No Jesus!

Book mark.

It's accepted all around that right up till zero hour the 'messiah' was expected by some to be a war-chief. Also, it's bothered me for a while that emasculated milksop who glorified eunuchs got the same sendoff as Spartacus and the defenders of Tyre. I picked up somewhere though, and it jives with every other account I know about of it happening before 0 AD - that the punishment was reserved for military executions.

I'd say the organism in question would have to have been a fightin' man, and apparently one of little military significance...

I cannot say I understand your meaning. The timbre of your post however suggests you have certain reservations.

From what I can make of it, hanno is saying that Jesus may have existed, but wasn't the milksop eunuch glorifier he's been made out to be. He may well have been, or been regarded as, some kind of an inept insurgent.

I'm not sure how likely that viewpoint is, but your interpretation of his post does not sound wholly implausible.

I think that if the New Testament was assembled and arranged from the earliest writings (Paul's) and followed by the gospels (Mark first), more people would be inclined to view Jesus as a mythical figure.

Really, Paul does not seem to know of any earthly Jesus, but speaks of an extra-realm being. Later interpolations added Jesus' name to his writings.

Mark, written well after the purported events, first describes a more modest figure who does not survive the crucifixion. The legend only builds with each later gospel, culminating in the God-man superhero found in John, which should not be read with a straight face.

I'm sympathetic to the mythic Christ idea. Proponents make a very good case, but ultimately cannot prove it. Too bad.

At least Setanta has enough sand to use his own words.

Who is your remark aimed at neologist?

Posting off site links without commentary is no different than cut and post.

Jesus did not exist, at least as the Bible delineates him, if not in actuality. Happy?

Thank you for being so direct. Could you flesh out your asseveration a bit?

There is no physical evidence.

Although the gospels of the New Testament are attributed to his followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them.

No historians of the time mention Jesus.

This biblical delineation of Jesus, do you think it's real?

Jesus exists
I think it's odd to assert that Jesus didn't exist. What makes you think the historians didn't write about it. That's what the New Testament was all about. Those are the historical accounts from a number of sources. His existence is accepted by Christians, Jewish religions as well as Budists and Islam although they disagree on his divinity. Did 9/11 really happen, was Kennedy really shot was there really a world war I & II they're not as well documented.

Let me guess you read somewhere on the web that it's all a myth? Don't worry he's an awful nice guy. I bet he still believes in you.

I believe Jesus may be a composite of the ideas circulating in those days, but I don't think he existed as an actual being. I have never seen any evidence to the contrary.

I think its a fifty-fifty shot, to the extent of whether or not such an individual existed. As to the fairy story which has been cobbled together from the "gospels," no way. Not only do the gospels contradict one another, and not only are they not contemporary to the events which they purport to describe, they contain too many errors of history for which we do have corroborative evidence, and they make a mess of the geography of Palestine. Jesus is a latinization of Jesu, which is the romanized version of the Greek word for Joshuah. Stand in the market place in Jerusalem two thousand years ago, and heave a fistful of pea gravel into the crowd and the odds are good that you'll hit a dozen or more jokers named Joshuah, any number of whom could claim to be rabbis (in the sense of a teacher) or were so described by others. So saying that there was a rabbi named Joshuah in Palestine two thousand years ago is a big so what. However, taking the ridiculous leap involved in going from that to attempting to assert with a straight face that the gospels are actual, reliable historical accounts . . . well, the mind boggles.

People who believe that your boy Jesus existed and that the gospels are a faithful and inerrant record of his life believe what they want to believe, and not what there is any good reason to believe.

Name a contradiction.



An opinion.



Lacking corroboration and 'containing errors' are two completely different things.

Are you saying we lack corroboration of an error?

Or are you saying an account is erroneous if we have no corroboration?



Nonsense.



My thoughts exactly. So what if there were dozens of people with the same name? How is that any proof at all that the Jesus of the Bible did not exist?

Was there a guy called jesus as writen in the bible, well the answer is a sound No, Jesus there never was, for one it wasn't his name if he did exist, is jesus not the latin translation of the greek word Iesous which is the translation of his name in hebrew, which is the translation of the true Aramaic name. Even Islam has a different name which i believe is Eesa which is the translation of the Aramaic name Eesho (Eashoa).

As for written evidence, sadly there is non thats non-christian based

You can start with the genealogies (now watch the boy dance).



An opinion held not simply by me, but by scholars far better qualified to comment than you are. If you assert that any of the gospels were contemporary to your boy Jesus, i.e., written while he was living, what is your evidence? Moron.



Containing historical errors is evidence that they are not a part of a body of divinely inspired, inerrant scripture. Lack of historical corroboration is also evidence that they are not a reliable account of the truth. If the gospels claim that a certain event took place, but there is no external corroboration of the event, why should the gospels be believed? Oh yeah . . . i forgot . . . you believe because you want to--not because you have any good reason to do so.



Gaderes, where your boy Jesus allegedly drove an evil spirit out of a man (can you say superstition?), is more than 30 miles from Lake Tiberius. Yet Hey-Zeus was alleged to have driven the evil spirit into a herd of swine, who then ran into Lake Tiberius. So, you're saying the author of that little fairy tale was therefore alleging that a herd of swine could run full tilt for 30 miles, and then drown themselves in a lake? Are you saying that Jesus and his gang ran after them to see what happened, and that's how the gospel writer knew what happened?

Moron.



Why should anyone be obliged to prove that your fairy tale character did exist? The point (which i will elucidate for you since you have always shown yourself to be not very bright and rather slow on the uptake) is that there were enough jokers named Joshuah running around in Palestine 2000 years ago that there is no good reason to assume that any particular one of them meets the description of the gospels, nor would any such individual have been unique--just one of any number of religious crackpots named Joshuah in that place and time. The burden of proof is on believers, no one is obliged to disprove your perfervid imaginings. When to that one adds the idiocy of the gospels, and the historical inaccuracies (the census of Caesar Augustus, for example), and the lack of historical corroboration from contemporary sources, you've got an uphill struggle.

My guess is that its about a 50-50 shot whether or not an individual named Joshuah who was allegedly a rabbi and upon whom the cartoon character of the gospels was based actually existed. But that is less important than that the character in the gospels is completely implausible and the gospels are shot full of holes when considered as historical accounts.

I don't have to disprove your boy Jesus, but if you expect to be taken seriously, you need to prove it.

Moron.