Romulus, Mithras And Jesus

[stromboli]

God isn't the source of sin. sin is a word. In xtianity it is a sin to be gay. It is not a sin other places. God did not create sin, sin is a created concept endemic to religion. The 10 commandments says rape is not a sin nor keeping slaves. Sin is a very relative term.

The point of the article is that Jesus did not have to exist to be created. You said xtianity came from Judaism, but that is not true. Judaism does not accept xtian belief in any part. The messianic/risen savior is not original either with Judaism or xtianity, and the concept of a divine god born in poverty is also not original with them.

As Mike CL pointed out, the New Testament was not written in the order it is presented. The Pauline writings preceded the gospels. Another point; there are no letters in existence that either show a dialogue or discourse between early christian churches addressing issues other than what is presented in Paul's epistles. The epistles were supposedly written in response to letters Paul received.

Paul addresses the authority of the church by naming apostles, prophets and so forth, but the word disciple is never used. There should have been thousands of disciples of Jesus, including all of the living apostles. Disciple is a familiar term that is never used in reference to any of the apostles, nor is there any indication of "I remember the time when we were hangin' at the well, Jesus said...." type of dialogue. Get it? the writings are manufactured to create a savior, but there is no indication of any give and take or any reference to people that knew Jesus or any mention of outside living witnesses other than the writers of the epistles.

Peter 1 and Peter 2 are demonstrably written by different authors because their style is very different. Peter never gives any details of Jesus, never refers to himself as a disciple, never adds any narrative to the story, and Never quotes Jesus directly.

1 Peter 2: 6

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Why is Peter quoting scripture- he is a contemporary of Jesus- which is at best barely written, if at all? Would he not be quoting Jesus directly?

These are just a few examples. The conclusion after looking at all the evidence- historians, not me- is that Jesus is a myth created from previous myths.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Peter is quoting Isaiah 28:16

Yes judaism does not acknowledge Christianity, however that does not change the fact that it originated in a Jewish culture and takes many elements from judaism

I am aware that the new testament is not in chronological order

The messiah is a jewish concept http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

however many jews believe the messiah to be a military leader and not a spiritual one
Some jews say he is the messiah

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/proofessay

The ten commandments don't say rape is okay
Slavery during that time was different than it was in transatlantic days
slaves were liberated every generation (in the year of jubilee, every 50 years)

Not everyone believed jesus was a good guy, many people thought he was a liar, and so they didn't believe him.

Even if there were other documents talking about jesus being the son of god, people would dismiss those as religious texts too


I do have to ask, are you an expert in 1st and 2nd century mediterranean writing styles because you sure talk a lot about them as if you're an expert

[stromboli]

I don't care about messianic concepts or any other claims, because the simple fact is that there is no proof that Jesus was either a real person or Jewish. And it still comes back to the fact that there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that christianity was either created or grafted from other religions. The Pauline writings run to the thousands of words in long responses stating policy, doctrine, formation of the church, and every other aspect required in the forming of a religion, yet there is not one, nada, squat, letter or other offering from any other source of any of the churches mentioned. How is it that Paul's writings somehow survived but no other record by any of the churches mentioned or any other author of those letters, which if you go by Paul's statements, he was fairly busy answering.

And as I pointed out, post tense to the living ministry of Jesus, there should have been desciples in the thousands and testimonies to match, none of which are evident. No letters, no testimonies, no second or third party accounts, not even anecdotal accounts of what was supposedly the most remarkable advent in human history. Amazing that so many people witnessed so much and then simply didn't bother to mention it or write it down in any form; not letters, not diaries, nothing.

Every time something of note happens people talk about it. We've got Youtube and Facebook and Huffpost and Reddit and media sources ad infinitum, but the most important event in human history doesn't get a mention. no letters from Roman soldiers or Roman authorities in Palestine, no mention by the people who supposedly were fed by Jesus on the mount or whatever, you name it.

Apologists can make all the claims they want. The facts don't jive with their claims.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Have you ever considered that the Roman officials didn't believe it and dismissed it as nonsense 

[Hydra009]

Have you ever considered that the Roman officials didn't believe it and dismissed it as nonsense

They knew about Christians and their beliefs, obviously.  (The strangely prophetic term, "slave religion" was bandied about, for example)  Stromboli is saying that contemporary, non-christian confirmation of biblical accounts is a oddly thin.  If they actually happened, one would expect the miraculous events described in the bible to generate quite a stir.

[Minimalist]

Paul's writings then, go first.

Of course there you are assuming that "paul" was any more real than "jesus."

Xtian horseshit aside, the earliest writer for whom we have any considerable body of work is Justin Martyr.... and he never heard of anyone named paul nor did he know of the gospels named for mark, matt, luke and john.

Justin's First Apologia was written to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 AD.  Obviously, the story had not been fleshed out at that time.

[Mike Cl]

I don't care about messianic concepts or any other claims, because the simple fact is that there is no proof that Jesus was either a real person or Jewish. And it still comes back to the fact that there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that christianity was either created or grafted from other religions. The Pauline writings run to the thousands of words in long responses stating policy, doctrine, formation of the church, and every other aspect required in the forming of a religion, yet there is not one, nada, squat, letter or other offering from any other source of any of the churches mentioned. How is it that Paul's writings somehow survived but no other record by any of the churches mentioned or any other author of those letters, which if you go by Paul's statements, he was fairly busy answering.

And as I pointed out, post tense to the living ministry of Jesus, there should have been desciples in the thousands and testimonies to match, none of which are evident. No letters, no testimonies, no second or third party accounts, not even anecdotal accounts of what was supposedly the most remarkable advent in human history. Amazing that so many people witnessed so much and then simply didn't bother to mention it or write it down in any form; not letters, not diaries, nothing.

Every time something of note happens people talk about it. We've got Youtube and Facebook and Huffpost and Reddit and media sources ad infinitum, but the most important event in human history doesn't get a mention. no letters from Roman soldiers or Roman authorities in Palestine, no mention by the people who supposedly were fed by Jesus on the mount or whatever, you name it.

Apologists can make all the claims they want. The facts don't jive with their claims.

An earlier book to consider looking into is The Jesus Puzzle, but Earl Doherty.  This was published in the early 2000's and was a great find for me then.  This is what Carrier had to say about it:

Summary of Argument and Overall Conclusion

Earl Doherty argues that Christianity began as a mystical-revelatory religion, very different from the "deviant" sect that won the propaganda war to become the eventual "orthodoxy." The latter gained prominence in the 2nd century and achieved total victory by the 4th. According to this theory, the idea of an historical progenitor was not original to the faith even in Paul's day, but evolved over the course of the later 1st century. As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior") was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form. This and the rest of the "gospel" was revealed to the first Christians in visions and inspirations and through the discovery of hidden messages in the scriptures. After the confusion of the Jewish War and persistent battles over power in the church, rooted in a confused mass of variant sectarian dogmas, a new cult arose with the belief that Jesus actually came to earth and was crucified by Jews with the complicity of the Roman authorities. To defend itself against sects more closely adhering to the original, mystical faith, the new church engaged in polemics and power politics, and eventually composed or adopted writings (chiefly the canonical Gospels) supporting its views.

The "scandalous" consequence of Doherty's theory is that Jesus didn't exist. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant. Most scholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist (who are called "ahistoricists," because they deny the "historicity" of Jesus, or "mythicists," because they argue Jesus is mythical) have little in the way of reasons beyond a whole complex of arguments from silence. Doherty, in contrast, uses arguments from silence only to support his thesis. He does not base it on such arguments, but rather on positive evidence, especially a slew of very strange facts that his theory accounts for very well but that traditional historicism ignores, or explains poorly. By far most of the criticism or even dismissal of Doherty's work is based on the criticism or dismissal of the Argument from Silence, or his (often supposed) deployment of it. This completely misses the strongest elements of his case: evidence that Christianity did in fact begin as a mystical-revelatory religion.


This work shows clearly that a real flesh and blood Jesus was not needed to create "christianity".  Jesus was added later as he was needed and the farther away from the early christian groups we go in history, the more history of Jesus was added.  What was created was not Jesusanity, but Christianity; Christ is a title, not a last name.  The mythical Jesus did not have the name Mr. Jesus Christ (no middle initial either--although I like to add an H. to it or simply say 'Jesus fucking Christ'--especially when I hit my thumb with a hammer.

[Minimalist]

scholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist (who are called "ahistoricists," because they deny the "historicity" of Jesus, or "mythicists," because they argue Jesus is mythical) have little in the way of reasons beyond a whole complex of arguments from silence.

You know, there is a reason why xtians pound the "argument from silence" drum so hard.  It's because they have no answer for it.

There is not a shred of evidence that the Romans attended stock car races at the Circus Maximus.  That does not mean that they did.
There is not a shred of evidence that the Assyrians had space travel.  That does not mean they did.
There is not a shred of evidence that Martians invaded Ohio in 1832.  That does not mean that they did.

An argument from silence can be quite compelling. 

On the one hand we have xtians claiming that there were "multitudes" greeting jesus when he entered Jerusalem.  Not a single first century writer knows of this.
We hear that there were multitudes of xtians in Rome itself in 64 AD yet there is not a single xtian catacomb in Rome in the first century.
The earliest Roman writers to mention xtianity (Pliny the Younger and Suetonius) probably wrote Chrestians not Christians and they never heard of any "jesus."  (Tacitus is a much more complicated story.)
Not a single Roman writer knows anything about even a rumor of a dead criminal coming back to life in Jerusalem.  Yet the xtians insist it is so.

The argument from silence is far more compelling that the argument from gospel bullshit.

[Mike Cl]

Minimalist, you stated:
There is not a shred of evidence that the Romans attended stock car races at the Circus Maximus.  That does not mean that they did.
There is not a shred of evidence that the Assyrians had space travel.  That does not mean they did.
There is not a shred of evidence that Martians invaded Ohio in 1832.  That does not mean that they did.

The first one, I'll give you.  The other two I'm not sure of.  Have you listened to some of those guys on the History Channel?  There are friggin aliens everywhere, everywhen! 

[Minimalist]

Funny you mentioned that.  Just today I unsubscribed from the History Channel and when they asked "why" I told them it was because they stopped doing history.

[Poison Tree]

On the one hand we have xtians claiming that there were "multitudes" greeting jesus when he entered Jerusalem.  Not a single first century writer knows of this.
We hear that there were multitudes of xtians in Rome itself in 64 AD yet there is not a single xtian catacomb in Rome in the first century.
The earliest Roman writers to mention xtianity (Pliny the Younger and Suetonius) probably wrote Chrestians not Christians and they never heard of any "jesus."  (Tacitus is a much more complicated story.)
Not a single Roman writer knows anything about even a rumor of a dead criminal coming back to life in Jerusalem.  Yet the xtians insist it is so.

Don't forget that Matthew has a zombie invasion of Jerusalem (kind of)

and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Yet no one bothered to write even that down at the time.

[Minimalist]

Amen, brother.

[Contemporary Protestant]

In response to the zombie invasion, the passage doesnt specify how they appeared to others, so i think its a stretch to call it a zombie invasion

In addition, the word for grave is sheoul, which is a different concept than being buried, so it would be more appropriate to picture this as the saints being released from sheoul and some how some people knew about it

The passage is way too vague to assume stuff, however it does say saints were released from the grave(sheoul)

[stromboli]

The central point is that the advent/crucifixion/ascension/resurrection of Jesus by xtian standards is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT IN HUMAN HISTORY. And yet there is no evidence other than that manufactured after the fact, and very little of that, to support it. And virtually nothing that can be considered as objective and sustainable. Get it?

[Contemporary Protestant]

As i mentioned earlier, it is only important to christians, any one else didnt care or didnt believe it, evidence being no one else recorded it

Second, the tombstone of pontius pilate has been found, indicating he was a real person
And the method of execution is accurate

To stress my first point, if u were caesar, and u heard about this, would u accept it or dismiss it as nonesense or a local legend