The sham that there was a historical jesus.

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sapporo's picture
Why would Greek and Roman

Why would Greek and Roman historians mention their own gods in their works, unless their gods existed?

David Killens's picture
Oh wow, I guess you have

Oh wow, I guess you have never played the Telephone Game. It is also called the whisper game. This game is very amusing for parties because people whisper in each other's ear, passing along just one word. Then the last person in line tells everyone what that word is, and every time, it comes out different.

The passing of information by mouth is the most unreliable method possible.

Grinseed's picture
What eye-witnesses were these

What eye-witnesses were these?
There are no independent accounts of Paul's Damascus road conversion. The first time written account by him isnt until at least 20 years after the event. His companions on the road and Ananias are silent. Luke doesnt record anything until nearly 40 years after and even then contradicts Paul's version.
If it wasn't enough that christians have to believe in Jesus they still have to accept that Paul was given a mission from God all on Paul's word only.

mykcob4's picture
Well AG you are wrong. I

Well AG you are wrong. I provided proof but all you do is spew bullshit. There were NO eyewitnesses,...none!

bigbill's picture
How can you be so certain?

How can you be so certain? Jesus lived from around 3 or 4 B.C. to around 30 A.D. Are you saying that James didn`t live the Lords brother or Saint Peter Or saint john These were the eyewitnesses who taught saint Paul. And the time period is very soon after Saint Paul`s conversion and his trip to Jerusalem And Saint Paul who was very well versed and educated wrote it down on parchments Simple as that..

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Well there is no evidence for

Well there is no evidence for "John" as an individual as he appears to be several people over a hundred and fifty year period...and don't quote poor old platypus...Further there is NO EVIDENCE that Peter was ever in Rome or that he ever existed.
Ironically there is some credible historical testimony that Thomas existed and visited Jewish communities in India. Note that version of Christianity does not contain any Pauline texts at all and was declared heretic by the Catholic Church and its adherents slaughtered by the Portuguese.

You should spend some time studying the reality not pursuing your fantasy factoids AB.

mykcob4's picture

What eyewitnesses? Do you have ANY proof whatsoever? No you don't because there isn't any!

Grinseed's picture
Galatians 1: 11 But I certify

Galatians 1: 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it:

Paul repeatedly wrote how no-one, especially these 'eyewitnesses' taught him anything about HIS gospel; he insisted he received it all by revelation and scripture. He claimed to have met Peter and James but denied they ever taught him anything because as he was the last to see Jesus all his information was more up to date.

Sky Pilot's picture
Why do supposedly rational

Why do supposedly rational intelligent people in the 21st Century think that a magical Jewish zombie from 2,000 years ago is going to save their "souls" and give them eternal life? Even the guy who is credited with coming up with the scam said that if the dead do not rise then one's faith in his fairy tale is worthless. Have you seen any zombies other than the ones in the movies? If your dead relatives come knocking on your door your faith in zombie Jesus might be valid. Until then it's a fairy tale.

mykcob4's picture
I don't know which front it

I don't know which front it was...

Tin-Man's picture
@Myk Re: Monty Python

@Myk Re: Monty Python Military trial

Man.... Wish I would have had one of those gnarly elf hats during one of my deployments. All the other guys would have been, like, all jealous and shit.

Tin-Man's picture
Oh! I know! It was the All

Oh! I know! It was the All Quiet on the Western Front to the East!

Grinseed's picture
Just as long as its not those

Just as long as its not that awful Judean Popular People's Front splitter.


Attach Image/Video?: 

ZeffD's picture
AG: "...And another thing is

AG: "...And another thing is that there were eyewitnesses right from the outset Paul had the vision on the road to Damascus read Acts chapter 8 and following to confirm this..".
Is such nonsense really worth a response? How can anyone tell if this is ignorance, trolling or brain damage?!

Ensjo: "Only later, as the church became an end in itself, roles were created (presbyters, deacons, bishops) and there was a concern of registering the words that circulated in oral tradition."
It is no longer possible to know what oral traditions there may have been in any particular area 2,000 years ago, but by today's standards the earliest articles are often little more than ancient ramblings about who begot whom or about some supposed miracle.
"They are identified by the biblical passages they contain, and some special scribal features such as tiny script. The texts are the same as those required by later rabbinic halakha that has been passed down to modern Jewish practice, but some contain additional biblical passages. Since the Qumran tefillin are the only examples we have from the Second Temple period, we cannot know whether their distinctive features reflect the traditions of a specific community or whether they represent a more widespread tradition."

Of more interest might be why the Roman Emperor decided to embrace and utilise this cult rather than persecute it. From:
The reasons why individual Christians were persecuted in this period were varied. In some cases they were perhaps scapegoats, their faith attacked where more personal or local hostilities were at issue.

Contemporary pagan and Christian sources preserve other accusations levelled against the Christians. These included charges of incest and cannibalism, probably resulting from garbled accounts of the rites which Christians celebrated in necessary secrecy, being the agape (the ‘love-feast’) and the Eucharist (partaking of the body and blood of Christ).

Pagans were suspicious of the Christian refusal to sacrifice to the Roman gods.

Pagans were probably most suspicious of the Christian refusal to sacrifice to the Roman gods. This was an insult to the gods and potentially endangered the empire which they deigned to protect. Furthermore, the Christian refusal to offer sacrifices to the emperor, a semi-divine monarch, had the whiff of both sacrilege and treason about it... Unquote.

So probably, it was more politically advantageous to embrace and utilise the cult than oppress it. Constantine may have found the idea of a single, benevolent god more personally appealing, as many people do today.

Ratburn's picture
Does anyone else find it


Ratburn's picture
Does anyone else find it

Does anyone else find it fascinating that people claim Jesus or any deity really still communicates with them? There are a multitude of books written by charlatans, claiming that Jesus is accessible if you reach out for guidance. There are also a wide array of personal testimonies where people "were thinking completely normally. No drugs, not dreaming, etc". While many of us have reasons to be skeptical of these testimonies, I will say this: Something is either true or false. Either they saw/communicated with Jesus, or they did not. If they did in fact see Jesus, then they should be able to ask questions like: "why was there no documentation of your presence" or "where can I find actual evidence" or even something like a medical advancement to the cure for cancer, etc. If some of this were provided, I may be able to change my view on things. However, you are right Myckob4, the current evidence we have is very wishy washy at that.

Grinseed's picture
My lovely mum was a dear old

My lovely mum was a dear old deaf mute who claimed she had spoken with Jesus, twice! Using alphabet sign language!
Don't ask, I never pressed her.

Sapporo's picture
The "proof" that Jesus lived,

The "proof" that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected is less certain than the proof that Elvis survived the 1970s.

bigbill's picture
In the books of first

In the books of first Corinthians and second Cor. and Acts it shows how the Christian community developed. It is right there from Saint Peter, to Saint john to Saint James the leader of the church in Jerusalem .Just read for my non-Christian readers 1st Corinthians chapter 15 verse 3 and following. I t specifies men women who were the early Christians.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
I repeat, there is NO

I repeat, there is NO independent evidence for peter ever being in Rome. Paul/Saul never mentioned resurrections, miracles and all the other guff. Paul fell out, argued with, by his own admission EVERY single apostle he mentions including poor old Mathias who only got one mention in the amended bible anyway.
Again, AB, apart from the bible you fail to mention any independent corroboration of your assertions. So they must be disregarded.

Sheldon's picture
So what, the bible claims

So what, the bible claims everything was made at the same time, and in six days, and that a snake spoke. Why should anyone care what the bible claims if it can't be objectively verified.

You can quote scripture until you go hoarse it won't change the fact that you can't demonstrate any evidence for a deity or for any supernatural claims made in the bible. Did ever even occur to you it might be untrue? Have ever even questioned or doubted any of it?

David Killens's picture
Historic records distinct

Historic records distinct from the bible do provide proof that a cult did develop, I do not deny that. But the fact that a cult developed is still not proof that Jesus existed. Have you ever heard of the cult "The Russian Cult of Gadget Hackwrench" Do you actually believe that Walt Disney cartoon character is real?

ZeffD's picture
"Just read for my non

"Just read for my non-Christian readers 1st Corinthians chapter 15 verse 3 and following. I t specifies men women who were the early Christians."
The question is not 'were there early Christians?' I think people are superstitious because they are so easily confused. They also appear to give more weight to their intuition than to evidence and critical thinking.

Some people seem to think that something must be true because it was written on parchment centuries ago, yet favour the religion they were handed over some other tripe. There is simply no evidence that historical Jesus, if he wasn't a total invention, was anything more than one of a number of itinerant prophets selling various beliefs. The attraction of a single god probably sold well.

Too silly for discussion really. All this and still no significant evidence of any especially significant prophet, god or other supernatural phenomena. Always a pleasure chatting with the superstitious and always a total waste of time. It's like talking to brick walls. What is clear is that people have always been superstitious but that the need for it declines with education and knowledge. In a hundred years I think religious superstitions will be as common and as strongly held as belief in witchcraft and voodoo are today.

Amphkhan200's picture

I understand the atheist position - They do not see evidence sufficient to prove that a supernatural deity or that a powerful spiritual being eXists .

I appreciate the honesty and openness of Atheists.

Tin-Man's picture


Oh, you again. Curiosity question for you..... What's up with all the capitalized X's? (Just trying to be honest and open with my curiosity.)

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
For the last time, and I

@ JoC
For the last time, and I supplied the passage from Tacitus; the Christus is mentioned as the belief of the christians...not a historical fact or proof any such persons existence. He also mentioned the christians' habit of cannibalism is that therefore true?

"Remove those parts and you still have Josephus mentioning Jesus as a real person. He even references Jesus when talking about his brother, James."
Note there is ONE paragraph where josephus mentions jesus , it is a later clumsy addition. I quote so you cant just make assertions " "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)"
Another quote for you "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So lets consider those two false statements of yours as disposed of, to the trash.

You penultimate paragraph is odd. Of course they could make it up? Why not? the religion was gaining traction at the time of writing, the authorship of any of the NT except for some Pauline texts is murky at best and unknown as most likely. Most of the texts were unknown until the 3rd century when, as I said the copying industry got a whole new lease on life. The Imperial approval was a license to print coin...
As regards Martyrdom there are whole swathes of humanity sacrificing themselves for some belief right up until now with our suicide bombers. It is not an unusual part of the human condition, They were not the first, they will not be the last.

As regards the final paragraph, perhaps you should study a bit ore seriously and more objectively. You are looking for evidence that matches your pre-existing beliefs, in future citations and quotes would help back up your assertions.

I throw nothing "out the window" you are being selective to suit your argument, I said " The "gospel texts" go in the "probably untrue" "Unverified" basket.Like the legends of King Arthur and those of Valhalla." Please don't misquote me.

There is no proof of your messiah. none. If you have it, let us all know. If you do not, then admit it.

That is open to all you Norse out there as well, if you have evidence of Loki, Odin and Valhalla, please bring it here.


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.