"Jesus Is Awesome!" <jesus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:285afb06-27ed-458c-be8e-01001b6c4c2c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Dec 11, 11:45 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:42:18 -0800 (PST), "Jesus Is Awesome!"
>>
>>
>>
>> <je...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >On Dec 11, 11:35 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:05:07 -0800 (PST), "Jesus Is Awesome!"
>>
>> >> <je...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >On Dec 11, 10:52 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:05:27 -0800 (PST), "Jesus Is Awesome!"
>>
>> >> >> <je...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Dec 10, 6:37 am, "Bill M" <wm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Blah, blah, blah!
>>
>> >> >> >Jesus is the only real God, dummy.
>>
>> >> >> PRove it, brainwashed moron.
>>
>> >> >The proof is in the pudding.
>>
>> >> >Eat some, stupid!
>>
>> >> Demonstrate that there is a pudding to be eaten that contains proof
of
>> >> Jesus, brainwashed moron.
>>
>> >Eat the Lord's pudding and you will see the light.
>>
>> Why do you morons expect us to do your work for you, when YOU are told
>> to put up or shut up?
>
> Open your Bible and read, dumbass!
Amazingly, Christians almost never question the authenticity of Jesus and
the Bibles, yet the very foundation of their faith is based on their
authenticity.
The Bibles are the literature of 'faith', not of scientific observation or
historical fact or demonstration. God's existence as a speculative problem
has no interest for the Biblical writers.
If religion was based on facts instead of pure faith the followers would
be
called knowers instead of followers. Why are there thousands of different
"one true faiths"?
If religion was sup****ted by any real 'evidence', 'faith' would be totally
unnecessary. It is only unsup****table assertions that require the
suspension
of reason, and unsup****table ideas require belief based on 'faith'.
It is believed that the foundation of the Christian religion,
civilization
and morality is the Good Book. This is patently ridiculous because the
Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, human
and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
barbarisms, and impossible tales by authors of totally unknown veracity.
There are NO NADA originals in existence. All that is available are hand
copies of copies by church leaders wanting to impress their flocks.
The 66 books of the Bible had 42 or more independent authors living in 7
different countries during a time span of 750 or more years.
They are not accurate history and certainly are not the words of any god
unless he is an insane and totally untrustworthy monster. They are not
even
good fiction.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to sup****t a historical Jesus;
no
artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. No
contem****ary Roman records show Pontius Pilate executing a man named
Jesus.
Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contem****ary writing
that mentions Jesus. All do***ents ( the Bibles )about Jesus were written
long after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors,
people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or
allegorical writings. It is reasonable to assume that these ancient
do***ents were doctored and altered to enhance the power of the clerics of
the time. Many of these writings come from fraud, interpolations and
hearsay.
The do***ents included in the Bible were selected by the church leaders
to
sup****t and enhance their power. The rest were destroyed by church
leaders.
There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient
Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the
ones
that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in
circulation at the time the New Testaments were chosen by church leaders,
yet only four
made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would
become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided,
"This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons?
What were their motives? How do we know if ANY of them were authentic?
In addition there is evidence that the Bibles were altered by church
leaders
to sup****t their personal motives and ambitions.
The fact is, there are no clear records available which do***ent the
church's process of determining which books were acceptable and which
books
were unacceptable and why. The general consensus of opinion among scholars
is that the decision was based on whether or not the book agreed with the
prevailing theological thought and motives at the time. In other words,
the
only books accepted were the ones that agreed with the opinions, desires
and
motives of the church leader****p at the time
The earliest part of New Testament was written more than 60 years after
the
claimed death of Jesus Christ and the Old Testaments were just a
collection
of various regional stories from older civilizations. Some Biblical
scholars
claim the earliest versions of the New testament were not in existence
until
150 years after the Christ tale.
Why are there NO contem****ary do***ents created while Jesus was claimed to
be on earth? Could it be that Jesus is just a fable created by church
leaders to enhance their power? There are NO originals in existence of any
of the Old or New testaments. They are all hand copies of copies of copies
with alterations to suite the copiers.
It is interesting to note that NONE of the Bibles were written during
Jesus'
claimed life time. Time needed to pass to permit the creation of tales and
the embellishment of history.
The Bibles contain both historical and scientific errors. They contain
manifest absurdities, unfulfilled prophesies, immoralities, indecencies,
obscenities, atrocities, barbarities, myths, folklore and legends. They
are
mostly nonsense and hearsay.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a
witness' own knowledge. Courts of law do not allow hearsay as testimony,
and
nor does honest modern scholar****p.
We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or
monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies that are believed as fact
are taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. Humans are known to lie and
exaggerate to benefit themselves or express their delusions.
Valid historian's do not just tell unsubstantiated stories, but cite their
articles with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to
eyewitnesses and physical artifacts.
The most claimed "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from
the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not
come into the Bible as original and authoritative do***ents from the
authors
themselves, but rather from copies influenced by early church leaders,
especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in
the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels were written by
that time, but Irenaeus selected only four of them, out of almost fifty,
for
mystical reasons.
The four gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew and John) then became Church cannon
for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were
burned, destroyed, or lost.
Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag
Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually
wrote any of them. Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that
NONE of the Gospels were contem****arily written during the alleged life of
Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly
Jesus. Add to this that NONE of the ORIGINAL gospel manuscripts exist; we
only have copies of copies etc. from unknown copiers! ( The printing press
was not invented until 1400 years AFTER the last Bible was claimed to have
been written. )
Why would any REAL GOD permit the destruction of his words and the
distortion of his history???
The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest
New
Testament Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last
Gospel, John after 90 C.E. This would make it over 40 years after the
alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have ANY Gospel writings that mention
him!
The traditional Church has ****trayed the authors as the apostles Mark,
Luke,
Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that
there is simply no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as
the
apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests
and ministers describing these authors as the actual Disciples of Christ.
This is factually false.
Even if the texts sup****ted the notion that the apostles wrote them,
consider that the average life span of humans in the first century was
about
30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occurred at
about the same time as the alleged Jesus crucifixion, and wrote their
gospels in their old age, Mark then was at least 70 years old, and John at
over 110. Rather unlikely.
Why would they wait all those years to write about those historic
events???
The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although
Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark was
written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can
deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his
personal follower.
Whoever wrote the gospel, simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without
question and wrote a crude and ungrammatical account of the popular story
at
the time. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew,
Mark,
Luke) will reveal that Mark served as the common element between Matthew
and
Luke and gave the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666 verses, some
600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the
author of Mark, stands at least at a third removed from Jesus and more
likely a fourth removed. [Helms]
The author of Matthew had obviously obtained his information from Mark's
gospel and used them for his own needs. He fa****oned his narrative to
appeal
to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's
Gospel,
altered what he felt theologically im****tant, and heightened and
embellished
the miracles and magic.
The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material
and
not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4).
No one knows the author or where or how he got his information or the date
of its author****p. Again we are faced with unreliable methodology and
obscure sources.
John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological
discourses from Jesus that could not possibly have come as literal words
from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events
described
in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of
eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the
unknown
authors, and not from the characters themselves. The Gospels describe
narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People
who
wish to ****tray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person,
not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to
Jesus
could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many
of
the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone.
If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists
re****t about what Jesus thoughts. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts?
Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any
case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as
fictional, mythological, or false stories.
Doubts about the authenticity of other books in the New Testament such as
Hebrews, James John 2 & 3, Peter 2, Jude and Revelation, were raised even
in
antiquity by Origen and Eusebius. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of
James calling it worthless and an "epistle of straw" and questioned Jude,
Hebrews and the Apocalypse in Revelation. ALL New Testament writings came
well after the alleged death of Jesus from unknown authors.
Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest
surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars
have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However,
there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever
meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus'
life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come
from other believers or his imagination. Paul's Biblical letters are pure
hearsay.
Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter
writer, but which James? The Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as
an
introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a
historical
Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.
Epistles of John: The epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation
appear so different in style and content that they could hardly have the
same author. Some suggest that these writings of John come from the work
of
a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a "John" or they came from
the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the
Church.
The epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only
do
we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay
accounts.
Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the author****p of Peter of the
epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus
wrote
it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright
forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full
edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985. In short, no one has any way of
determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an unknown
author
also named Peter (a common name) or from someone trying to further the
aims
of the Church.
Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no claims or
eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus.
As for the existence of original New Testament do***ents, none exist. No
book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we
have, come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable origins and
copiers. The earliest copies we have were written more than a century
later
than the autographs, and these exist only on fragments of papyrus.
[Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible
to
find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third
century,
and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth. [Schonfield]
The editing and formation of the Bibles came from members of the early
Christian Church. Since the leaders of the Church possessed the texts and
determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of
op****tunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might
bolster
the power of the Church and it's leaders.
Take, for example, [Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church
historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he
openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the
interests
of the Church (Remsberg). The first mention of Jesus came from Eusebius
(none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus). It comes as
no
surprise why many scholars think that Eusebius interpolated his writings.
In
his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this
history
in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and
afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio
Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and
Fitting
to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to
be
Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).
The early Church had such power over people, that to question the Church
could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, people had
to
take it as "truth." St. Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century even wrote:
"We
should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white
is
really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults.
Irenaeus,
who determined the four gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the
Heresies." According to Romer, Irenaeus' great book not only became the
yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of
later inquisitions.
" [Romer] The early Church burned many heretics, along with their sacred
texts. If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings were burned along
with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.
With such intransigence from the Church and the admitting to lying for its
cause, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how
could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute,
much less using extraneous texts that sup****t a Church's intolerant and
biased position, as reliable evidence? Certainly NOT the word of any God!
Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, was born in 62 C.E. His letter about
the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian
believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range
of eyewitness accounts.
Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. who mentions a "Chrestus," a
common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if
Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly
Jesus.
Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the pur****ted
Jesus.
Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief ****tions of the Talmud, (a
collection of Jewish civil and religious law, including commentaries on
the
Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in
Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus,
according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua
Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus.
[Massey]
Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud was written
between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between
the
3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged
crucifixion! At best it can only serve as controversial Christian and
pagan
legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
Because the religious mind relies on belief and faith, the religious
person
can inherit a dependence on any information that sup****ts a belief and
that
includes fraudulent stories, rumors, unreliable data, and fictions,
without
the need to check sources, or to investigate the reliability of the
information.
What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what was later written
about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a
single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or
during
the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!
If, indeed, the Gospels ****tray a historical look at the life of Jesus,
then
the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that
people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude
of
followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod
who
claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need
only
read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great
multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem,
and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless
times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who
congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown,
that
Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one
upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and
great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in
Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes,
including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in
his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The
multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle
healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).
So here we have the gospels ****traying Jesus as famous far and wide, a
prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him,
including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of
the
area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the
poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew
about
Jesus, who would not have heard of him?
Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the
attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke
23:44-45,
there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the
earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the
temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three
hour
ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and
astrologers, anywhere in the world. Nor does a single contem****ary person
write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth
shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.
Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the wor****p
of
the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain.
If
such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't
anyone write about it?
Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming
that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the
lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier,
the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But
the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of
education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course,
also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times,
not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high
priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the
capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but
significant events, especially from a religious sect which allegedly drew
so
much popular attention a famous and infamous Jesus.
Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20
B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic
philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem
during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish
events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his
volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ."
Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.)
writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23?B.C.E - 79 C.E.).
If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does
any
reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus
would not have reached the ears of one of these men?
Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who
lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever
mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite
extraordinary,
and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this
embarrassing fact.
Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth,
the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence.
You'd think a Creator might at least make sure there exists some good
solid
evidence of his power and existence.
The gross lack of evidentiary evidence was illustrated clearly in an
interview by the renowned Biblical scholar, David Noel Freeman (Freeman,
the
General editor of the Anchor Bible Series and many other works). An
interviewer asked him about Biblical interpretation. Freeman replied:
"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to
convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable
doubt.
In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When
dealing
with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little;
otherwise, we can't really say anything."
-David Noel Freedman (in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)
The implications appear obvious. If one wishes to believe in a historical
Jesus, he must accept it based on loose standards. Couple this with the
fact
that all of the claims come from hearsay, and we have a foundation made of
sand.
When a story uses impossible historical locations, or geographical errors
there is serious evidence of fiction.
For example, in Matt 4:8, the author describes the devil taking Jesus into
an exceedingly high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the world.
Since there exists no spot on the spheroid earth to view "all the
kingdoms,"
we know that the Bible errs here.
John 12:21 says, "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of
Bethsaida
of Galilee. . . ." Bethsaida resided in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of
the Jordan river, not Galilee, which resided west of the river.
John 3:23 says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim. . . ."
Critics
agree that no such place as Aenon exists near Salim.
There occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time
of the alleged Jesus. [Leedom; Gauvin] Nazareth does not appear in the Old
Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even
though he provides a detailed list the cities of Galilee).
Many more errors and unsup****ted geographical locations appear in the New
Testament. And although one cannot use these as evidence against a
historical Jesus, we can certainly question the reliability of the texts.
If
the scriptures make so many factual errors about geology, science, and
contain so many contradictions, falsehoods could occur in any area.
If we have a coupling with historical people and locations, then we should
also have some historical reference of a Jesus to these locations and
people. But just the opposite proves the case. The Bible depicts Herod,
the
Ruler of Jewish Palestine under Rome as sending out men to search and kill
the infant Jesus, yet nothing in history sup****ts such a story. Pontius
Pilate supposedly performed as judge in the trial and execution of Jesus,
yet no Roman record mentions such a trial. The gospels ****tray a multitude
of believers throughout the land spreading tales of a teacher, prophet,
and
healer, yet nobody in Jesus' life time or several decades after, ever
records such a human figure. The lack of a historical Jesus in the known
historical record speaks for itself.
Many Christian apologists attempt to extricate themselves from their lack
of
evidence by claiming that if we cannot rely on the post chronicle exegesis
of Jesus, then we cannot establish a historical foundation for other
figures
such as Socrates, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, etc. However, there sits
a
vast difference between historical figures and Jesus. There occurs,
artifacts, writings, and eyewitness accounts for historical people,
whereas,
for Jesus we have nothing.
Alexander, for example, left a wake of destroyed and created cities
behind.
We have buildings, libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his
name. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of
Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332 B.C.E. For Socrates, we have the
eyewitness writings of Plato that depicts his philosophy and life.
Napoleon
left behind artifacts, eyewitness accounts and letters.
Interestingly, almost all im****tant historical people have descriptions of
what they looked like. Plato described what Socrates looked like, we have
busts of Greek and Roman aristocrats, artwork of Napoleon, etc. We have
descriptions of facial qualities, height, weight, hair length & color, age
and even ****traits of most im****tant historical figures. But for Jesus, we
have nothing. Nowhere in the Bible do we have a description of the human
shape of Jesus.
Not until hundreds of years after the alleged Jesus did pictures emerge as
to what he looked like from cult Christians, and these widely differed
from
a blond clean shaven, curly haired Apollonian youth (found in the Roman
catacombs) to a long-bearded Italian as depicted to this day. This mimics
the pattern of Greek mythological figures as their believers constructed
various images of what their gods looked like according to their own
cultural image.
Historial people leave us with contem****ary evidence, but for Jesus we
have
nothing.
If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical
evidence for Jesus, then shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts
based solely on hearsay and belief?
To take one example, examine the evidence for the Hercules of Greek
mythology and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to
such
an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a
historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used
for
a historical Jesus.
Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. Hercules was born
as
a human from the union of God (Zeus) and the mortal and chaste Alcmene,
his
mother. Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill
Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping
mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Like Jesus who died and rose to
heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules
gives
example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They
believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, wor****ped him,
and
dedicated temples to him.
Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We
have
historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to
the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the
epic
stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and
quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have mention of Jesus in
Joesphus'
Antiquities, so also does Joesphus mention Hercules in Antiquities (see:
1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he
also
mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most im****tantly, just as
we
have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have
nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from
stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical
Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have
stories and beliefs about him?
Some critics doubt that a historicized Jesus could develop from myth
because
they think there never occurred any precedence for it. We have many
examples
of myth from history but what about the other way around? This doubt fails
in the light of the most obvious example-- the Greek mythologies where
Greek
and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc., assumed that
there
must have existed a historical root for figures such as Hercules, Theseus,
Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, etc. These writers put their mythological
heroes
into an invented historical time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to
determine when Hercules lived. As Robert M. Price revealed, "The whole
approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who originated it."
[Price, p. 250] Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicized
mythologies: UFO adherents who's beliefs began as a dream of alien bodily
invasion, and then expressed as actually having occurred (some of which
have
formed religious cults); beliefs of urban legends which started as pure
fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which stem from
fiction
but believed by their constituents.
People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no
longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies,
so
go their gods. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand,
still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and
colleges.
Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his
existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations or
fear embarrassment against their Christian friends. Christianity depends
on
establi****ng a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the
most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief
alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and
secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and
historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should accept a
historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even
the most ardent skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside
with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a
reputation
as a historian. If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion
should
depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he says so.
Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably
without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.
===================================================================
THEN WHY THE MYTH OF JESUS?
Some people actually believe that just because so much voice and ink has
spread the word of a character named Jesus throughout history, that this
must mean that he actually lived. This argument simply does not hold. The
number of people who believe or write about something or the professional
degrees they hold say nothing at all about fact. Facts derive out of
evidence, not from hearsay, not from hubris scholars, and certainly not
from
faithful believers. Regardless of the position or admiration held by a
scholar, believer, or priest, if he or she cannot sup****t their hypothesis
with good evidence, then it can only remain a hypothesis.
While the possibility exists that an actual Jesus lived, the possibility
also occurs that a mythology could have arrived totally out of earlier
mythologies. Although we have no evidence for a historical Jesus, we
certainly have many accounts for the mythologies of the Middle East and
Egypt during the first century and before that appear similar to the
Christ
saviour story.
If you know your ancient history, remember that just before and during the
first century, the Jews had prophesied about an upcoming Messiah based on
Jewish scripture. Their beliefs influenced many of their followers. We
know
that powerful beliefs can create self-fulfilling prophesies, and surely
this
proved just as true in ancient times. It served as a popular dream
expressed
in Hebrew Scripture for the promise of an "end-time" with a savior to lead
them to the promised land. Indeed, Roman records show executions of
several
would-be Messiahs, (but not a single record mentions a Jesus). Many
ancients
believed that there could come a final war against the "Sons of
Darkness"--
the Romans.
This then could very well have served as the ignition and flame for the
future growth of Christianity. This coupled with the pagan myths of the
time
give sufficient information about how such a religion could have formed.
Many of the Hellenistic and pagan myths parallel so closely to the alleged
Jesus that to ignore its similarities means to ignore the mythological
beliefs of history. Dozens of similar savior stories propagated the minds
of
humans long before the alleged life of Jesus. Virtually nothing about
Jesus
"the Christ" came to the Christians as original or new.
For example, the religion of Zoroaster, founded circa 628-551 B.C.E. in
ancient Persia which roused mankind in the need for hating a devil, the
belief of a paradise, last judgment and resurrection of the dead.
Mithraism,
an offshoot of Zoroastrianism probably influenced early Christianity. The
Magi described in the New Testament appears as Zoroastrian priests. Note
the
word "paradise" came from the Persian pairidaeza.
The Egyptian mythical Horus, god of light and goodness has many parallels
to
Jesus. [Leedom, Massey] For some examples:
Horus and the Father as one
Horus, the Father seen in the Son
Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of
salvation.
Horus served the way, the truth, the life by name and in person
Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John)
Horus the Good Shepherd
Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)
Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)
Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)
The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit
Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)
Horus the afflicted one
Horus as life eternal
Twelve followers of Horus as Har-Khutti (Jesus' 12 disciples)
According to Massey, "The mythical Messiah is Horus in the Osirian Mythos;
Har-Khuti in the Sut-Typhonian; Khunsu in that of Amen-Ra; Iu in the cult
of
Atum-Ra; and the Christ of the Gospels is an amalgam of all these
characters."
Osiris, Hercules, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and others compare
to
the Christian myth. According to Patrick Campbell of The Mythical Jesus,
all
served as pre-Christian sun gods, yet all allegedly had gods for fathers,
virgins for mothers; had their births announced by stars; got born on the
solstice around December 25th; had tyrants who tried to kill them in their
infancy; met violent deaths; rose from the dead; and nearly all got
wor****ped by "wise men" and had allegedly fasted for forty days.
[McKinsey,
Chapter 5]
The pre-Christian cult of Mithra had a deity of light and truth, son of
the
Most High, fought against evil, presented the idea of the Logos. Pagan
Mithraism mysteries had the burial in a rock tomb, resurrection, sacrament
of bread & water (Eucharist), the marking on the forehead with a mystic
mark, the symbol of the Rock, the Seven Spirits and seven stars, all
before
the advent of Christianity.
Even Justin Martyr recognized the analogies between Christianity and
Paganism. To the Pagans, he wrote: "When we say that the Word, who is
first
born of God, was produced without ***ual union, and that he, Jesus Christ,
our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into
heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding
those
whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." [First Apology, ch. xxi]
Virtually all of the mythical accounts of a savior Jesus have parallels to
past pagan mythologies which existed long before Christianity and from the
Jewish scriptures that we now call the Old Testament. The accounts of
these
myths say nothing about historical reality, but they do say a lot about
believers, how they believed, and how their beliefs spread.
In the book The Jesus Puzzle, the biblical scholar, Earl Doherty, presents
not only a challenge to the existence of an historical Jesus but reveals
that early pre-Gospel Christian do***ents show that the concept of Jesus
sprang from non-historical spiritual beliefs of a Christ derived from
Jewish
scripture and Hellenized myths of savior gods. Nowhere do any of the New
Testament epistle writers describe a human Jesus, including Paul. None of
the epistles mention a Jesus from Nazareth, an earthly teacher, or as a
human miracle worker. Nowhere do we find these writers quoting Jesus.
Nowhere do we find them describing any details of Jesus' life on earth or
his followers. Nowhere do we find the epistle writers even using the word
"disciple" (they of course use the term "apostle" but the word simply
means
messenger, as Paul saw himself). Except for two well known interpolations,
Jesus always gets presented as a spiritual being that existed before all
time with God, and that knowledge of Christ came directly from God or as a
revelation from the word of scripture. Doherty writes, "Christian
do***ents
outside the Gospels, even at the end of the first century and beyond, show
no evidence that any tradition about an earthly life and ministry of Jesus
were in circulation."
These early historical do***ents can prove nothing about an actual Jesus
but
they do show an evolution of belief derived from varied and diverse
concepts
of Christianity, starting from a purely spiritual form of Christ to a
human
figure who embodied that spirit, as ****trayed in the Gospels. The New
Testament stories appears as an eclectic hodgepodge of Jewish, Hellenized
and pagan stories compiled by pietistic believers to appeal to an audience
for their particular religious times.
A NOTE ABOUT DATING:
The A.D. (Anno Domini, or "year of our Lord") dating method got invented
by
a monk named Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth-century. Oddly, some people
seem
to think this has relevance to a historical Jesus. But of course it has
nothing at all to do with it. In the time before the 6th century, people
used various other dating methods. The Romans used A.U.C. (ab urbe
condita,
or "from the foundation of the city," that being Rome). The Jews had their
own dating system. Dionysisus simply decided to reset time on January 1,
754
A.U.C. to January 1, of year one A.D., to fit his beliefs about the birth
of
Jesus. He conjectured his information from the Bible (which he got wrong).
[Gould, 1995]
Instead of B.C. and A.D., I have used the convention of B.C.E. (Before the
Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) as often used in scholarly literature.
They correspond to the same dates as B.C. & A.D., but without alluding to
the birth or death of an alleged Christ.
QUOTES FROM A FEW SCHOLARS:
Although apologist scholars believe that an actual Jesus lived on earth,
the
reasons for this appear obvious considering their Christian beliefs.
Although some secular freethinkers and atheists accept a historical Jesus
(minus the miracles), they, like most Christians, simply accept the
traditional view without question. As time goes on, more and more scholars
have begun to open the way to a more honest look at the evidence, or
should
I say, the lack of evidence. So for those who wish to rely on scholarly
opinion, I will give a few quotes from Biblical scholars, past and
present:
When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all
the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a
matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now
appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state
in
which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added,
altered,
abridged or dressed them up.
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus...
The
library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine
them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a
personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of
contem****ary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in
the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he
was
a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators,
critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus
Christ, much less any incident in his life.
-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)
It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was
considered
that Jesus does not belong to history at all.
-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)
Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this
character never existed as a person.
-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's
Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900)
Many people-- then and now-- have assumed that these letters [of Paul] are
genuine, and five of them were in fact incor****ated into the New Testament
as "letters of Paul." Even today, scholars dispute which are authentic and
which are not. Most scholars, however, agree that Paul actually wrote only
eight of the thirteen "Pauline" letters now included in the New Testament.
collection: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1
Thessalonians, and Philemon. Virtually all scholars agree that Paul
himself
did not write 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus-- letters written in a style
different
from Paul's and reflecting situations and viewpoints in a style different
from those in Paul's own letters. About the author****p of Ephesias,
Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, debate continues; but the majority of
scholars include these, too, among the "deutero-Pauline"-- literally,
secondarily Pauline-- letters."
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (Adam, Eve,
and the Serpent)
We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The
Gnostic
Gospels)
Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the
"historical
Jesus". . . and that sorting out "authentic" material in the gospels was
virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence."
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of
the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that
world.
-Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)
The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century
guesses,
are all four wrong.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
Far from being an intimate of an intimate of Jesus, Mark wrote at the
forth
remove from Jesus.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the
Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century
and
later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.
-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York
University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)
The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of
Jesus in any Gospel.
-Bishop John Shelby Spong
Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of
Nazareth
did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is
simply no evidence for it.
-Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)
But even if it could be proved that John's Gospel had been the first of
the
four to be written down, there would still be considerable confusion as to
who "John" was. For the various styles of the New Testament texts ascribed
to John- The Gospel, the letters, and the Book of Revelations-- are each
so
different in their style that it is extremely unlikely that they had been
written by one person.
-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)
It was not until the third century that Jesus' cross of execution became a
common symbol of the Christian faith.
-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)
What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually
two
different things.
-Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX,
Number 6, p. 9)
When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a
mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the
sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic
requirements or professional standards.
-David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible
series (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)
It is said that the last recourse of the Bible apologist is to fall back
upon allegory. After all, when confronted with the many hundreds of
biblical
problems, allegory permits one to interpret anything however one might
please.
-Gene Kasmar, Minnesota Atheists
Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others
published under his name; and it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew,
James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the canonical books
ascribed to them.
-Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College
(Bible Review, June 1994)
A generation after Jesus' death, when the Gospels were written, the Romans
had destroyed the Jerusalem Temple (in 70 C.E.); the most influential
centers of Christianity were cities of the Mediterranean world such as
Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, Damascus, Ephesus and Rome. Although large
number of Jews were also followers of Jesus, non-Jews came to predominate
in
the early Church. They controlled how the Gospels were written after 70
C.E.
-Bruce Chilton, Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College (Bible Review,
Dec. 1994, p. 37)
James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew,
"is
in fact not historical."
How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner's speculations
concerning Jesus' baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really
know if the baptism, or any other event written about in the Gospels, is
historical?
-Daniel P. Sullivan (Bible Review, June 1996, Vol. XII, Number 3, p. 5)
David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the
Gospels could not be read as straightforward accounts of what Jesus
actually
did and said; rather, the evangelists and later redactors and
commentators,
influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and legends
that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus'
life, unreliable as sources of historical information.
-Bible Review, October 1996, Vol. XII, Number 5, p. 39
The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midra****c tradition and
intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not
historical
accounts.
-Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels
Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely
human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that
their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and
editing.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "Who Wrote the Bible," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec.
10, 1990)
Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars-- from liberal skeptics to
conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify
themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or traveled with
Jesus.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec.
10,
1990)
Once written, many experts believe, the Gospels were redacted, or edited,
repeatedly as they were copied and circulated among church elders during
the
last first and early second centuries.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec.
10,
1990)
The tradition attributing the fourth Gospel to the Apostle John, the son
of
Zebedee, is first noted by Irenaeus in A.D. 180. It is a tradition based
largely on what some view as the writer's reference to himself as "the
beloved disciple" and "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Current objection
to
John's author****p are based largely on modern textural analyses that
strongly suggest the fourth Gospel was the work of several hands, probably
followers of an elderly teacher in Asia Minor named John who claimed as a
young man to have been a disciple of Jesus.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec.
10,
1990)
Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following
Jesus' death that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or
authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words the authors
attributed
to Jesus himself.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec.
10, 1990)
Three letters that Paul allegedly wrote to his friends and former
co-workers
Timothy and Titus are now widely disputed as having come from Paul's hand.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec.
10, 1990)
The Epistle of James is a practical book, light on theology and full of
advice on ethical behavior. Even so, its place in the Bible has been
challenged repeatedly over the years. It is generally believed to have
been
written near the end of the first century to Jewish Christians. . . but
scholars are unable conclusively to identify the writer.
Five men named James appear in the New Testament: the brother of Jesus,
the
son of Zebedee, the son of Alphaeus, "James the younger" and the father of
the Apostle Jude.
Little is known of the last three, and since the son of Zebedee was
martyred
in A.D. 44, tradition has leaned toward the brother of Jesus. However, the
writer never claims to be Jesus' brother. And scholars find the language
too
erudite for a simple Palestinian. This letter is also disputed on
theological grounds. Martin Luther called it "an epistle of straw" that
did
not belong in the Bible because it seemed to contradict Paul's teachings
that salvation comes by faith as a "gift of God"-- not by good works.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec.
10, 1990)
The origins of the three letters of John are also far from certain.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec.
10, 1990)
Christian tradition has held that the Apostle Peter wrote the first
[letter], probably in Rome shortly before his martyrdom about A.D. 65.
However, some modern scholars cite the epistle's cultivated language and
its
references to persecutions that did not occur until the reign of Domitian
(A.D. 81-96) as evidence that it was actually written by Peter's disciples
sometime later.
Second Peter has suffered even harsher scrutiny. Many scholars consider it
the latest of all New Testament books, written around A.D. 125. The letter
was never mentioned in second-century writings and was excluded from some
church canons into the fifth century. "This letter cannot have been
written
by Peter," wrote Werner Kummel, a Heidelberg University scholar, in his
highly regarded Introduction to the New Testament.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec.
10, 1990)
The letter of Jude also is considered too late to have been written by the
attested author-- "the brother of James" and, thus, of Jesus. The letter,
believed written early in the second century.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec.
10, 1990)
According to the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, a faithful
account of the actions and words of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels;
but
it is impossible to reconcile this with the existence in the text of
contradictions, improbabilities, things which are materially impossible or
statements which run contrary to firmly established reality.
-Maurice Bucaille (The Bible, the Quran, and Science)
The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels.
-Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The
Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec. 10, 1990)
Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but
by
their anonymous followers (or their followers' followers). Each presented
a
somewhat different picture of Jesus' life. The earliest appeared to have
been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion.
-David Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" (Time, April 8, 1996)
So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that "we can now know almost
nothing
concerning the life and personality of Jesus."
-Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar
in
the field in 1926
The Synoptic Gospels employ techniques that we today associate with
fiction.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review,
June
1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
Josephus says that he himself witnessed a certain Eleazar casting out
demons
by a method of exorcism that had been given to Solomon by God himself--
while Vespasian watched! In the same work, Josephus tells the story of a
rainmaker, Onias (14.2.1).
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review,
June
1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
For Mark's gospel to work, for instance, you must believe that Isaiah 40:3
(quoted, in a slightly distorted form, in Mark 1:2-3) correctly predicted
that a stranger named John would come out of the desert to prepare the way
for Jesus. It will then come as something of a surprise to learn in the
first chapter of Luke that John is a near relative, well known to Jesus'
family.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review,
June
1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our
using
it as a historical record of that year.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review,
June
1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 54)
Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost
nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise.
Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human
being
must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)
The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not
biographies.
-Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston
University (in the PBS do***entary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)
The gospels are not eyewitness accounts
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity
School
We are led to conclude that, in Paul's past, there was no historical
Jesus.
Rather, the activities of the Son about which God's gospel in scripture
told, as interpreted by Paul, had taken place in the spiritual realm and
were accessible only through revelation.
-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.83
Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was
ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth.
-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141
Even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he
can
never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one
any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern
remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith,
of
somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholar****p is no
less
a fiction.
-Robert M. Price, "Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert
Price
and Rev. John Rankin," Opening Statement
It is im****tant to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is
itself apparently mythic from first to last."
-Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for
Inquiry
Institute (Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)
CONCLUSION
Belief cannot produce historical fact, and claims that come from nothing
but
hearsay do not amount to an honest attempt to get at the facts. Even with
eyewitness accounts we must tread carefully. Simply because someone makes
a
claim, does not mean it represents reality. For example, consider some of
the bogus claims that supposedly come from many eyewitness accounts of
alien
extraterrestrials and their space craft. They not only assert eyewitnesses
but present blurry photos to boot! If we can question these accounts, then
why should we not question claims that come from hearsay even more?
Moreover, consider that the hearsay comes from ancient and unknown people
that no longer live.
Unfortunately, belief and faith substitute as knowledge in many people's
minds and nothing, even direct evidence thrust on the feet of their
claims,
could possibly change their minds. We have many stories, myths and beliefs
of a Jesus but if we wish to establish the facts of history, we cannot
even
begin to put together a knowledgeable account without at least a few
reliable eyewitness accounts.
Of course a historical Jesus may have existed, perhaps based loosely on a
living human even though his actual history got lost, but this amounts to
nothing but speculation. However we do have an abundance of evidence
sup****ting the mythical evolution of Jesus. Virtually every detail in the
gospel stories occurred in pagan and/or Hebrew stories, long before the
advent of Christianity. We simply do not have a shred of evidence to
determine the historicity of a Jesus "the Christ." We only have evidence
for
the belief of Jesus, NOT a witness of him!
So if you hear anyone who claims to have evidence for a witness of a
historical Jesus, simply ask for the author's birth date. Anyone who's
birth
occurred after an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words
alone serve as evidence for that event.
Sources (click on a blue highlighted book title if you'd like to obtain
it):
Briant, Pierre, "Alexander the Great: Man of Action Man of Spirit," Harry
N.
Abrams, 1996
Doherty, Earl, "The Jesus Puzzle," Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999
Flavius, Josephus (37 or 38-circa 101 C.E.), Antiquities
Gauvin, Marshall J., "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" (from:
www.infidels.org/)
Gould, Stephen Jay "Dinosaur in a Haystack," (Chapter 2), Harmony Books,
New
York, 1995
Graham, Henry Grey, Rev., "Where we got the Bible," B. Heder Book Company,
1960
Graves, Kersey "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors," 1875
Helms, Randel McCraw , "Who Wrote the Gospels?", Millennium Press
Irenaeus of Lyon (140?-202? C.E.), Against the Heresies
Leedom, Tim C. "The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read,"
Kendall/Hunt
Publi****ng Company, 1993
Massey, Gerald, "Gerald Massey's Lectures: The Historical Jesus and
Mythical
Christ," 1900
McKinsey, C. Dennis "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy," Prometheus
Books, 1995
Metzger, Bruce,"The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration," Oxford University Press, 1968
Pagels, Elaine, "The Gnostic Gospels," Vintage Books, New York, 1979
Pagels, Elaine, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent," Vintage Books, New York,
1888
Pagels, Elaine, "The Origin of Satan," Random House, New York, 1995
Price, Robert M.," Deconstructing Jesus," Prometheus Books, 2000
Pritchard, John Paul, "A Literary Approach to the New Testament," Norman,
University of Oklahoma Press, 1972
Remsberg, John E., "The Christ," Prometheus Books
Robertson, J.M. "Pagan Christs," Barnes & Noble Books, 1966
Romer, John, "Testament : The Bible and History," Henry Holt and Company,
New York, 1988
Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, "A History of Biblical Literature," New American
Library, 1962
Spong, Bishop Shelby, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,"
HarperSanFrancisco, 1991
Tacitus (55?-117? C.E.), Annals
Wilson, Dorothy Frances, "The Gospel Sources, some results of modern
scholar****p," London, Student Christian Movement press, 1938
The Revell Bible Dictionary," Wynwood Press, New York, 1990
King James Bible, 1611
U.S. News & World Re****t, Dec. 10, 1990
Various issues of Bible Review magazine, published by the Biblical
Archaeology Society, Wa****ngton D.C.
Online sources:
[1] "James (book of Bible)," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001
[2] "John, Epistles of," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001
[3] "Peter, Epistles of," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001
begin 666 clip_image001.gif
M1TE&.#EA= (%`'<`,2'^&E-O9G1W87)E.B!-:6-R;W-O9G0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"'Y
M! $`````+ (``0!P`@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(" @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$"`P) C(^IR^T/HYRTVHNSWKS[
M#X;B2)9F**3JRK;N"\?R3-?VC>?ZSO?^#PP*A\2B\8A,*I?,IO,)C4JGU*KU
&BO45```[
`
end
|
