Did Jesus Exist?

[MQTA]

I now even question the existance of Paul of Tarsus.

 

[q]

We need to look at Apollonius of Tyana (known as Pol of Tyana) because some of his many deeds, travels and teachings are preserved for us in the Holy Bible. Pol was the Cappadocian Savior who worked miracles, preached morals, preached a Gnostic Spiritual Christ who was a spiritual being in the world, who did not ever become corruptible flesh. Instead, this spiritual Christ, taught by Pol, entered Mithra the Christ, (as a dove) at his baptism and left him at his crucifixion. He then became the sacrifice of God’s Son, the Christ, for all mankind.

 

Some reports said Pol himself died (upside down) to save mankind. Much of his activities are recorded in the Bible as those things attributed to a man called Paul of Tarsus in the New Testament. Some of Pol's known letters (to the same towns listed in the Bible as letters from Paul) were known and quoted in the fourth century by Greek historians. These fourth and fifth century historians claimed Pol's letters are the basis for the letters that the (possibly fictitious?) Paul of the Bible was supposed to have written. They accused the Christians of Plagiarism (stealing someone else's work) and denied that there was any evidence that a Paul of Tarsus ever lived!

 

Many of these writings that are attributed to someone called Paul in the New Testament, came straight out of known Gnostic texts and other writings. It has been well demonstrated that the Paul of Tarsus in the New Testament is claimed to have done many of the same identical deeds, spoke some of the same words and made the same claims as was earlier attributed to Apollonius, who was called Pol of Tyana (a suburb of Tarsus).

 

Pol was a real man, a Mithraic, and/or, Gnostic philosopher who was written about in a number of Official court histories by both the Romans and the Greeks. Also recording him were the Egyptians and others. Pol preached his Gospel all over the Middle East, Europe and even over in India and Persia. The Holy Catholic Church succeeded in destroying much of this material, or of infusing Paul’s name where Pol was listed. Today we must depend on the writings of Philostratos, several others who eulogized Pol and the Christian writers who tried to discredit the claims made about Pol and his works and teachings. These defenders of Christianity tried to show that there really was a Paul even if he did do some of the same things credited to Pol of Tyana.

 

Many of the events that were supposed to have happened to the Paul of the New Testament, were events that were Known (and recorded) to have happened to Pol of Tyana. Some of the same words that were recorded officially as statements of Pol were reported to have been said later by Paul in the New Testament. There is not one single scrap of non-Christian evidence that Paul of the New Testament was a living person.

[/q]

 

http://www.jovialatheist.com/biblehistory.html

 

All of Paul's letters could be pure fabrications, clear there are multiple authors, but the originals may not have been from "Paul" either.

[- AUB -]

Gnosis of Disbelief

 

I forgot to mention the http://www.jesusneverexisted.com site, which happens to have a lengthy section comparing the OT legends to the archaeological evidence, this should be precisely what u are after.

 

Chronological Index

 

I recommend all go though this.

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

Gnosis of Disbelief

 

I forgot to mention the http://www.jesusneverexisted.com site, which happens to have a lengthy section comparing the OT legends to the archaeological evidence, this should be precisely what u are after.

 

Chronological Index

 

I recommend all go though this.

102436[/snapback]

 

 

Hi AUB,

 

Thanks much! I've got the Robert Price and Freke/Gandy books on

order, and I've begun reading Earl Doherty's site!

 

[- AUB -]

I thought I’d respond to “ABRAM”s previous posts, although some have been dealt with I thought I’d show that these very typical xtian responses to mythicism, (Rem’s imitation is bang on) are VERY easily dealt with, once you have the relevant facts. Xtians don’t, those that come up with these arguments are simply dishonest but the majority that repeat them are just lazy/narrow and never check on them.

 

(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.),

 

This is a ploy used by tektonics.org alot.

 

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

 

For a start they always miss out luminaries like Robert Price who has more qualifications than you can shack a stick at, and for another its a variation of argumentum ad popularum, true these people are not really qualified (they never said they were, their work speaks for itself, unlike creation “scientists” who abuse their positions all the time), but pioneers never are, (was Darwin, Galileo?) its a radical field, and the status quo is so maintained that most biblical scholars don’t want to stick their necks out. (theists often neglect to factor their own effect into these equations, like using the unhappiness of gays as an argument against them, when of couse they are the main reason they are unhappy) Yes most don’t support mythicism, (not because they’ve managed to destroy it, most ignore it) but that says nothing about the strength of the case ITSELF. Besides it is diametrically opposed to one of the main assumptions of our culture, what do they expect? It is about time a major scholar took the plunge, but given how the Jesus Seminar fellows were bullied into taking an unreasonably conservative position, America in particular is not going to produce such scholars as the theists demand, not yet anyway.

 

(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.)

 

This is a bad arguement, and even most mythisicsts don’t know why.

 

Here it is, I’m going to explain a major probelm that mythicism has, and only mythicist vets, (Doherty, Price, Me) seem to grasp, and it is this. The passion and death of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Gospels is a composite of multiple oral traditions, motifs and midrashic elements put together over century, long after the centrla motif of Jesus’ death and resseration had become the focus of the xtian cult. It is absurd to expect that you can find complete copies of this largely arbitrary amalgam, exactly as we have in xtianity, (like they ripped of the entire sequance wholesale in one go). Attempts to portray Buddha, Krishna and Mythra as having them all are absurd, and a bane of proper mythicism. Mystery cults had very simple central elements, the details of Jesus’ death did not come out till after the churches decided to historicise him, then they “borrowed” the necessary elements from many sources, not all religous.

 

The end result was in that particular combination, unique, but that is due to the fact that very few gods get that historicised, and the chances of any religion taking that many components and putting them together in that same way is astronomical. It is the fact the passion is a clear combination of plagiarised elements that is the point. The pieces of the puzzle are what make the case, we can trace EVERY single one of them to prior sources, the picture they make is in general unoriginal, as its still just a salvation cult with padding (hence the parallels Archaria bring up) but some of the combinations are new (hence the differences theist bring up). Of course its not exactly the same, xtian mythology wasn’t invented in one go, nor entirely a conscious rip off, some elements were added to attract pagans, some were part of the necessary building block that every mystery cult had, (like all cars have wheels, doors etc) and the rest is midrash, something mythicists need to focus on more. This sloppy work must end. We are right, but it doesn’t look like it sometimes, we create are own strawmen.

 

It is xtianity’s earliest forms that are the most clearly derivative, a branch off from so many other cults, and as this branch moves further out it develops unique features, while also sapping ideas from other branches. We can go even further back, and trace the theology, Jesus and the metaphysics to basic philosophical concepts, till we have reduced Jesus Christ to its most elemental components. All is explained, that is true mythicism, not thinking the later passion narrative is the origin, and just taking that on like Graves did. Theists like to point out the differences but that is such simplistic thinking, and (should be) a strawman of mythisim, we are not saying xtinaity is a carbon copy but that form criticism and comparisons show it as a recycled variation. Theists seem to think we’d need a saviour god from another religion called Jesus Christ crucified by Pontious Pilot before we’d have a case.

 

(NOT TRUE; THE LETTERS OF PLINY CLEARLY INDICATE THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS WELL ESTABLISHED IN ASIA MINOR BY CA. 112 A.D.

 

Oh man, this one annoys me, yes they do bring this one up as a “trump” sometimes.

 

Let me tell u about pliny, he was, like the elder,(who died trying to save the victims of Vesuvius) was universally recognised as one of the most moral and enlightened human beings of his generation, a great scholar, and a valuable source of information on that era. Yet this degenerate interpolation, still considered genuine by a legion of obtuse scholars has him pointlessly torturing women! Bad enough that it’s a Roman is doing this (women were treasured in their own strange way) but he’s also doing it due to some vague interest in their religion, despite the policy of tolerance of all beliefs, (which ended when the xtians took power of course, and even when they were “persecuted” later on, by enlightened rulers like Marcus Aurelius, given what we know about them it was probubly a just sentance).

 

Its just a bucket load of impobilities, if not impossiblities. We can see very easily that this is just another martyr legend, like the lions in the circus, those dastardly pagans who for some unknown reason loved to persecute poor xtians, (in reality a theological and phycological ploy by pious frauders). The numbers and fame of xtians in the first century was just another lie used to prop up the martr myths, and is always so used.

 

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.)

 

Yet another interpolation. There is no confirmation that Nero was ever blamed for the fire (just much later fakes), he wasnt even in Rome at the time, accounts show he never resorted to public executions, and no other connecting between xtians and Nero has ever been found. This again is historically anachronistic, there were not enough xtians at this time for them to be a recognised minority, or enough in Rome, (it is begging the question to use this passage to support the idea, as it itself needs support), Once again it is derived from the bunk mass conversions of the NT. (Not that large xtian communities would make the slightest difference to the mythicist case, I’m just being thorough).

 

When there is doubt as to the authenticity of a passage whether or not there is any other evidence for its contents is crucial, yet xtians present this and expect it to stand on its own, it cannot. Anyway a comparison shows this is just another example of xtians choosing a “persecutor” due to a bad reputation, like Matthew’s choice of Herod, hoping their fabricated crime will go unnoticed among all the real ones, but like the slaughter of the 1st born this is out of step with the behaviour of the demonised character. Herod and Nero’s crimes were common court intrigues and family feuds, not mass murders, done publicly, this is sensationalist nonsense.

 

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.

 

This is a terrible argument, the point is that the TF has Joe mention what “he” thinks is the Messiah in 3 sentances, rather brief for the most important person in jewish history, to analy point out other jesus’ that get 1 or 2 sentances less is pathetic in the exsteme, and is petty crap. The reason the TF is so short is that interpolations had to be so as to preserve the original scroll count, for reference purposes. That is the explanation, clearly the TFs Jesus’ is not just like all the others, by anyone’s estimate, and he getting a mention that is practically as short as any other emphasises the suspicious length for this subject, not that it was unusual for a Jesus to be given a short mention. (I have yet to see a theist offer this argument, but it is of the same quality as the rest)

 

(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.)

 

No, it can be dismissed on its own merits (or lack of them) however it is important to note the pattern or pious fraud, and form criticism adds another nail in the coffin. If you think we need to use one fake to declare another you have clearly ignored the arguments we apply to each one individually, they are more than enough. Again you are straw manning.

 

(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.

 

 

For Tiberias to be silent requires a better explanation than his Judaism, especially as many theists expect us to except another Jew’s testimony on Jesus. Maybe he would have avoided mentioning jesus, but he mentioned other would be Messiahs, as does Joe, they both put their personal spin on them, but there is no evidence that they ever felt the need to airbrush anybody out. The Jewish (i.e. Talmudic) interpretation on Jesus is clearly a reaction to the later xtian claims. If mythicism is right there would be no jesus for any jew to mention, but there are many ways a jew could interpret jesus, very few would reqaure them to ignore him altogether. As for taking Photius’s word, theists are alwasy prepared to take the workd on anyone, even none xtians when it suites them, but to suddenly doubt a fellow xtian is just spinning. It is absurd to even hint he woudl have kept quite about any mention, why?

 

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.)

 

“All the way over in alexandria”? He was not on another planet; Alexandria was as well connected with the rest of the world as you could get. Such events as the gospels described would have travelled around the known world in a flash. Anyway there is a problem here (it’s amazing how many xtians ignore this), Philo’s Logos concept and theology is precisely mirrored in John, now if this account was true, don’t you think Philo would have interested in someone claiming to be his precious Son of God intermediary? Is it a coincidence that the NT uses the same language and ideas he had? Did he get it from them? If so why not mention Jesus and the gospels? (and before you suggest he would wish to hide his plagiarism, his Logos was based on pre-Socratic speculations, it’s Greek all the way)

 

Well of course what happened is that John borrowed heavily from Philo’s work, like Josephus he was a major source of ideas for the Evangelical plagiarists, yet the xtians who are aware of this would have use either swallow a coincidence or an extreme improbability, that both these Jews were really closet xtians! They suggest this every time a 1st century figure is shown to have ideas similar to the NT’s, Epictetus the Stoic etc, (who’s teachings were used by Mat and Luke to pad out Jesus’) when clearly Philo and Joe’s whose work which we can date, came first, and the undated gospels, written by an obscure and derivative cult ripped of these widely disseminated works. This is evidence of their late date, given the more probable direction of derivation.

 

There is off course another important point here, and that is the likelihood that Philo’s work inspired not only the gospels but also xtianity itself and that from day one this cult has been a variation on Logos worship, and is the product of Greco-Roman intellectuals, not galilean fisherman. Dr. Price concurs, so it’s not just my crazy idea. You clearly know these works, yet fail to see the damming evidence against your faith, that Jesus was a myth, derived from these works that are silent on the Jesus you think is real.

[- AUB -]

were the gospels written by human witnesses to the “life and times” of the putative Jesus? The answer is a resounding “No!”

 

(EVIDENCE FOR THIS ASSERTION PLEASE?)

 

The anachronisms. The evidence is overwhelming, there are numerous sources that this them. By all means resort to Gastrich style harmonising if you wish but that will just further undermine your intellectual honestly. The gospels are second century gentile fantasy, that can be shown more easily than any other evidence for mythicism, I prefer a challenge so focus on the original Jesus concepts, not the later clumsy historicising.

 

(60-70 C.E. WOULD MAKE MARK PERHAPS 50-60 YEARS OLD. IS THIS IMPOSSIBLE? NO.)

 

It is if the reports of his martyrdom 20 years earlier are to be taken seriously. (Why wait so long as well?) Few lived that long, and besides the identity of Mark is a blank, a gentile allegorical writer, could be anybody. Besides these dates a guesses, based on no hard evidence at all. If the hypothesis that mark is post bar kochba then 135-145 is the most reasonable date, this makes sense as the first references to a single gospel is in the 150s. +Plus you still had church leaders denying they worshiped a crucified man in 140 CE.

 

Famed Jesus scholar, Dr. G. A Wells

(FAMED GERMAN LANGUAGE STUDIES SCHOLAR YOU MEAN.)

 

Yes, we get the frigging message, stop ad hominem-ing.

 

(IGNATIUS REFERENCES VARIOUS PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS, ALTHOUGH HE DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE AUTHORS. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WRITING CA. 100-110 A.D.

 

I have already dealt with that, one lie to prop up another.

 

 

POLYCARP ALSO MAKES REFERENCES SLIGHTLY BEFORE JUSTIN.)

 

Big woop. The position remains unrefuted.

 

(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.)

 

Why? You said yourself conservative (i.e. ideologically biased) dating, your argument is fallacious. “Well before”? How do you know the manner in which they were written? There’s evidence they were done in stops and starts side by side, hence partial corrections and contractions between them, they only have reference to incomplete versions of each other. You assume too much.

 

(RIGHT, SO BECAUSE SKEPTICS THINK IT, THAT MUST MAKE IT SO.)

 

 

Our thoughts pass though a far more vigorous screening, and meet far higher standards then any credulous theist, so yes, I would think a sceptic far more likely to be right.

 

(IT IS THE MOST RATIONAL MODEL THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY.)

 

Is it? More rational to suppose a story laced with implausible or impossible fantasy is partially true than that it is entirely fiction? How do you gauge that? Due to xtianity’s (eventual) success? That’s absurd, religions rise and fall, none of which are true no matter what direction they are going in, is the Koran true due to Islam’s success? It was certainly more dramatic, and sudden than xianities, yet you believe the Koran is false, why? What prevents you from considering the possibility that xtianity rose “despite” being base on a myth? Even through you think this is what happened with every other relgion?

[- AUB -]

(THE PASSION STORY IS PARALLED IN THE O.T., BUT WE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT IS PROPHECY, NOT DIFFUSION.

 

Substantiate your beliefs, or stop pretending you have anything but blind faith. We say these writers, steeped in this material wrote midrashic variations. You say a holy prophecy was magically fulfilled, and written down by writers who dutifully recorded it objectively, and only afterwards noticed this these events matched these passages, I say yer right.

 

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.)

 

Of course they are, they a motifs. Such stories were oral, with many variations, you wouldn’t expect get a word for word Xerox, sheesh, study the era. There were contemporary “mock king” cerimonies that contain virtually all the passion elements in one. As well as each element themselves having multiple pagan precedence.

 

(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?)

 

You can tell Rem has had considerable experience debating theists, this is just as irritating as the real thing. They will ignore the evidence they cannot refute and resort to immature polemics.

 

Sorry folks, I really can’t be bothered to just list all pagan parallels, its been done to death, and I’ve given sites previously, hard to give 110% for a fictional theist.

 

(IF ANY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS WRITERS WAS INFLUENCED BY THE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, IT WAS JOHN, NOT MARK.)

 

All the gospels were gentile (they make mistakes on Jewish practices even a lay Jew wouldn’t make), and all show such influence to a greater a lesser degree.

 

 

Hopefully I’ll be able to deal with the other objections later.