Did Jesus Exist?

[Fweethawt]

Hi Fwee!

 

Respectfully, your post made me laugh!

 

I've had many posts with Antlerman, and I assure you...

I'll let him know when it's freezing in hell. 

[qadeshet]

Did Jesus exist?

 

Christianity is just another version of the ancient dying and resurrecting Sun god myth. Every year the Sun is said to die on Dec 22nd. Three days later, the Sun is again reborn, usually in a cave, on Dec 25th. The Bible describes the journey of the Sun through the 12 signs of the Zodiac.

Was there a literal historical character named Jesus? No. But every year the Sun is reborn, giving life and light to the world.

 

Solar Mythology and the Bible

[Antlerman]

Just continue to tread carefully.

 

You don't want to "backslide".

That's funny. My son who's a Christian used to say I backslid. I always answered him that I evolved. I would have to overcome a lot of reality and rationality to go there again.

[Asuryan]

I agree, so perhaps we should forgive them because they were 'set up' predisposed to the religous right mentality... weren't they? They can hardly help it, right? If they were born in China, it probably would have been different... I agree.

 

Yet, forgiveness does NOT mean we condone or excuse disrespectful/condescending behavior... but, perhaps just changes our heart of how we feel about them?

98620[/snapback]

 

Eh, personally I don't accuse anyone of having been raised as a christian. Been there, got the scars, and so on. There is nothing to forgive in that, as they had no choice in their raising.

 

But at least where I live, the more "christian" a person is, the more stupid s/he is. Really. Italian catholics are terrified to have a discussion with someone, anyone, about their religion. They would be as terrified to have a discussion with their pope himself. It happened to me many times, to start a civil debate with some friend of mine, or acquaintance, and then having it stop abruptly with something like:

"You are trying to push your atheistic beliefs on me! Stop trying to do that! I don't want that! You are trying to force your opinions on me!"

"What? I just asked you what do you think about the fact that your church condemns homosexuals to everlasting hell, considering the fact that you are an homosexual..."

"Stop saying that!" <--- hissy fit ensues.

 

The main trend here, is having *TONS* of people around that claim to be catholics... but they know nothing at all about their religion. Never opened a bible, never even read the gospels, they don't even know what their pope says about the main moral issues. Other conversations go like this one:

"I believe that jesus was ok with homosexuality."

"The pope says homosexuality is a serious mental disorder and a sin."

"...really? Then ok, well, I guess it is. Okay, from now on homosexuality is bad."

 

I always get enraged with such people.

Sheep. Sheep. SHEEP!

[MQTA]

YEAH!!! THAT'S IT! I once merely mentioned Jesus and got an angry outbursed of DON'T TALK ABOUT JESUS, period.

 

I recognize hearing a lot of your quotes! That's right on the mark

[MQTA]

But, they do have the bumper sticker sayings and key chap/verse names all set at the ready.

 

What I love most is when they quote something from Mark, and then something from Matthew, and Luke and John.

 

Why do they quote from Mark, Matthew or Luke separately when they can find pretty much identical ones in the other? Why not quote all from Mark or all from Matthew or all from Luke. They definitely gotta believe the 3 are different. They are taught specific verses from each one and if you show them the equivalent synoptic they start verbally dancing to explain it, mostly to themselves.

[Asuryan]

YEAH!!!  THAT'S IT!  I once merely mentioned Jesus and got an angry outbursed of DON'T TALK ABOUT JESUS, period.

 

I recognize hearing a lot of your quotes!  That's right on the mark

99276[/snapback]

 

It is because, deep inside, they know that they're on very thin ice.

They are afraid that the sound of our voices (and the weight of logic) will break that thin ice veil, and then they'll fall down inside the ice-cold water... and will abruptly wake up from their pleasant dream of clouds and angels and living forever.

 

Other contradictions of Italian christianity?

Someone dies. Everybody then say:

"God took him away with Him, because he was too good for this world." ( )

or

"God took him away to heaven, where he will become an Angel and look at us from the sky."

or

"He just went to a much better place."

 

But the christian relatives are always the ones that cry louder, that weep longer, and that have more troubles to accept that death. Much, much more than atheist relatives. That happened to me too when my favourite uncle died.

The catholic culture is scared shitless of DEATH. On the newspapers, on the TV, *death* is a taboo word. He "passed on", he "went to a better place", he "missed to his loved ones' affections", he "ceased suffering"... no one ever *dies* in this country.

This is one of the biggest contradictions. Shouldn't christians be happy that their loved one "has been taken away by god" and "is about to become an angel", and that supposedly in a matter of a few years they will see the dead relative again? Shouldn't be us atheists to suffer more, since we don't really believe that we'll see that person ever again?

The only reason that I can find, is that no one (at least in this country) really believes in a heaven (but they do seem to believe in hell though...). They don't really believe in an everlasting life. AND they aren't prepared to accept death as an inevitable part of life, as we atheists are.

I feel pity for the poor clueless sods.

[Asuryan]

What I love most is when they quote something from Mark, and then something from Matthew, and Luke and John.

 

99277[/snapback]

 

You come from a country where people can actually quote something, anything, from the gospels! Allelujah!

Bumper stickers here are all the same. "Baby on board". I guess you have much more fun when going around in your car!

[Mythra]

Here is something I found really interesting on that "Solar Mythology" site that gadeshet gave us. It's interesting because it's written by a christian, not someone who's trying to prove there was no historical Jesus.

 

"Edward Gibbons, in the first volume of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, circa 1776, expresses his irk that no contemporary writers wrote anything about the most extraordinary and most significant event in the history of man. Note Gibbons does not deny that Jesus existed and performed all those wonderful miracles of his, Gibbons is just extremely irked that no contemporary chroniclers mention anything about it. He writes:

 

"But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those evidences which were represented by the hand of Ominipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, daemons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman Empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe"

 

It does not occur to Gibbon, indeed it could not occur to anyone so indoctrinated in the Christian faith, the simple explanation, that no contemporaries wrote about these things because they never happened.

 

from David W. Deley "Evidence that Jesus Never Existed"

[Mythra]

This is a really good webpage that is full of interesting information. The article is called "How Jesus Got a Life"

[Amanda]

But at least where I live, the more "christian" a person is, the more stupid s/he is. Really. Italian catholics are terrified to have a discussion with someone, anyone, about their religion. They would be as terrified to have a discussion with their pope himself. It happened to me many times, to start a civil debate with some friend of mine, or acquaintance, and then having it stop abruptly with something like:

"You are trying to push your atheistic beliefs on me! Stop trying to do that! I don't want that! You are trying to force your opinions on me!"

"What? I just asked you what do you think about the fact that your church condemns homosexuals to everlasting hell, considering the fact that you are an homosexual..."

"Stop saying that!" <--- hissy fit ensues. 

99275[/snapback]

 

Hello Asuryan!

 

Wow! All you wrote is very interesting about your country! I had to laugh about the "hissy fit"... Of course it is really very sad, but at least this person is denying the oppressive aspects... hopefully all that rubbish is having no effect on them.

 

I would like to ask you if you think that having the Vatican AND the Sistine Chapel there has had a great influence on the people there? I was in Italy, France, and Spain... and there is a great reverence for the Pope. These cathedrals there, are absolutely spectacular! Many original Michael Angelos, of religous themes, hanging all over the place! Many other famous artists too! Gaudi's cathedral finished in modern archetecture, is incredible! There is a magnitude of spectacular artists, that projected their spiritual beliefs into their works everywhere! Breath-takingly beautiful! All those magnificent religous themed statutes and fountains too! The Spainish Inquisition must have really had an impact. Although I was not there long, I didn't really see any other religions than the Catholics, EXCEPT some Morrocan Islamic influence... such as in the Alhambra.

 

Here we have very diverse religions in the US, even in Christianity. How do you feel all these artistic Christian influences, of such grandeur, are still impacting your country? And, what kinds of governments do you have? Are they very supportive of Catholic beliefs? How does your government effect the gay community?

[Guest Abram]

In regards to this essay: http://www.eastbayatheists.org/jesusneverwas.html

 

This is a very poorly put together piece, with numerous errors.

[Guest Guest_serenitynow_*]

In regards to this essay: http://www.eastbayatheists.org/jesusneverwas.html

 

This is a very poorly put together piece, with numerous errors.

99364[/snapback]

 

Where do you stand on the issue Abram?

[Guest Abram]

 

Where do you stand on the issue Abram?

99365[/snapback]

 

For starters, that the essay this entire thread was based on is total rubbish. If they are going to attack the historicity of the figure our religion is based on, then the least they could do is refrain from using lies and/or historical misconceptions to do so.

[Ouroboros]

In regards to this essay: http://www.eastbayatheists.org/jesusneverwas.html

 

This is a very poorly put together piece, with numerous errors.

99364[/snapback]

Like what?

[Ouroboros]

For starters, that the essay this entire thread was based on is total rubbish.  If they are going to attack the historicity of the figure our religion is based on, then the least they could do is refrain from using lies and/or historical misconceptions to do so.

99368[/snapback]

It would be easier to argue about it if you pointed out what it is that is wrong and rubbish in the text, instead of broadly state that something is rubbish. You're argument is only emotional and opinionated, but without any foundation. Give us an example, and give us the "truth" and "facts as you perceive it.

 

You only made a blunt statement, but where's your reason and information to counter the text?

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

It used to be that when christians were challenged on their religion,

they would make at least some attempt to answer the challenge.

Now nearly all of them just make these emotional outbursts and run

away. Exactly what does that say about their faith, hmmmm?

[Checkmate]

It would be easier to argue about it if you pointed out what it is that is wrong and rubbish in the text, instead of broadly state that something is rubbish. You're argument is only emotional and opinionated, but without any foundation. Give us an example, and give us the "truth" and "facts as you perceive it.

 

You only made a blunt statement, but where's your reason and information to counter the text?

99376[/snapback]

But don't you see, Han? THIS is what passes for "Christian" debating. THEY say something is "wrong" and "rubbish", and we're supposed to accept it as the Truth. After all, the Mighty Christian has spoken!

 

Now let us all bow our heads in reverent silence as this "wisdom" seeps into our OPEN MINDS.

 

Ahhhh! I feel the Holy Ghoooost at work now! That's it! I BELIEVE! Hallelujah! I believe! My mind just couldn't take such "eloquence" from the Christian "arguments".

 

Excuse me, you foul heathens. I'm going back to church now.

 

 

(I'm sorry. Is my sarcasm showing AGAIN? I'll have to watch that.)

[Guest Abram]

Hello again. Sorry I was busy editing the essay with my comments and corrections. I have pasted it below. My comments are in CAPITAL LETTERS.

 

 

Jesus Never Was

By

Don Havis

(COMMENTED BY ABRAM)

 

The purpose of this article is to outline what I consider to be the major arguments in support of a “pure-myth” viewpoint or position concerning the question of the historicity of the biblical figure we know as Jesus, a.k.a. Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth. A second purpose is to provide the reader with a selected bibliography of books, generally written by highly qualified biblical scholars (IN NEARLY EVERY CASE THIS IS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT: LET’S LOOK AT THREE OF THE AUTHORS THAT ARE QUOTED MOST FREQUENTLY. ACHARYA S. HAS AN UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN CLASSICS; EARL DOHERTY HAS AN UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN ANCIENT HISTORY; AND DR. WELLS IS A PROFESSOR OF GERMAN STUDIES. NOT ONE OF THEM CAN BE ACCURATELY REFERRED TO AS A “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” BIBLICAL SCHOLARS HERE.), which the author has either used as sources of information, and/or has directly quoted from in the preparation of this paper. The author, himself, makes no pretense of being a “biblical scholar,” only an avid reader of their works.

 

Before I attempt to present at least “summaries” of arguments in support of the pure-myth point of view, (hereafter referred to as a “position”) I think it would be helpful to make clear the various positions which have traditionally been listed as possible. Some scholars have listed three positions. I prefer John Remsberg’s four different options. The positions listed below are from Remsberg’s 1909 book, The Christ, page 327, with slight additions of mine for clarification.

Four Positions On Jesus

 

“Orthodox Christians believe that Christ was a historical character. [However, he was] both supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.” (This is generally know as the “literalist position.”)

 

"Conservative Rationalists, like Renan and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the super-natural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.” (This is usually referred to as the “historical myth” position.)

 

"Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.” In other words, there was most likely a historical Jesus, but virtually all of the stories about him are mythical. (This is known as the “philosophical myth” position.) My added comment would be that in the intervening years between 1909 and now, this position would no longer be considered at all “radical,” and the Unitarians referred to in position 2, above, have shifted almost entirely to this third perspective.

 

“Other [‘more radical’ is implied here] Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an [historic] existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity.” I would add here that a natural concomitant of this position is that the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are entirely fictional—made up stories, no parts of which have any basis in reality whatsoever. (This is the “pure-myth” position.)

 

The Seven Major Arguments

 

I admit that there may very well be more than “seven major arguments” for the pure-myth position, and that in some instances the arguments presented here partially overlap. Also, many of the same arguments can be used to support position three. However, I have, perhaps arbitrarily, outlined the following seven arguments for the reader’s consideration: (1) No one seemed to have noticed Jesus in his time. (2) The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. (3) The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths. (4) What we now call “Christianity” existed long before Jesus’ time. It was derived from earlier “scripture” and more ancient myths. (5) Paul, writing earlier than the gospels, clearly spoke of a “spiritual” Christ. He knew nothing of a real, live human Jesus. (6) There is no agreement at all concerning this putative historical Jesus’ looks, lineage, biography, character, moral worthiness, or even his central message. (7)

 

The “you-can’t-have-it-both-ways” argument.

 

Again, the combination of all the arguments and opinions outlined in support of the above points will not absolutely “prove” that there was no historical Jesus. Logicians tell us it is impossible to absolutely prove a negative. It might be possible that there was a “real” William Tell who served as the inspiration for, and may have even engaged in some of the activities ascribed to the legendary Swiss folk hero. However, the great preponderance of the evidence we have at this time argues very strongly against this possibility. I believe that position four, described above, is an exact parallel to the pure myth claim for William Tell. The same claim might also be made about any of the long list of crucified saviors that have “visited” earth long before the beginning of the first century of this era. (THE CLOSEST PARALLEL THAT EXISTS IS THE GREEK GOD PROMETHEUS WHO WAS CHAINED TO A ROCK, AND AN EAGLE NAMED ETHON WOULD EAT HIS LIVER OUT DAILY. IT GREW BACK DAILY ALSO.) My claim is, in other words, that applying “Ockham’s razor,” (e.g. the simplest, most logical explanation that comports with all the known facts), and considering the tremendous dearth of evidence to the contrary, the most rational conclusion is that there never was an historical Jesus. Further, I contend that he, and consequently all that is said about him, are entirely fictional.

 

Now that I’ve made that exceedingly clear, let’s get on with the arguments, one by ne.

 

No one noticed Jesus in “his day."

As most of the readers of this article know, Christian apologists, world-wide, have “pointed with pride” to a handful of early extra-biblical writings which directly mention Jesus, John the Baptist, and/or James the Just, a.k.a. James the Brother of the Lord as a real first-century historical persons. “Ah ha,” they say. “Since you skeptics erroneously believe that the four Gospels are works of fiction, how can you account for these writings of reliable, unbiased historians who wrote about or referred to Jesus at or very near the time when he was alive?”

Just to mention the one “main gun” that Christian apologist have been firing at us skeptics for the past 1,800 years, (The difficulty of defending the Gospels has been a well-recognized problem for the church since they first where apparently “noticed’ by anyone around the middle of the second century.), I will briefly discuss the famous “Testimonium Flavium.” This Latin phrase refers to a single paragraph of about twelve sentences which appears to most critics to have been inserted awkwardly between two paragraphs which make perfectly good sense without the insertion. The reference is in a book by the well-known first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus [37 ¬ c95 CE]. The reference is contained in his book, The Antiquities of the Jews. This book is—appropriately enough for the reference to be contained in—a book about the early history of the Jews in the area where Jesus is supposed to have preached, and in the time when he was supposedly alive.

 

As Frank R. Zindler says, “Although Flavius Josephus was born too late to be an eyewitness of the lives of Jesus or John the Baptist nevertheless he was a contemporary of the evangelists [assuming they existed] who wrote of these characters. He should have heard of Paul [if he existed, whom he never mentions]. Furthermore, from his priest-craft father, Matthias [b 6 CE] he should have known about the religious ferment supposedly stirred up by the doings of Jesus.” (Zindler, Frank R., The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 35). Yet this well-respected historian mentions none of this with the single exception of the paragraph referred to above. In that paragraph only, he names a man called Jesus. “He was the Christ,” Josephus is made to say. He was a “doer of wonderful works” and that “Pilate condemned him to the cross.” The paragraph concludes that, “The tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” “This day” would be about the year 90 CE, approximately when Josephus wrote his history book. This phrase, at the very least, is an obvious later interpolation as there was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus’s time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century. (NOT TRUE; THE LETTERS OF PLINY CLEARLY INDICATE THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS WELL ESTABLISHED IN ASIA MINOR BY CA. 112 A.D. AND TACITUS DESCRIBES A SITUATION IN ROME WHERE THE NEW CHRISTIAN SECT WAS SO HATED THAT NERO BLAMED THEM FOR A FIRE THAT DECIMATED THE CITY DURING CA. 60-65 A.D.)

 

It is also interesting that the mention of this particular Jesus, “Jesus the Christ,” is divulged by Josephus with no more emphasis than he gives to the other 20 Jesuses he speaks of in his writings. (NOT TRUE. I WILL GIVE TWO COUNTEREXAMPLES, ALTHOUGH SEVERAL MORE EXIST. JESUS SON OF DAMNEUS, A HIGH PRIEST OF JERUSALEM IS ONLY MENTIONED IN TWO SENTENCES BY JOSEPHUS. SEE: (JOSEPHUS, ANTIQUITIES BOOK 20 CH. 9 V. 203 AND 206. AND JESUS SON OF GAMALIEL, ANOTHER HIGH PRIEST OF JERUSALEM IS ONLY MENTIONED IN ONE SENTENCE. SEE: (JOSEPHUS, ANTIQUITIES, BOOK 20 CH. 9 V. 213. (See Leidner, Harold, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, p. 19 ¬ 20).

 

In summary, let me just say that the single paragraph referred to above has been one of the most thoroughly researched and debated topics in all of biblical criticism. Those that want a more detailed analysis can refer to Zindler’s entire chapter on it in the above cited book, (“Faking Flavius”, p. 31 to 73.) Additionally, Earl Doherty’s book supporting the mythical Christ theory, The Jesus Puzzle discusses this and other early likely Christian interpolations in chapter 21, “Flavius Josephus” p. 205 to 222. Referring to another oft-quoted reference to Jesus in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitas [c55CE-c120 CE], Doherty says, “If the silence on Jesus in the earlier works of both Tacitus and Josephus casts doubt on the authenticity of their later references, then we truly have lost every clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human being [emphasis added] before the latter half of the second century.” (p. 222) (ADMITEDLY THE JOSEPHUS PASSAGE IS A 4TH CENTURY FORGERY, BUT THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CLAIM THAT THE TACITUS PASSAGE IS ALSO A FORGERY.)

 

Think about that sentence for a minute. Dozens of books of Christian apologists will offer long lists of citations about Jesus from early writings. However, most of these citations refer to either clearly awkwardly done interpolations, whereas others were written by authors who lived anywhere from a century and a half up to several centuries past the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived. These quotations referring to Jesus and other Gospel characters simply repeat stories that the writer has heard from other Jesus cult enthusiasts. As such, they are of no value whatsoever.

 

In addition to the above noted refutation of the most important references to a supposed historical Jesus written near Jesus’ time, I should also mention at least two “deafening silences” by highly regarded writers of the same time period. I am referring to the writings of Philo, an eminent Jewish philosopher and historian who lived during the early first century, and Justus of Tiberias, a native of Galilee who wrote a history covering the period in which Jesus is said to have lived. Neither one of them ever mentioned a “Jesus.” The works of Justus have all perished now. However, we have the writings of a ninth century Christian Bishop and scholar of Constantinople, Photius, who says that he had read Justus’ works. He reports, in utter amazement one might imagine, that, “He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works he did.” (Jackson, J. G., Pagan Origins of the Jesus Myth, p. 8.) Personally, I find that quote absolutely jaw-dropping. (IT PERHAPS NOTEWORTHY THAT JUSTUS OF TIBERIAS DID NOT MENTION JESUS, PARTICULARLY SINCE OUR LORD PERFORMED MIRACLES THERE. ALTHOUGH WE NO LONGER HAVE HIS WORKS TO CONSULT, SO WE ARE MERELY TAKING PHOTIUS’ WORD FOR IT. AND JUSTUS WAS JEWISH, SO PERHAPS HE HAD IDEOLOGICAL REASONS FOR NOT MENTIONING JESUS. BUT THERE IS NO REASON THAT PHILO, WHO WAS ALL THE WAY OVER IN ALEXANDRIA SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED HIM. HE WAS NOT WRITING HISTORY, HE WAS WRITING JEWISH WISDOM/PHILOSOPHY/OLD TESTAMENT COMMENTARY.)

 

The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

Whether one believes that the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) are partly fictional elaborations of some core of truth, or whether you believe they are entirely fictional is not the issue at this point. (What I see as a separate issue of their fictional or non-fictional status will be taken up in the next point.) The question here is simply, were the gospels written by human witnesses to the “life and times” of the putative Jesus? This point can be handled quite briefly. The answer is a resounding “No!” (EVIDENCE FOR THIS ASSERTION PLEASE?) There is virtual unanimity of opinion by all un-brainwashed, rational biblical scholars—even so-called Christian scholars (perhaps an oxymoron)—that the gospels were written by now unknown writers anytime between 40 years after Jesus’ time up to about 185 years after his supposed death, depending on what scholar one consults. Most scholars place Mark, the generally recognized first written gospel, at about the year 70 CE, just after the destruction of the Jewish temple of Yahweh. (60-70 C.E. WOULD MAKE MARK PERHAPS 50-60 YEARS OLD. IS THIS IMPOSSIBLE? NO.) However, Earl Doherty has advanced some closely reasoned arguments that support a time “around the years 85 to 90 CE.” (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 3).

 

Famed Jesus scholar, Dr. G. A Wells (FAMED GERMAN LANGUAGE STUDIES SCHOLAR YOU MEAN.) summarizes in his 1988 book, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, “The gospels are usually put between 70 and 110, with Mark at about 70, Matthew and Luke a little later, and John, the latest, at about 100. Acts (written as we shall see, by the author of Luke) and some of the pseudo-Pauline epistles are assigned to the turn of the century. I find all this convincing enough, except in the case of Mark, which I date at about 90 rather than 70. If this is correct, then all four gospels were written soon after 90 and drew some of their material from earlier documents which have not survived and from oral tradition, much of which must have been available from about 80, although it would have taken time for them to have become generally disseminated.” (Wells, op. cit. p. 10 & 11).

 

There is near unanimous agreement that the very first mention of the existence of what we now call the gospels was by Justin Martyr, in the 150s. (IGNATIUS REFERENCES VARIOUS PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS, ALTHOUGH HE DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE AUTHORS. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WRITING CA. 100-110 A.D. POLYCARP ALSO MAKES REFERENCES SLIGHTLY BEFORE JUSTIN.) Doherty says, however, that he may only have known of Matthew and Luke. “Even at that, he does not refer to them by name, calling the documents he is quoting from ‘memoirs of the Apostles.’ Moreover, his quotations for the most part do not agree with our present texts.” (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 259) So, it seems that the “eyewitness testimony” of the so-called “apostles” was still being sort of “worked out” a century and a half after J.C.’s supposed birth. (FRAGMENT P-52 OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS CONSERVATIVELY DATED AS EARLY AS 120 A.D., AND MORE LIBERALLY DATED TO CA. 150 A.D. SINCE JOHN WAS ALMOST CERTAINLY THE LAST OF THE GOSPELS TO BE WRITTEN (MARKAN PRIORITY THESIS), THEN IT STANDS TO REASON THAT MARK, MATTHEW, AND LUKE WERE COMPOSED WELL BEFORE 120 A.D.)

 

The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths.

Many large tomes have been entirely devoted to supporting the point that great sections, if not all, of the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament, are simply a retelling of fabulous tales based on older Jewish, Roman, Greek, Persian, and even more ancient Egyptian stories. Substantiating this point does not advance this paper’s major thesis, except as it applies to the only supposed biblical “evidence” in support of a historic Jesus—that is, that testimony provided by the four gospels. For those readers who might be interested in the spurious origins of not only the gospels, but also the entire bible, the names of several entire books devoted to this subject can be found in the bibliography of this paper.

It is interesting to me that a great many freethinkers and rationalists—people who might be reading this article—are very quick to agree that pretty much the entire bible is chock full of misinformation, forgeries, bad history and just plain lies. (RIGHT, SO BECAUSE SKEPTICS THINK IT, THAT MUST MAKE IT SO.)

 

Not only that, but most rationalists are quite willing to accept the proposition that this mish-mash of prevarication was not simply a naive passing along of old legends, but were written for the express purpose of convincing (i.e. “converting”) the gullible reader into subscribing to the particular fanciful dogma the ancient writers were trying to peddle. However, for some reason or another that entirely escapes me—perhaps just early brainwashing imbedded as deeply as potty training—these same rationalists are reluctant to imagine that the four gospels are completely fictional. Surely, they say, there must have been some sort of demythologized, even perhaps anonymous nobody who was arrested, tried by Roman authorities, then crucified. We can’t be sure of any more details than that, they say. I simply ask, why must this be so? (IT IS THE MOST RATIONAL MODEL THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY.) What more tangible evidence can anyone present that the whole story is not simply what it appears to be—a retelling of one or more of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of ancient sun-god or sky-god’s traditional, descending then ascending god myths, generally consisting of elements such as of first some tribulations (a trial), conviction, crucifixion, and finally resurrection? One could go on for several paragraphs pointing out the many details of the “passion story” that have parallels not only in more ancient myths, but also in earlier Jewish writings including the Old Testament. (THE PASSION STORY IS PARALLED IN THE O.T., BUT WE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT IS PROPHECY, NOT DIFFUSION. AS FAR AS THE PASSION STORY BEING COPIED IN PAGAN MYTHOLOGY, THERE IS ONE VAGUE PARALLEL WITH A UGARIC POEM ABOUT A BA’AL THAT IS ARRESTED, TRIED, ETC. THE PARALLELS ARE VERY, VERY GENERAL.) See, for example, Zechariah 9: 9, which foreshadows Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem on an ass; actually “on an ass and the foal of an ass”—a neat trick, eh?), and the foreshadowing of the whole “passion story” in Psalms 22, the virgin birth in Isaiah 7: 14, his birth in Bethlehem in Micah 5: 2. All of this has been well noted for centuries. Why in the world would any rational person imagine that any of these fables were in any sense true? (ONE MUST WONDER WHY HE PROVIDED PRIMARY SOURCE REFERENCES FOR THE O.T. PARALLELS, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO FOR THE ALLEGED PAGAN PARALLELS. HMMM…I WONDER WHY THAT IS? PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY DON’T EXIST?)

 

It is interesting to speculate on the source material for the first written gospel, the Gospel according to Mark. Perhaps Mark—probably a well educated Greek-speaking member of the Jewish Diaspora—had read the works of “Philo Judaeus, the Jewish philosopher-theologian of Alexandria in Egypt.” (A speculation of Alvar Ellegard, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, p. 5) (IF ANY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS WRITERS WAS INFLUENCED BY THE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, IT WAS JOHN, NOT MARK.) Or, perhaps he had heard the stories of the so-called “Teacher of Righteousness” of the Essenes who may have lived (mythological or real—who knows?) sometime in the first century BCE. (Ellegard, op. cit., p. 258). (RIGHT, AND OTHER THAN HIM BEING A TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, WHAT ARE THE PARALLELS EXACTLY? IT’S NOT EVEN CLEAR IN THE QUMRAN TEXTS THAT THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WAS PUT TO DEATH.) Maybe Mark wrote in the second century as scholar Ellegard holds, and had read Flavius Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius, whose life almost exactly paralleled the life of the mythical Jesus and who reportedly died in 98 CE. (UNFORTUNATELY FOR THIS AUTHOR, “THE LIFE OF APOLLONIUS” WAS WRITTEN BY THE PHILOSOPHER PHILOSTRATUS II CA. 215 A.D. THE WORK WAS DESIGNED TO PARALLEL THE CHRISTIAN BELIEF SYSTEM, THUS IT DID. SO PARALLELS ARE IRRELEVANT.) (See Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 9) Surely, he had read of the so-called “Suffering Servant of the Lord” described in Isaiah 52: 13 ¬ 53: 12. (See Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, p. 80). Certainly Mark, and later the other gospel writers, had no shortage of inspiration. What they didn’t have is anyone who was in any sense “real.”

 

It is important to remain focused on the primary reason why these gospels were written, or perhaps “compiled” would be a better word. They were written for the express purpose of convincing the uneducated and gullible masses that they no longer needed to believe in a sort of mystical, unseen, spiritual Christ (ALLEGEDLY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO “PROVE” THIS. IN FACT THE MARCION AND GNOSTIC HERESIES ARE BELIEVED TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE MID SECOND CENTURY A.D. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EXTANT TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH HERESIES EXTEND BACK TO THE FIRST CENTURY. SO THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN BEFORE THE HERESIES, SO TO SPEAK.) —a somewhat difficult concept for the unsophisticated to grasp even though it was familiar to them as I will discuss later. Here, in the gospels, the new Jesus cult offers a “real”, flesh and blood incarnation of god to believe in. (In truth, there was a terrific argument early on between the Gnostic Christians and the main line, later to become the Catholic Christians as to this “flesh and blood” issue.) This savior figure spoke real words (i.e. the Sermon on the Mount, etc.), ate food, performed miracles, visited real places, and spoke to “multitudes.” He was truly crucified, not allegorically crucified in a heavenly realm. (THE MARCIONITES DID NOT QUESTION THE PHYSICAL CRUCIFIXION, THEY QUESTIONED THE PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF JESUS’ BODY.) Remember “doubting Thomas”? He wanted to stick his fingers into Jesus’ wounds, just to be sure. (John 20: 26-27) I thought that was a "nice touch” for the last gospel fiction writer to add; don’t you? For those of you that might still be unconvinced of the absolute untrustworthiness of the gospels in particular, I offer just one more powerful quotation for your consideration:

 

“Nearly every thing written concerning the gospels to the year 325, and all the copies of the gospels themselves to the same period, are lost or destroyed. (APPARENTLY NEW TESTAMENT 55,000 FRAGMENTS DON’T COUNT?) The truth is that very few early Christian texts exist because the autographs, or originals, were destroyed after the Council of Nicea (THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THIS THAT I AM AWARE OF.) and the “retouching” of 506 CE under Emperor Anastasius, which included “revision” of the Church fathers’ works—catastrophic acts that would be inconceivable if these ‘documents’ were truly the precious testaments of the very Apostles themselves regarding the ‘Lord and Savior,’ whose alleged advent was so significant that it sparked profound fanaticism and endless wars. Repeating what would seem to be utter blasphemy, in the 11th and 12th centuries the ‘infallible Word of God’ was ‘corrected’ again by a variety of church officials. In addition to these major ‘revisions’ have been many others, including copying and translation mistakes and deliberate mutilation and obfuscation of meaning.” (Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy, p. 26). (ACHARYA S. IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY SCHOLARLY. HER BOOK THE CHRIST CONSPIRACY IS A JOKE. SKEPTICS SHOULD BE EMBARASSED TO HAVE HER ON THEIR SIDE.) Still think the gospels are about real events? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to talk to you about.

 

What we now call “Christianity” existed long before Jesus’ time.

As with point two above, there is little or no debate among serious scholars that what we now call “Christianity” has so heavily plagiarized from prior existing Christ and risen sun-god myths as to be virtually indistinguishable from many of them. (EVIDENCE?) Of course, first of all there is simply Judaism, which had long talked about and predicted a soon-to-arrive “Christ.” Ironically, according to them, he still hasn’t come. The documentation of this claim is the subject of literally hundreds of books. A small number of these books are quoted in this paper. Just to present a quick summation, I would like to quote a well-recognized scholar of the early 20th century. “The Pagans had their holy days (from which the Christians plagiarized their Christmas, Easter, Rogation Days, etc.); their monks, nuns, religious processions carrying images of idols, incense, holy water, holy oil, chants, hymns, liturgies, confessions of sins to priests, revelations by gods to priests, prophecies, sacred writings of ‘holy bibles,’ Pontiffs, Holy Fathers, holy crafty priesthoods. All these sacrosanct things of Christian ‘Revealed Religion,’ were age-old pre-Christian Pagan myths and superstitions.” (Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless, p. 17 and 18) All of this is not even “controversial” among knowledgeable secular biblical scholars.

I will quote one more source, a small pamphlet published by The Freedom From Religion Foundation which “zeroes in” on the mythical antecedents of the Jesus Christ figure. The pamphlet—really, a tract—is entitled, “Cookie Cutter Christs.” The sun-god Mithra, who was very popular in the Roman Empire around 2000 years ago was “born of a virgin about 600 BC, was celebrated on December 25. Magi brought gifts to his birth. His first worshipers were shepherds and he was followed in his travels by twelve companions. Mithra was slain upon a cross in Persia to make atonement for humankind and take away the sins of the world. His ascension to heaven was celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter).” Additionally, the pamphlet continues, “Mithra celebrated a ‘Last Supper’ with his 12 disciples. The Mythraists observed weekly sabbath days and celebrated the Eucharist by eating wafers marked with a cross.” Does any of this sound familiar? (YES. UNFORTUNATELY, NOT A WORD OF IT IS ACCURATE. SCHOLARS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MITHRA CULT OF ROME DERIVED ANYTHING BUT ITS NAME FROM THE MITHRA CULT OF PERSIA. MITHRA WAS NOT CRUCIFIED, THERE WAS NO LAST SUPPER, AND NO 12 DISCIPLES. THERE ARE NO CROSS EUCHARIST WAFERS EITHER. THE MITHRA MYSTERY CULT CELEBRATED THEIR RITES IN CAVE CHAPELS. THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAVE OF THEIR BELIEFS ARE WHAT LITTLE ICONOGRAPHIC REMAINS ARE EXTANT. IN ADDITION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT THE ROMAN CULT OF MITHRA PRECEEDED CHRISTIANITY. ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE EXTANT, IT WOULD SEEM THE OPPOSITE. THE PERSIAN MITHRA CULT CERTAINLY PRECEEDED CHRISTIANITY, BUT THAT IS NOT RELEVANT AS THERE ARE NO PARALLELS OF SIGNIFICANCE.)

The same pamphlet notes that, “Attis was born of a virgin mother named Nana, in Phrygia sometime before 200 BC. He was hanged on a tree, died, rose again, and was called ‘Father God’.” (THE SOURCE FOR THIS APPEARS TO BE KERSEY GRAVES’ BOOK, WHICH HAS BEEN TOTALLY DISCREDITED. IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NO PRIMARY DATA EXTANT THAT SUGGESTS THIS ABOUT THE ATTIS MYTHOLOGY.) “Horus was born of the virgin Isis in Egypt around 1550 BC. (INCORRECT AGAIN. ISIS PIECED TOGETHER THE BODY PARTS OF HER DEAD HUSBAND/BROTHER OSIRIS, AND HAD SEX WITH HIS PHALLIS TO PRODUCE HORUS. SHE WAS CERTAINLY NOT A VIRGIN.) Horus as an infant received gifts from three kings, and was crucified on a cross. (THERE IS NO TEXTUAL OR ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE EXTANT TO SUGGEST THAT ANY OF THIS IS TRUE. READERS SHOULD RESEARCH THIS FOR THEMSELVES. IF YOU CAN FIND AN EGYPTOLOGIST WHO BELIEVES THIS THEN I’LL EAT MY SHOE.) There are about 200 close parallels of the careers of Horus and Jesus Christ.” (SPECIFICS? GIVEN THE TRACK RECORD HERE, THIS STATEMENT IS PROBABLY ALSO FALSE.) “Adonis (Tammuz) was born of a virgin mother called Ishtar (Easter), depicted like the Virgin Mary with her divine child in her arms. (THIS IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR. WE DO KNOW THAT WOMEN ‘WEPT FOR TAMMUZ’ BUT AS FAR AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS DEATH, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY PRIMARY DATA OR REPUTABLE NEAR EASTERN SCHOLARS WHO BELIEVE THIS.) Adonis was regarded as both the son and husband of his mother Ishtar, as God the Father and God the Son.” We could go on and on. (AND WE’D PROBABLY FIND THAT YOUR DATA CONTINUES TO BE INACCURATE.) Any of the above named books will give the interested reader much more information about ancient gods along this same line. The mythology doesn’t change much, just the name of the current sun-god de jure.

 

Indeed, the parallels in the cult of Mithraism—perhaps Christianity’s major contemporary and most competitive religion of the first century CE—most especially, are so striking that I have often reflected that had Emperor Constantine not mandated that Christianity be the Empire’s only religion in 325 CE, and had that decree not been brutally enforced by the “firebrand and the sword” for the next 1,700 years by the Catholic Church, then we might see steepled little Mithric Churches dotting the landscape throughout Europe and the United States especially. As part of this same fantasy, I have often wondered if there would now be heated debates as to whether or not the now recognized as mythic Mithra was somehow based on a historic, real flesh-and-blood, human being named Mithra. If the Catholic Mithraist myth enforcers had been equally as successful as have been the Catholic Jesus myth enforcers, I suppose the answer of the masses—and even of some atheists—throughout most of the world would clearly be, “Yes, most likely there was a historic Mithra.” Incredible! What a brainwashing we have all been subjected to!

 

Most well informed Christian apologists—even back to the early “Church Fathers”—admit that the above parallels are true. Their standard response is that just because there are all of these parallels doesn’t necessarily prove that Jesus wasn’t a real human figure who may have been just doing his best to “fulfill” all the ancient prophesies, and to “fit in” to the familiar legends about him. This counter-point can’t be denied. I only ask the reader which of the two possible explanations seems the most likely?

 

Paul clearly spoke only of a “spiritual Christ,” not a human one.

(GALATIANS 4.4-7, CORINTHIANS 15.4, ROMANS 6.4, ROMANS 1.4, I CORINTHIANS XV 1-5 ALL SEEM TO IMPLY A PHYSICAL JESUS TO ME. PARTICULARLY GALATIANS 4.4-7 WHICH SAYS HE WAS BORN OF A WOMAN.)

It is well recognized by all but the most fanatical fundamentalist bible scholars that Paul, writing between approximately 54 C. E. an 65 C.E., was not a “witness to Jesus.” By his own admission, he saw Jesus “in a vision” while on the road to Damascus. This Jesus was a purely mythical, “spiritual Christ,” not in any sense a human being Christ. Paul “received” this Jesus through a kind of divine revelation. I believe that Doherty explains this sort of “Jesus” best when he says that the message Paul received, “Šwas about a heavenly Son of God who was both an intermediary between God and the world, and a Savior figure. He was variously called Jesus, or Yeshua (meaning ‘Yahweh Saves’ in Hebrew), the Christ (Greek for the Hebrew “Mashiach,” or Messiah, meaning ‘Anointed One’), and the Son. Some looked upon this new Son of God as a Reveler who bestowed saving knowledge of God, others as one who had undergone a sacrificial death and a resurrection. [in another heavenly realm] All manner of apostles like Paul were going about preaching this divine being and often not agreeing among themselves about him; indeed, they could be at each others’ throats, as certain passages in Paul’s letters revealed. This Son and Savior was not identified with a recent human man or placed in an earthly setting, much less given a ministry of teaching and miracle-working in Galilee. (THIS CRITICISM IS TRUE.)

 

[Paul knew no details of the yet to be written, gospel ‘historical’ Jesus.] Instead, he was a heavenly deity who had done his redeeming work in the supernatural dimension.” (The Jesus Puzzle p. 5.) (DEATH ON THE CROSS, REDEMPTION OF OUR SINS, RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, ETC. ALL OF THIS SEEMS EARTHLY TO ME, BUT I SUPPOSE IT IS SUBJECTIVE AND THEREFORE DEBATABLE.)

This kind of thinking is very difficult for the modern mind. Remember that since every reader of this paper was born he or she has been constantly bombarded—well, except when you were in your church, synagogue, or mosque—with cause and effect, logical, scientific thinking. For the residents of Galilee two thousand years ago, however, nothing could have been more natural. The whole culture and the entire “civilized world” was saturated with this way of thinking. It was, as Doherty explains, “The view shared by a whole range of pagan salvation cults, each of which had its own savior god who had performed deeds in the mythical world. Like Paul’s Christ, savior gods such as Attis and Osiris had been killed; like Paul’s Christ, Osiris had been buried (after being dismembered); like Christ on the third day, Adonis and Dionysos had been resurrected from death. (INCORRECT.) All these things were not regarded as historical; they had taken place in the world of myth and higher reality.” (Doherty, op cit. p. 16.)

 

In summary, all of the parts of the New Testament attributed to a probably historical Paul are of no help at all in establishing a “historical” Jesus, since they never speak of such a person.

 

There is no agreement on any information about this supposedly historical Jesus.

By way of amplifying the above point, what I mean is that, normally, a very well-known historical person—even one existing as long as two thousand years ago—would certainly be much better known to historians than is Jesus. For example, we know much more about Alexander the Great, who lived 200 years before the Jesus character is said to have lived. (THERE IS COMPARATIVELY LITTLE ON ALEXANDER THE GREAT ACTUALLY. IN FACT, MORE ACCOUNTS WRITTEN ABOUT JESUS THAN ANY OTHER FIGURE FROM ANTIQUITY THAT I AM AWARE OF.)

Let’s examine just a few points of reference that one might reasonably be expected to know about a person whose influence was so great that it literally change the course of history over the next two millenium. (1) Looks? No one in the entire bible gives any definitive description of Jesus whatsoever. (REVELATIONS DESCRIBES HIS APPEARANCE.) He is depicted in artistic works, ranging from the ninth century up to modern times, as everything from being rather short with a “male pattern baldness problem” to the tall, handsome Nordic Jesus with the neatly trimmed beard we all met in Sunday School. Secular scholar, Dr. William Harwood, an advocate of a “historical nobody” who served as a basis of the mythical Jesus, believes that Jesus was, “an odd looking man, balding, stooped, with joined eyebrows, and approximately 4 ft 6 in tall” (Mythology’s Last Gods, p. 63). Enough said. (2) Birth date? Biblical scholars of all stripes disagree as to the date of the mythical Jesus’ birth. Dates range from about 4 BCE (the one most often quoted) to about 7 CA. (3) Birthplace? The bible says Bethlehem. However, Jesus is constantly referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth.” Scholars now understand that this was probably a linguistic confusion and perhaps an early mistranslation. Jesus was a “Nazarene,” the title of a sect, not a name having geographical associations. Thus, as G. A. Wells explains, “‘Jesus the Nazarene’ is equivalent to, say, ‘Henry the Quaker’ or ‘George the Methodist.’” (Wells, Did Jesus Exist, p. 147.) Furthermore, modern archeology has established that there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century. Dr. Harwood, mentioned above, argue strongly for the city of Capurnaum as a probable birth city. (4) Personal character and/or moral worthiness? Although we heard all about the loving, compassionate Jesus in church, and how we ought to “turn the other cheek,” we were not given the quotations that urged his followers to bring those that would not have me for their leader and “slay them before me.” (Luke 19: 27.) We were told not to lie. However, we read about how Jesus lied when it suited him. (See Mattill, A. J. Sweet Jesus, p. 103) We remember the part about not stealing, but we heard nothing about Jesus’ habit of stealing pigs, wheat, donkeys, cash, cows, olive oil, and figs. (op. cit. p. 31-33.)

 

Perhaps more critical than all of the above inconsistencies and silences is the confusion about what, exactly, was J.C.’s central message? The problem of discerning a “central message” is confounded not because there isn’t one, but because there are too many. If one asks the average Christian what was Jesus’ essential message to us, they look at you as if you must be the stupidest person they have ever met. Then, they explain patiently that, “God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to die for us so as to atone for our sins, and that if you would simply believe in him, you could have a sort of second life, ever-lasting, in a place called heaven.” Now, at first you must try to ignore the sheer imbecility of what you just heard, and ask a few follow-up questions. You may ask something like, “Well, how can I ‘believe on him’ as the bible phrases it, when I am not clear about his full message and his teachings?” The Christian has a ready answer. “You can read the bible and there you will learn all about his wonderful message to us.”

 

“I already did that,” you might say, “ but then I became even more confused.” As mentioned above, there seems to be hundreds of messages, often with conflicting ideas and pronouncements. You might also add that you were a bit confused as to whether you should pay more attention to Peter’s Jewish ‘works-based’ Christianity, or to Paul’s Gentile ‘faith-based’ Christianity. You confess further confusion when you read about the early Gnostic Christian’s ‘knowledge’ (Gnosis) based Christianity. Despite all your reading, you say, you are still “unclear on the concept.” At this point the Christian will generally say something like, “Jesus loves you anyway” and walk away.

 

The summary point here is that because of the great amount of hopelessly conflicting information and the lack of any definitive information on everything about Jesus—his looks, lineage, biography, nature (three in one; one in three?), character, moral worthiness, message, etc.—it is clear, at least to this writer, that there is simply no one underneath this great pile of b.s. to see. (BASED ON YOUR INCORRECT DATA, I WOULD COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. HOWEVER, WHEN YOUR DATA IS CORRECTED, A FUNNY THING HAPPENS…)

 

I took the liberty to color-code your response. (All the capitalized text)

[Guest Abram]

I'm sorry everyone assumed I had run away. I should have indicated that I was taking time out to edit Mr. Havis' essay. My apologies for the confusion.

[crazy-tiger]

Before anyone bothers to reply to this, would it be possible to see some form of proof for the claims you make?

 

That said, I'm only going to reply to one part... since replying to the lot would require more time than you deserve.

What we now call “Christianity” existed long before Jesus’ time.

As with point two above, there is little or no debate among serious scholars that what we now call “Christianity” has so heavily plagiarized from prior existing Christ and risen sun-god myths as to be virtually indistinguishable from many of them.  (EVIDENCE?)  Of course, first of all there is simply Judaism, which had long talked about and predicted a soon-to-arrive “Christ.”  Ironically, according to them, he still hasn’t come.  The documentation of this claim is the subject of literally hundreds of books.  A small number of these books are quoted in this paper.  Just to present a quick summation, I would like to quote a well-recognized scholar of the early 20th century. “The Pagans had their holy days (from which the Christians plagiarized their Christmas, Easter, Rogation Days, etc.); their monks, nuns, religious processions carrying images of idols, incense, holy water, holy oil, chants, hymns, liturgies, confessions of sins to priests, revelations by gods to priests, prophecies, sacred writings of ‘holy bibles,’ Pontiffs, Holy Fathers, holy crafty priesthoods.  All these sacrosanct things of Christian ‘Revealed Religion,’ were age-old pre-Christian Pagan myths and superstitions.”  (Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless, p. 17 and 18)  All of this is not even “controversial” among knowledgeable secular biblical scholars.

I will quote one more source, a small pamphlet published by The Freedom From Religion Foundation which “zeroes in” on the mythical antecedents of the Jesus Christ figure.  The pamphlet—really, a tract—is entitled, “Cookie Cutter Christs.”  The sun-god Mithra, who was very popular in the Roman Empire around 2000 years ago was “born of a virgin about 600 BC, was celebrated on December 25.  Magi brought gifts to his birth.  His first worshipers were shepherds and he was followed in his travels by twelve companions.  Mithra was slain upon a cross in Persia to make atonement for humankind and take away the sins of the world.  His ascension to heaven was celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter).”  Additionally, the pamphlet continues, “Mithra celebrated a ‘Last Supper’ with his 12 disciples.  The Mythraists observed weekly sabbath days and celebrated the Eucharist by eating wafers marked with a cross.”  Does any of this sound familiar?  (YES.  UNFORTUNATELY, NOT A WORD OF IT IS ACCURATE.  SCHOLARS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MITHRA CULT OF ROME DERIVED ANYTHING BUT ITS NAME FROM THE MITHRA CULT OF PERSIA.  MITHRA WAS NOT CRUCIFIED, THERE WAS NO LAST SUPPER, AND NO 12 DISCIPLES.  THERE ARE NO CROSS EUCHARIST WAFERS EITHER.  THE MITHRA MYSTERY CULT CELEBRATED THEIR RITES IN CAVE CHAPELS.  THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAVE OF THEIR BELIEFS ARE WHAT LITTLE ICONOGRAPHIC REMAINS ARE EXTANT.  IN ADDITION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT THE ROMAN CULT OF MITHRA PRECEEDED CHRISTIANITY.  ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE EXTANT, IT WOULD SEEM THE OPPOSITE.  THE PERSIAN MITHRA CULT CERTAINLY PRECEEDED CHRISTIANITY, BUT THAT IS NOT RELEVANT AS THERE ARE NO PARALLELS OF SIGNIFICANCE.)

This is a problem... since Mithraism was a military religion in the Roman empire.

Why is that a problem? Because it was known to be such in 67 B.C. which places it well before Christianity.

 

Other known facts of Mithraism...

Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.

 

the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour

 

Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother

 

He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity.

 

The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. (A belief that doesn't exist in the OT, by the way...)

 

They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come.

 

They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

 

Finally, the religion of Mithraism that the Romans adopted was the EXACT SAME RELIGION that the Persians had... that is not in doubt.

 

*credits*

Beny, Roloff. Iran: Elements of Destiny. McClelland and Stewart Ltd.

London, 1978.

 

Cumont, Franz. Les Mystères de Mithra.

Dover Publications, Inc.

New York, 1956.

 

Cumont, Franz. The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism.

Dover Publications, Inc. New York, 1956.

 

Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religion. The World Publishing Company.

Cleveland, 1958.

 

Hinnells, John R. Persian Mythology.

Peter Bedrick Books.

New York, 1985.

 

Perowne, Stewart. Roman Mythology.

Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd.

London, 1969

 

 

All you have done is claimed that the accepted facts are wrong... you have given no proof, no evidence... just your opinion.

On the other hand, history itself argues otherwise.

 

Still think you're right?

The same pamphlet notes that, “Attis was born of a virgin mother named Nana, in Phrygia sometime before 200 BC.  He was hanged on a tree, died, rose again, and was called ‘Father God’.”  (THE SOURCE FOR THIS APPEARS TO BE KERSEY GRAVES’ BOOK, WHICH HAS BEEN TOTALLY DISCREDITED.  IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NO PRIMARY DATA EXTANT THAT SUGGESTS THIS ABOUT THE ATTIS MYTHOLOGY.)

Not listed in the credited works... try looking through those that ARE listed before trying to hand-wave it away.

“Horus was born of the virgin Isis in Egypt around 1550 BC. (INCORRECT AGAIN.  ISIS PIECED TOGETHER THE BODY PARTS OF HER DEAD HUSBAND/BROTHER OSIRIS, AND HAD SEX WITH HIS PHALLIS TO PRODUCE HORUS.  SHE WAS CERTAINLY NOT A VIRGIN.)

You don't know much about Osiris, Isis and Horus, do you?

 

Osiris was torn into 14 parts. Isis searched for these parts and whenever she found a part, SHE BURIED IT!

No, she did not piece it together and shag it, she buried it piece by piece.

 

Horus was born while Isis was searching for Osiris. She spent many years on this quest and at it's end, Horus was still an infant. It is most unlikely that Osiris was the father. (especially since Osiris spent many years dead BEFORE he was torn apart...)

 

Guess what? A little investigation shows that you're dead wrong...

Horus as an infant received gifts from three kings, and was crucified on a cross.  (THERE IS NO TEXTUAL OR ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE EXTANT TO SUGGEST THAT ANY OF THIS IS TRUE.  READERS SHOULD RESEARCH THIS FOR THEMSELVES.  IF YOU CAN FIND AN EGYPTOLOGIST WHO BELIEVES THIS THEN I’LL EAT MY SHOE.)

Most of them do... why? Because it was a very common belief that such births were visited by Magi...

 

Of course, with the amazing lack of research you've done on this subject already, should I be surprised that you're wrong, again?

There are about 200 close parallels of the careers of Horus and Jesus Christ.”  (SPECIFICS?  GIVEN THE TRACK RECORD HERE, THIS STATEMENT IS PROBABLY ALSO FALSE.)  “Adonis (Tammuz) was born of a virgin mother called Ishtar (Easter), depicted like the Virgin Mary with her divine child in her arms.  (THIS IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR.  WE DO KNOW THAT WOMEN ‘WEPT FOR TAMMUZ’ BUT AS FAR AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS DEATH, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY PRIMARY DATA OR REPUTABLE NEAR EASTERN SCHOLARS WHO BELIEVE THIS.)  Adonis was regarded as both the son and husband of his mother Ishtar, as God the Father and God the Son.”  We could go on and on.  (AND WE’D PROBABLY FIND THAT YOUR DATA CONTINUES TO BE INACCURATE.)

Prove it's inaccurate...

 

 

 

Oh, I forgot... you didn't research any of this. If you did, you'd have found it's highly accurate.

[Mythra]

familiar?  (YES.  UNFORTUNATELY, NOT A WORD OF IT IS ACCURATE.  SCHOLARS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MITHRA CULT OF ROME DERIVED ANYTHING BUT ITS NAME FROM THE MITHRA CULT OF PERSIA.  MITHRA WAS NOT CRUCIFIED, THERE WAS NO LAST SUPPER,

99382[/snapback]

 

Umm. Not quite true.

 

"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation"

 

This is a mithraic inscription which has been preserved. It is inside a mithraeum that lies beneath the current Vatican in Rome.

 

Sound familiar?

[Guest Abram]

Before anyone bothers to reply to this, would it be possible to see some form of proof for the claims you make?  That said, I'm only going to reply to one part... since replying to the lot would require more time than you deserve.

 

Are you asking me to reply to a 15 page essay, with footnote references and a complete bibliography of all my critiques? I'm sorry my friend, but a scholarly rebuttal would take days, and I’m not going to invest that kind of time. People asked for my objections and I have given them. I will however provide you with some general sources that you can use to verify my assertions.

 

This is a problem... since Mithraism was a military religion in the Roman empire.

Why is that a problem? Because it was known to be such in 67 B.C. which places it well before Christianity.

 

First of all you need to realize that our understanding of Classical Polytheism is extremely limited. (a) The so called Mystery Cults were highly secretive. ( Most (but not all) of the Mithraic data extant is iconographic, not inscriptional. This means we need to interpret the meaning, which is incredibly speculative and difficult. To this day we still don't even know for certain what the depiction of Mithra slaying the bull represents. If you ask 10 different Classical scholars you will likely get at least 5 different answers. So that's the lay of the land, just for the record. You may believe me or disbelieve me at your discretion. Many skeptics claim to be interested in the truth, well if you do some research you will discover that what I am telling you is the “truth” as far as modern (post 1960) Mithraic scholarship is concerned.

 

Other known facts of Mithraism...

Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.

 

the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour

 

Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother

 

He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity.

 

The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. (A belief that doesn't exist in the OT, by the way...)

 

They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come.

 

They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

 

Honestly, where are you getting your information because most of it is highly inaccurate.

 

Finally, the religion of Mithraism that the Romans adopted was the EXACT SAME RELIGION that the Persians had... that is not in doubt.

 

You are basing your conceptions on what Dr. Cumont proposed in 1903, which has been overturned by an overwhelming scholarly consensus in the last four decades. He took the Persian-Roman equivalency as the premise for his entire body of work. But since his publication of Textes et monuments figures relatifs aux mysteres de Mithra in 1896, his theory has been seriously challenged, and today it is considered to be overturned.

 

The most exhaustive critiques of his work are:

 

Beck, R. Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders of the Mysteries of Mithras. "Etudes Preacuteliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain" Vol. 9 (Leiden, 1988).

 

Bianchi, U., ed. et al. La Soteriologia dei Culti Orientali Nell'impero Romano (Leiden, 1982).

 

Hinnells, J., ed. "Mithraic Studies." II vols. (Manchester, 1975).

 

As far as popular publications go, this is probably your best single resource:

 

Clauss, Manfred. The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries (Edinburgh U. Press, 2000).

 

Still think you're right?Not listed in the credited works... try looking through those that ARE listed before trying to hand-wave it away.You don't know much about Osiris, Isis and Horus, do you?

 

Osiris was torn into 14 parts. Isis searched for these parts and whenever she found a part, SHE BURIED IT!

No, she did not piece it together and shag it, she buried it piece by piece.

 

You are correct in part, but your understanding of Egyptian polytheism needs correction. The Isis-Osiris cult (and indeed Egyptian religion in general) was not a monolithic entity, there were regional variations that were not only accepted, but encouraged. In some traditions Isis was the mother of Horus, in others Hathor was the mother of Horus, in some traditions she was the wife of Horus, in others she was the wife of Osiris. But the major legend, typically referred to as the "Legend of Osiris and Isis" involves Osiris dying (as you said being cut up) and Isis piecing him back together so she can have sex with his phallus and produce the son Horus.

 

Two standard texts you might try that will help clear up the confusion:

 

Shafer, Byron E., ed. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice (Cornell U. Press, 1991).

 

Budge, E. A. Wallis. Egyptian Religion: Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life - Library of the Mystic Arts (Citadel Press, 1991).

 

Guess what? A little investigation shows that you're dead wrong...Most of them do... why? Because it was a very common belief that such births were visited by Magi...

 

I understand that there are a tremendous number of pop-culture books out there; the Christ Conspiracy, Sixteen Crucified Saviors, et al. Some of them make good, valid points. But unfortunately, most of them are FAR too liberal with their interpretations. Only a handful of them are scholarly. See: Price, Wells, and Hoffmann for criticisms that are at least made in an academic manner.

 

Of course, with the amazing lack of research you've done on this subject already, should I be surprised that you're wrong, again?Prove it's inaccurate...

Oh, I forgot... you didn't research any of this. If you did, you'd have found it's highly accurate.

 

I'm very sorry, but most of it is not. Strangely enough, the author did not mention the Phoenician deity Melqart, which was in fact a dying savior god. But that is a separate issue.

[Guest Abram]

Umm.  Not quite true.

 

"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation"

 

This is a mithraic inscription which has been preserved.  It is inside a mithraeum that lies beneath the current Vatican in Rome.

 

Sound familiar?

99409[/snapback]

 

Yes it does, it is actually one of Zarathustra's sayings from the 11th century Shahnameh tradition of the Persian Avesta. In short, it's not associated with even the Persian Mithra, nevermind the Roman Mithra.

 

Refer to the following for attribution of that saying to Zarathustra:

 

Vermaseren, Maarten. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World (New York: Oxford U., 1989).

[Mythra]

Yes it does, it is actually one of Zarathustra's sayings from the 11th century Shahnameh tradition of the Persian Avesta.  In short, it's not associated with even the Persian Mithra, nevermind the Roman Mithra.

 

Refer to the following for attribution of that saying to Zarathustra:

 

Vermaseren, Maarten.  The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World (New York: Oxford U., 1989).

99418[/snapback]

 

Since Mithraism died out in the 5th century, and the vatican has been a papal residence also since the 5th century, how did this inscription end up underneath the vatican in the 11th century?

 

I think you better check your sources better.