Back to Basics... A Question for Theists

155 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture
Sinner, you can't even get

Sinner, you can't even get out of your own way. Is there any proof that a jesus was even born (note the bible is not reliable as a reference)?
Before you even reference the bible consider this, ever story even those that include jesus is a stolen story that was later attributed to jesus and or christianity. The resurrection, the virgin birth, the flood, every fucking miracle, all come from other cultures that were not jewish or christian.
The Romans kept excellent records. One can cross-reference their records and find virtually anything and everything that happened back then. There is no record of a jesus born in Bethlehem, born to a mary, born from a virgin, born to a Joseph of Arimathea. There is no record of an arrest of a jesus of Nazareth, no record of an execution of the same, and no record of a resurrection of ANYBODY in all of Roman history. You'd think that the best chroniclers of all human history would have at least jotted something down about a person crucified and came back to life. There is no record of any interaction between a jesus of Nazareth and any officials. If this jesus turned over the tables in front of the tabernacle there WOULD BE A RECORD! But no, zip, nada, zilch ZERO!
There are no Egyptian records, no Greek records, no Roman records, not even jewish records from the first century about any fucking jesus!
The likelihood of jesus being a real figure is pretty much ZERO. It is more likely that the people that compiled the bible, incorporating ideas and stories from other cultures needed a hero and created the fictitious character "jesus". He was probably named after some scribe's cat.

Darren Koch's picture
Makes sense MYKOCB- a billion

Makes sense MYKOCB- a billion followers of a make-believe peasant. See Tacitus and Josephus.

mykcob4's picture
@Sinner

@Sinner
1) My moniker is Mykcob4, not MYKOCB
2) There are over a billion muslims, there are nearly a billion Buddhist, over a billion Hindus. Numbers don't mean truth.
3) Josephus was born after the fact and relying on unreliable testimony from people that weren't even eyewitnesses.
4) Tacitus was also not of the age. He wrote about events 114 years after the fact based on folklore and testimony from people that were not credible as witnesses.

algebe's picture
@Mykcob4: "There are over a

@Mykcob4: "There are over a billion muslims, there are nearly a billion Buddhist, over a billion Hindus. Numbers don't mean truth."

In his heyday, Mao had close to a billion followers, all waving copies of his Little Red Book. Not all of them were true believers, but I suspect the percentage was way higher than Christianity.

Darren Koch's picture
Mykowhatever- don't care

Mykowhatever- don't care about your moniker. You are in need of a serious history lesson. If you claim Christ never existed, site sources. Maybe ask Hitler!!

algebe's picture
@Sinner:

@Sinner:
I could cite contemporary sources for approximate contemporaries of the Jesus character, such as Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Cleopatra, Boudica, Vercingetorix, Cicero, Pompey, Caiaphas, and so on. But the Jesus character, who's supposed to have done some pretty weird and wonderful things, was never mentioned by any contemporary writers, and never wrote anything down. All we have are anonymous later writings conventionally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Also, don't you think it's strange that the gospels relate his early life and the last three years, but leave a big blank in the middle?

Sky Pilot's picture
Sinner,

Sinner,

Will you get it through your head that there was no one named "Jesus" 2,000 years ago. The name did not exist. The character got the name "Jesus" around the year 1630 A.D.. https://www.quora.com/If-the-letter-J-wasnt-invented-until-1600-how-did-...

And brush up on Christ = http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Christ.html#.WdB1euZtfWA

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=christ

mykcob4's picture
Ha, Sinner!

Ha, Sinner!
I gave you one earlier. I don't claim that he didn't exist. I merely question if he did. There is no reliable or credible record. It is up to YOU to prove he did. Proving a negative is illogical.
My statement about my moniker is just pointing out how sloppy you are with facts and details.

Darren Koch's picture
Algebe- I often wonder about

Algebe- I often wonder about the middle years as well- guess his time had "not yet come" as he informed Mary. I go back to the idea that he instructed the Apostles to build His Church, not write a Bible. Folks were/are illiterate and no printing press existed. That's where the teachings and traditions of Catholicism come into play. I'd like your thoughts on where and why Jesus as a myth may have come from? Say pre-325 AD.? Thanks.
And diotrephes, what folks call Him throughout the ages makes me no difference , the title "Son of God" is all that matters. Call him Fred if ya want.

algebe's picture
@Sinner: "where and why Jesus

@Sinner: "where and why Jesus as a myth may have come from?"

The dying and rising god myth was prevalent long before the supposed birth of Jesus. I think it was linked to the cycle of crop growth. The Egyptian god Osiris was believed to have died and risen three days later. Dionysus was killed and eaten by the Titans but came back to live. His followers had a a ritual of consuming raw meat and wine to become one with the god. There are many others. The Jesus myth wasn't formed in a vacuum. It was part of a milieu.

@Sinner: "Folks were/are illiterate and no printing press existed"

I think you underestimate the capabilities of ancient people. Lots of ancient texts have survived from Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, Assyria, and Rome, etc. There were also lots of books in South America until the priests burned them. The Romans kept copious records, and they had flesh-and-blood printers and copying machines. So with all this writing and recording, it seems very odd that there's not a single contemporary mention of a man who cured the blind and lepers, raised the dead, and was killed and came back to life.

Darren Koch's picture
Algebe- thanks for the reply.

Algebe- thanks for the reply. I wasn't very clear with my point regarding the printing press. There were plenty of individuals capable of recording these events during the times of Christ, as you pointed out. I meant the written word was not a logical means of spreading the Word during these times, and the following 1500+ years following because of mass illiteracy, expense of literature and lack of mass production. Word of mouth and The Church were a more appropriate means due to this fact.

jonthecatholic's picture
Gosh. This topic on Jesus

Gosh. This topic on Jesus being a real person again? Now, I understand you may not believe in the stories that the Bible mention. Miracles are pretty hard to accept as fact. But having a man named Jesus (of Yeshua or someone they called Christ) who founded Christianity in the first century is generally accepted as truth. Jesus myth theories are a relatively new phenomena.

Say you don't believe in a historic Jesus. This leaves a huge question of, "Who founded Christianity?" Typically, for any human institution, we'd look to the organization's own account for its founding. Why is Christianity's founder still being questioned?

algebe's picture
@Jon the Catholic: "Jesus

@Jon the Catholic: "Jesus myth theories are a relatively new phenomena."

Could that be something to do with the fact that until the present era, it was extremely dangerous to question church orthodoxy, especially on something as fundamental as the existence of Jesus? In some countries there's still strong pressure against inquiry.

"we'd look to the organization's own account for its founding."

I think that would depend on the organization's reputation for honesty and transparency. Or lack thereof.

jonthecatholic's picture
"Could that be something to

"Could that be something to do with the fact that until the present era, it was extremely dangerous to question church orthodoxy, especially on something as fundamental as the existence of Jesus?"

- I don't see how this applies to countries where Christianity was not practiced. In fact, most major religions mention Jesus Christ as either a prophet, a misguided rabbi, a wise man. Even in places where Christianity hasn't spread as much, they don't claim that Jesus never existed.

"I think that would depend on the organization's reputation for honesty and transparency. Or lack thereof."

- I'm unsure of what you mean by this. Are you saying that the religion itself is a lie? Or that the organization itself has been involved in propagating certain lies?

algebe's picture
@Jon the Catholic: "I don't

@Jon the Catholic: "I don't see how this applies to countries where Christianity was not practiced."

Why would they care? Saying Jesus never existed isn't going to get me stoned in Riyadh or Delhi.

"Are you saying that the religion itself is a lie? Or that the organization itself has been involved in propagating certain lies?"

Yes.

Christianity is a huge amalgam of plagiarized legends. The church has propagating that fantasy for centuries to support or influence regimes from Constantine to Franco, and to gain power, prestige, and possessions for itself and its minions.

jonthecatholic's picture
"Why would they care? Saying

"Why would they care? Saying Jesus never existed isn't going to get me stoned in Riyadh or Delhi."

Jews considered Jesus a teacher/Rabbi. The Muslims considered Jesus as a prophet. Hindus and Buddists considered him a wise teacher. I'd assume that if any other religious group were to start this Jesus myth theory, it would be the Jews and they're do it pretty early on in the history of the church. But they didn't. They accepted he existed as a real person who was a Rabbi.

"Christianity is a huge amalgam of plagiarized legends. The church has propagating that fantasy for centuries to support or influence regimes from Constantine to Franco, and to gain power, prestige, and possessions for itself and its minions."

This, of course, is assuming that Christianity is a lie. I have yet to see any proof of Christianity being a copied religion without having to go through a bunch of strained interpretations of earlier pagan gods. You need to remember that the Jews had in their law, a prohibition against anything pagan. They were, in a sense, allergic to the idea of paganism. So to suggest that the Jews in the first century would even consider copying from pagan religions would take a lot of hard evidence. It's actually very hard to comprehend.

mykcob4's picture
All you believers are under

All you believers are under the assumption that JEEEEESUS founded christianity. That is simply not the case. If there was a jesus, and there is zero proof that he did, he was just a jewish agitator that railed against Hebrew authority that stole from their own people and catered to Roman rulers. "christianity" began years after the first century and preceding years, as a myth that grew out of folklore.
In the 1st century, there was a wide dissatisfied jewish community that were uprising against jewish authority. The jewish authority was corrupt. If jesus actually lived, he was just one of a number of protesters. He didn't "found" anything. He led a group of anarchists.

Darren Koch's picture
Mykcob4- what about "give to

Mykcob4- what about "give to Caesar what is Carsar's", turning the other cheek and loving & serving your enemy constitutes anarchy?

mykcob4's picture
@Sinner

@Sinner
What the fuck is that suppose to mean?

Are you trying to say "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" From the so-called synoptic gospels?
Those sayings are only attributed to a jesus that might not probably never existed. There is absolutely no proof that a jesus ever said them. Plus those sayings only came into being nearly 300 hundred years later.

jonthecatholic's picture
I'll leave this resource here

I'll leave this resource here.

https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/jesus-mythicism-1-the-tacitus-ref...

This might help you understand more the problem with mysticist views. The author is himself an atheist and while he doesn't believe in Jesus as God, he does believe that a Jesus who was connected to the founding of Christianity.

I'm curious, @mykcob, who founded Christianity if not Jesus and where is your proof for that?

mykcob4's picture
What a crock of shit Jon the

What a crock of shit Jon the catholic. A revisionist history propaganda piece.
Scholars of Tacitus claim that Tacitus refers to christianity through second-hand information.

jonthecatholic's picture
Have you even read it?

Have you even read it?

mykcob4's picture
Yep read it and it would not

Yep read it and it would not be the first time. I have seen this piece of shit propaganda rolled out many times and it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The writer/s aren't credible and their source material is made up or altered.
I remember the Guardian printing this once and a team of experts from the Rome Archeology and Antiquities foundation demanded a retraction based on falsehoods. They would know since they are in possession of the artifacts in question. They not only got the retraction but a robust apology.
Tacitus wrote about christianity from secondhand sources. That is a fact. He never knew or even lived near anyone that supposedly even met jesus. He also wrote about christianity as an afterthought. And besides, the "Annals" are very much in question as not being authentic. I tend to think that Tacitus was not the sole author but instead was one of many that dictated to scribes. Then Tacitus compiled the 30 books together. It doesn't clear-cut prove there was a jesus.

jonthecatholic's picture
Be that as it may, it doesn't

Be that as it may, it doesn't discredit his entire work. It seems to me, you're willing to discredit (or refuse to accept) any evidence brought forth for the historicity of Jesus and you cling onto your fringe theory for all it's worth.

You say his account isn't reliable as he got his information from secondhand sources. So? Historians do this all the time.

"I tend to think that Tacitus was not the sole author but instead was one of many that dictated to scribes."

What's your reason for believing this was the case?

mykcob4's picture
No, Jon the Catholic

No, Jon the Catholic Historians don't do that all the time. They may include second-hand information but they back it up with credible information. Second-hand knowledge is only a clue, a clue that usually leads to nowhere. Tacitus was trying to describe the jewish riots. He included "christians" in his statements. The Romans at the time (especially the Senate) could not understand why a backward people would riot against a government they provided security wealth and education to a people that had been slaves before. Tacitus attempted to explain.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - I'll leave

Jon the Catholic - I'll leave this resource here.

You mean the same guy who told us the Christian canon was established long before Constantine; but before the proverbial ink was dry on that told us that it wasn't established until long after Constantine? Yeah, I wouldn't take anything that person says too seriously.

jonthecatholic's picture
You misunderstood him, nyar.

You misunderstood him, nyar. He did say the Canon of the Bible was already being established (this took a really long time). It started way before Constantine was born (between the 2nd and 3rd centuries, roughly) and concluded long after he died (Councils of Hippo and Carthage).

Nyarlathotep's picture
It started way before

Jon the Catholic - It started way before Constantine was born (between the 2nd and 3rd centuries, roughly) and concluded long after he died (Councils of Hippo and Carthage).

V.S.

TimONeill -You will need to explain how this could be when the canon of the Bible had already been established long before Constantine was even born.

Remember, he made that claim in response to the statement that Constantine set the canon for the bible. Again; when he needed it to have been completed before Constantine, he told us it was before Constantine. When he needed it to be after Constantine, he told us it was after Constantine. And made sure to insult those who disagreed, in both instances!

jonthecatholic's picture
See Muratorian fragment/canon

See Muratorian fragment/canon for this. Certain books of the Bible were already established as being part of scripture. The four gospels, for example and a number of Pauline epistles. But the question of a closed canon was settles after Constantine's death. and had nothing to do with him.

This theory that Constantine had copies of scripture produced is just stretching things a little too much. The only thing that proposes that is that Constantine had asked for copies of scripture to be produced (kinda like how you'd ask a photocopy place to produce 50 copies of a lecture). This is ALL you're basing this theory on.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jon the Catholic - This

Jon the Catholic - This theory that Constantine had copies of scripture produced is just stretching things a little too much.

V.S.

Jon the Catholic - ...Constantine had asked for copies of scripture to be produced...

----------------------------------------------
Anyway, I'm no expert. What I do know is that if someone tells you it happened long before X, and insults people who disagree. Then later turns around and tells you it happened long after X, and insults people who disagree; that is not someone you should be relying on in the subject. Or another other subject for that matter. I'd go so far as to say you should flee any area where they are operating heavy machinery.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.