Are there any good websites that prove that Jesus Christ never existed ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Are there any good websites that prove that Jesus Christ never existed ?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think that can or can not be proved - I would be surprised, in fact, if there hadn't been some guy named Jesus (or a few people who's ideas or stories became attributed to one guy) who was believed to be or thought he was the savior. I don't think this person was the son of god as I don't believe such a thing exists.

There are many sites using archeological findings to try and verify bible stories and events from the life of Jesus in the bible, but I don't think you can difinatively prove that someone didn't exist - especially at a time when there were few official records and most people were illiterate and did not take down personal accounts and diaries and so on.

At best there are probably sites which disprove the pseudo-archeological evidence by Christians of Jesus's historical existence.

On a side note, here's an interesting article on politics and biblical archeology in Israel. Basically archeology is being used to find the kingdom of David and provided archeological evidence of the myths that justify Zionism.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/is-holy-land-archaeology-being-hyped-by-politics/19556460

[Queercommie Girl]

Don't ever get into these kinds of arguments with the fundies.

[Steve_j]

I dont know of such a website, but in all honesty i dont see the need.

Those who make claims that he existed need to shoulder the burden of proof, of which they cant.

Edit: although i did read somewhere that there was aparently evidence in a roman cenus that a jesus of nazareth did exist in the relevent period. Never chased it up though.

[anticap]

Jesus Christ almost certainly never existed, since "Christ" is not a surname, but means "anointed ." So to accept the existence of a "Christ" is to accept all the rest of it, including that the natural universe was created by a supernatural being (and therefore that a supernatural realm could even exist).

Having nit-picked, it's certainly possible that the character more accurately called "Yeshua the Nazarene" existed (and it's even possible that the story of his life is at least partly based in fact). However, trying to prove a negative (that this character never existed) is, generally speaking, a fool's errand. Let those who make positive claims prove them; it's infinitely easier, and, besides, the onus of proof is on them anyway (as [B]Steve_j correctly stated, while I was posting).

[Kayser_Soso]

There is a site- jesusneverexisted.com

However he does seem to fall for a few phony sources like Acharya S, though he might have corrected those in recent times. It's hard to say that Jesus never existed(there were plenty of people named Jeshua in that time and it isn't difficult to believe that a religious leader might have had that name), but it is better to say that there is no evidence that the Jesus story is true.

[Adi Shankara]

the fact that you'd ask this question...

[Dimentio]

Are there any good websites that prove that Jesus Christ never existed ?

There should be websites that prove that he have existed. In fact, some ideas of a guy like him had existed for about a century before his supposed birth.

I kind of like Jesus. At least the descriptions of him generally show a person who would be considered progressive for that time, and perhaps even for the 19th century perhaps. The only problem is that the Churches has basically turned everything the gospels claim that Jesus said upside down.

It would be like one guy writing about the means to get to a civilisation where people would have all resources in common and there would be neither inequality or masters, and then 100 years later, the world's largest state is governed by a guy who is professing to that philosophy and using it to hold state control over all industry, build a multi-million army and create a vast empire of vassal states...
...
...ooops, guess that happened too.

[anticap]

I kind of like Jesus.

According to my own reading of him, he can be reduced to his "Sermon on the Mount"; and that sermon can be reduced to his amendment of "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shalt not harbor anger toward thy brother" (paraphrased).

That's not a bad message, in general, so I try not to get to wrapped up in the anti-religion thing anymore. As long as believers are interpreting it in that general direction, I can tolerate it.

Still, that message must be taken with a grain of salt. It's situation-dependent (whether he said so or not). Sometime you damned well better get angry at your "brother," and you better kill his ass, too.

[Adi Shankara]

What people seem to forget is how much the Council of Trent removed from the biblical canon, and how much more the King James Bible removed any references to women, sex, and poverty as a virtue.

Read the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospel of Thomas; they make the bible read today seem like reading any book with every other page missing.

also, the Gospel of Phillip, where it was proven Jesus was married (what jewish boy wasn't married in that time? if you weren't married, you were seen as a bum who couldn't get a wife, or you were a homosexual [which wasn't entirely shunned in the Roman world, just in the common places of Judea], or were impotent.)

"There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary."

[NGNM85]

The best extra-Biblical sources for corroboration that Jesus or someone like him actually existed at some point are references by the Roman historian Tacitus who mentions a Jesus, who was executed by Pontius Pilate, and mentions a group of followers called Christians. There is also testimony by the Jewish historian, Josephus which describes something very similar. These are the most solid evidence, however, even their authenticity is disputed. Then we have the letters of Paul at least 20 years after the crucifixion supposedly happened, and by his own admission he receives all this information second-hand. Other problems are the dearth of forgeries and fakes created over the years that have been held up as 'evidence' that the events in the New Testament are true, or partially true. There's also the fact that the story of Christ shares an overwhelming number of characteristics with other mythological characters, in myths that were common to the region, particularly, the Egyptian god, Horus. I'm highly skeptical this individual ever existed, although it's possible. However, we can't really say much of anything definitive about him.

[danyboy27]

It was the bronze age, there where countless of people who claimed to be able to heal the sick, the wounded and the blind.

this make jesus nothing but a verry usual phenomena of the time, a constructed myth around someone who was either a magician, or a pretty smart person good at tricking peoples.

[Devrim]

The best extra-Biblical sources for corroboration that Jesus or someone like him actually existed at some point are references by the Roman historian Tacitus who mentions a Jesus, who was executed by Pontius Pilate, and mentions a group of followers called Christians. There is also testimony by the Jewish historian, Josephus which describes something very similar.These are the most solid evidence, however, even their authenticity is disputed.

As you say, both of them are consider by many to be forgeries, and neither of them are contemporary, Tacitcus writing in c.116, and Joesphus late first century. Both of them were born after the general date given as the death of Jesus, 33AD.

Devrim

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think there are many good websites on the subject.

[anticap]

either a magician, or a pretty smart person good at tricking peoples.

Um, was this intentional? :D

[NGNM85]

As you say, both of them are consider by many to be forgeries, and neither of them are contemporary, Tacitcus writing in c.116, and Joesphus late first century. Both of them were born after the general date given as the death of Jesus, 33AD.

Devrim

True. However, they are regarded as the best of the existing 'evidence', which isn't saying much. This is the problem of looking for the "historical"Jesus.

[Kassad]

I don't think I really need a website to prove that guy never existed when the only source that he did exist cannot even be considered a primary source because no one who wrote about him ever knew met him or lived during the same time period.

In all honesty, when it comes to magician, I'd take David Blaine over Jesus any day. Just a personal opinion.

[NGNM85]

I don't think I really need a website to prove that guy never existed when the only source that he did exist cannot even be considered a primary source because no one who wrote about him ever knew met him or lived during the same time period.

But, I think it is good to understand the history all the same. That's how one makes that asessment, which is the inevitable conclusion of even a casual perusal of the aforementioned 'evidence.'


In all honesty, when it comes to magician, I'd take David Blaine over Jesus any day. Just a personal opinion.

Absolutely, I think David Copperfield has a much more substantial claim to divinity. I did see him make the Statue of Liberty disappear! (Among other things.) However, to paraphrase Sam Harris, even modern 'miracles' even with hundreds of 'witnesses' is not sufficiently compelling. Contemporary Indian Guru Sathya Sai Baba is proclaimed to have magic powers that are attested to by hundreds of thousands of followers, or, for another example, the Evangelical Christians who practice 'faith healing' or 'speaking in tongues.' The idea that we should believe with utmost certainty that a persecuted Jew (Who very well may never have existed at all.) executed over two thousand years ago could raise the dead and so forth, is absolutely preposterous.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm not too familiar with other religious texts (e.g. the Qur'an) that mention or acknowledge Jesus, but do they talk about all the supposedly crazy miraculous shit he did?

But yes, because the only real source that Jesus Christ as we know him was alive and did certain things is in one book that reads like an old fantasy book... I'd say it's doubtful.

Like some people have said - it's very likely that some random jewish guy who was born to a carpenter made lots of friends and got crucified... but that's about it.

[incogweedo]

well, as far as i know, there was a "Jesus Christ", as in it is confirmed by many historians. Now, it's you're choice to believe if he rose from the dead or not, but i think it has been proven that he did exist.

BUT, first off "Jesus Christ" was not his real name. Most historians believe that Jesus Christ was sort of like a title, but some other historians disagree and say that "Jesus" is a mistranslation of a Greek mistranslation of hebrew texts. His real name was Yeshua ben Yosef, and i am pretty sure he was confirmed to have existed and claimed to be the "son of god". also, "yeshua" is said to mean "salvation" in hebrew, and the "ben" is said to mean "son of" and "Yeshua" was his fathers name.

so basically, i'm almost certain that there is a confirmed Yeshua ben Yosef who tricked millions of people into believing he could walk on water, heal people, etc.

[Raúl Duke]

Yeshua ben Yosef who tricked millions of people into believing he could walk on water, heal people, etc.

How are we sure he even tricked people? Maybe all he did was say some alleged deep stuff and mysticism.

I mean, perhaps all the magical stuff was alluded to him posthumously.

If he even existed...

[black magick hustla]

i think it is almost sure there wasnt one jesus as jesus portrayed by christians. however, there where multiple jewish heresies, especially the hellenized ones, that talked about "christos" ie, messiahs. there where many jewish martyrs because of the zealots and the roman backslash and this probably made the bulk of many myths about martirized messianic figures. nazarenes where a particular jewish heresy, and probably the whole thing that jesus came from nazaret came from that particularly heresy as there is very little proof of a real nazaret. christan orthodoxy was not created until the fourth century with the council of nicaea, where leaders cherrypicked from different heresies to create an orthodoxy. essentially, christianity as we know it was more or less a creation of the roman state.

[incogweedo]

here is some stuff on his actual birth name "Yeshua ben Yosef":
http://www.thenazareneway.com/yeshua_jesus_real_name.htm

a good anti-fundamentalist website that does it's best to prove jesus never existed:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
:thumbup1:

[Devrim]

a good anti-fundamentalist website that does it's best to prove jesus never existed:

You can not prove that Jesus didn't exist. The most that you can do is show that there is a lack of evidence that he did exist, which is a very different thing.


so basically, i'm almost certain that there is a confirmed Yeshua ben Yosef who tricked millions of people into believing he could walk on water, heal people, etc.

I don't think that Jesus, if he did exist 'tricked people'. Jesus certainly didn't found Christianity. That was done by Paul, who is clearly a historical figure.


I'm not too familiar with other religious texts (e.g. the Qur'an) that mention or acknowledge Jesus, but do they talk about all the supposedly crazy miraculous shit he did?

Yes, but in the Koran Jesus was given the ability to preform miracles by God, not by his own power. The resurrection isn't a part of the Koran.

It is not surprising though as the Koran was written hundreds of years later and is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition.


well, as far as i know, there was a "Jesus Christ", as in it is confirmed by many historians. Now, it's you're choice to believe if he rose from the dead or not, but i think it has been proven that he did exist.

How has it been proven? There are no contemporary references to him at all.

I think if it wasn't the centre of the world's main religion, he would be considered as a mythical figure, somewhat like Robin Hood, who was probably based on a real character, but isn't known to have definately lived.

Devrim

[Sir Comradical]

Jesus Christ almost certainly never existed, since "Christ" is not a surname, but means "anointed ." So to accept the existence of a "Christ" is to accept all the rest of it, including that the natural universe was created by a supernatural being (and therefore that a supernatural realm could even exist).

Having nit-picked, it's certainly possible that the character more accurately called [B]"Yeshua the Nazarene" existed (and it's even possible that the story of his life is at least partly based in fact). However, trying to prove a negative (that this character never existed) is, generally speaking, a fool's errand. Let those who make positive claims prove them; it's infinitely easier, and, besides, the onus of proof is on them anyway (as Steve_j correctly stated, while I was posting).

This is possible. In Kerala where I'm from, Jesus is referred to as "Yeshu".

[danyboy27]

Um, was this intentional? :D


whut??

[Dave B]

I think one of the powerful pieces of evidence for the existence of a historical figure can in fact be hostile evidence, with qualifications.


Where relatively contemporary commentators totally hostile to an ideology or religion personified in an individual ie "Jesus" don’t question their historical existence.

But instead engage in a ‘vicious’ slanderous attack on the nature of their parentage and general low status in society etc.

That is what Celsum did in an alleged lost anti-Christian work titled "The True Discourse", which presumably existed prior to the writing of the alleged rebuttal called ‘Contra Celsum’ by an alleged Origen; circa 250 AD.

The allleged Origen helpfully, in the true spirit of open and objective debate, liberally quoted from Celsum’s sophisticated philosophical attack on Christianity in Celsum’s "The True Discourse".

What is interesting is that Celsum appears to be very familiar with the basic details of gospel story but never really questions whether Jesus actually existed or for that matter the basic story.


Instead for instance scoffing at the idea of a god deciding to be a lowly carpenter and accusing his mother of being a trollop, amongst other things.

Origen, interestingly, is obviously stung by the carpenter jibe and denies that Jesus ever was one, thus;


and being blind also to this, that in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen166.html (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen166.html)

That was perhaps a bit disingenuous given;

Mark 6.3


Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph……….

You could of course argue several other things.


a) That Origens Contra Celsum is a forgery itself, but having read it, it would be an extremely sophisticated one and unlikely I think.

b) That Celsum was so remote both historically and geographically from the alleged events that he just took the story for granted and concentrated on a criticism of the narrative that was available to him or her. Perhaps picking up on ‘slander’ from others who may also just have assumed the story to be ‘true’.

That wouldn’t have been so unlikely then, as it does to us now as they were then more concerned with the internal consistency of ideas or a story ie did it make sense, rather than spurious materialistic and intangible arguments about whether or not stuff actually happened or not.

You probably have to be familiar with the kind of more modern theological, philosophical and metaphysical debates that went on less than 300 years ago to appreciate that kind of thing.

The full thing is available at;

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html)



.

[Devrim]

Where relatively contemporary commentators totally hostile to an ideology or religion personified in an individual ie "Jesus" don’t question their historical existence.
...

That is what Celsum did in an alleged lost anti-Christian work titled "The True Discourse", which presumably existed prior to the writing of the alleged rebuttal called ‘Contra Celsum’ by an alleged Origen; circa 250 AD..

'Relatively contemporary'? What on Earth does that mean? It is over 200 years after the events.

Please excuse me while I go and knock out a eyewitness report of the French Revolution.

Devrim

[Dave B]

We are only just considering whether some such working class character may have existed.


And in the interests of historical objectivity as I said an apparent early severe critic of Christianity chose not to question that persons existence.


Anyway for something relatively more contemporary, on the carpenter thing.

Justin Martyr (110-165)
Dialogue with Trypho
Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson.
Chapter 88


He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter…………and he was deemed a carpenter (for he was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes;

That is dated around 135 AD, but there is controversy on that precise date.

There is something from a good infidel site on Justin Martyr;

VIII. Justin Martyr



Justin Martyr of Rome composed his first Apology to an emperor in 150 A.D., the second around 161 A.D. (scholars continue to debate whether there were really two, whether the two we have were originally those two, or only one of them that was later split up, and so on). He also wrote a Dialogue with Trypho [the Jew] which relates what purports to be a debate held around 135 A.D. (M 143-8). In the first of these works, Justin describes "Memoirs of the Apostles" (borrowing consciously from the idea of Xenophon's "Memoirs of Socrates") which he says are called Gospels (1st Apology 66.3). He quotes Luke, Matthew and Mark, and uses distinctly Johanine theology, which accords to a great deal with the Judaized Neoplatonism of Philo the Jew, who wrote c. 40 A.D. Justin calls Mark the "Memoirs of Peter" (M 145), perhaps influenced by Papias (or both are following a common oral tradition). Justin also tells us that services were conducted by reading from these books, followed by a sermon, then communal prayer (1st Apology 67.3-5), demonstrating the rising interest in and use of written texts in the churches. Justin's choice of Gospels could have been influenced by his location (Rome) or some other preferences unknown to us, but it is a crucial consideration because the first "orthodox" canon is devised by Justin's pupil, Tatian, who would thus have favored the choices of the man who had converted and instructed him. Finally, Justin quotes a lot of additional oral tradition outside these Gospels (M 147-8), including the belief that Jesus was born in a cave outside Bethlehem (Dialogue with Trypho 78.5). He also refers to the Revelation to John, but never mentions or quotes any Epistles.



http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html#VIII (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html)


The thing is if you want to as Marxists or Anarchists to take Christians on, it helps to be informed I think.


.

[anticap]

whut??

It's nothing important. I just thought it was funny that you said "either a magician, or a pretty smart person good at tricking peoples" (i.e., "either X, or X"), since that's the definition of a magician. I thought maybe you'd done that intentionally. :)

[28350]

History and (educated) speculation on Jesus are actually quite well documented, if you don't ask a religious source.

[Devrim]

Anyway for something relatively more contemporary, on the carpenter thing.

Justin Martyr (110-165)


This is the sort of only about a century after the fact sort of 'more contemporary'.

Devrim

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think there are many good websites on this subject.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Are there any good websites that prove that Jesus Christ never existed ?

"Proving" Jesus never existed, would be like "proving" the Leviathan or Noah's Ark doesn't exist. People who necessitate that acts of God or any divine being need to be "authenticated" by the manifestation of a boat, or the literal existence of a figure named Jesus Christ, for the Religion to be "valid", don't understand the concept of spirituality at all.

[Revy]

I read that around Jesus's time there were quite a few Messiah claimants in Palestine named Jesus. Jesus (Yeshua) was not an uncommon name. The Jesus of the Bible would not have been the first or last person to claim to be the Messiah.

Whether or not he existed has no consequence on whether or not I believe he is what Christians say he is. Most historians agree that Muhammad existed, but that doesn't make Islam right either.

If they prove Jesus of the Bible existed, then they have only proven one thing, Jesus existed as a human being. Just like you and I.

[Tor_Hershman]

There are multimillions of people that, even from a highly competent professor, could never be taught, proven to, that calculus exists.

However, here’s a bit of moi's research
(You wanna KNOW the location? Not from this ole monkey ya ain’t getting’ it)
you may take for whatever it’s worth.
Oh, wait, moi tells at the very end just exactly WHAT IT’S WORTH.

Of course.....being PROVEN will not necessarily get you trillions of dollars worth of property as mythology did, does and will do.

Again, moi's a newbie - ye must copy & paste the partial URLs but for a no budget film methinks moi did a fine job.


The Origin of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
youtube.com/watch?v=ZzY2bVsZK5s

(Part 2)
youtube.com/watch?v=sckuqPulRGk

What’s truly amazing is that MOST of the Religious Authority ARE Atheists.
Religion is where the money’s @.