaginings, my beliefs are not impacted at all. Having said this, I will say again -- my proposition is that I don't know if Jesus existed or did not exist, unlike the vast majority of those posting here. As someone with a lack of knowledge either way, I am curious to understand where it is that the absoluteness of those professing it comes from.