Religion......

[MSUDuo]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



To each his/her own....

I do think he is right that if kids weren't taught religion at such a young age they would probably reject it when they were old enough to think about it rationally. Obviously not all of them, but a lot. . .

They do anyways. Something like 15% of the youth in America will still be in church after the age of 25. So parents have them tag along. They'll get to make their own decisions and will have to answer for said decisions.

[JoltinJoe]

The overwhelming assessment of historians is that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person. There is not one credible historian who contends otherwise.

Anything you read here is just internet crazy talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23]

Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed.[24][25][21] But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accepts that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[25][21]

[Chizzang]

The overwhelming assessment of historians is that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person. There is not one credible historian who contends otherwise.

Anything you read here is just internet crazy talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23]

Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed.[24][25][21] But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accepts that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[25][21]

Let's not just use "The Scholars" when it suits our argument
Scholars think a whole bunch of stuff that is largely ignored
There are a whole slew of "scholars" who think about 50% of what Paul wrote is a lie

although I pretty sure Jesus was a real dude... very likable too as I understand it

[JoltinJoe]

The overwhelming assessment of historians is that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person. There is not one credible historian who contends otherwise.

Anything you read here is just internet crazy talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23]

Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed.[24][25][21] But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accepts that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[25][21]

Let's not just use "The Scholars" when it suits our argument
Scholars think a whole bunch of stuff that is largely ignored
There are a whole slew of "scholars" who think about 50% of what Paul wrote is a lie

although I pretty sure Jesus was a real dude... very likable too as I understand it

I use "The Scholars" argument all the time and especially in cases of uniformity of scholarly opinion.

As for what Paul wrote, there is substantial division among scholars. As to whether Jesus actually existed, there is none. Anything you read here to the contrary is just the crazy internet talking.

[D1B]

I do think he is right that if kids weren't taught religion at such a young age they would probably reject it when they were old enough to think about it rationally. Obviously not all of them, but a lot. . .

They do anyways. Something like 15% of the youth in America will still be in church after the age of 25. So parents have them tag along. They'll get to make their own decisions and will have to answer for said decisions.

What a dumbass.

[CID1990]

The overwhelming assessment of historians is that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person. There is not one credible historian who contends otherwise.

Anything you read here is just internet crazy talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23]

Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed.[24][25][21] But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accepts that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[25][21]

Well duh.

Of Course he existed. Look at all the Mexicans who are named after him.

[D1B]

Let's not just use "The Scholars" when it suits our argument
Scholars think a whole bunch of stuff that is largely ignored
There are a whole slew of "scholars" who think about 50% of what Paul wrote is a lie

although I pretty sure Jesus was a real dude... very likable too as I understand it

I use "The Scholars" argument all the time and especially in cases of uniformity of scholarly opinion.

As for what Paul wrote, there is substantial division among scholars. As to whether Jesus actually existed, there is none. Anything you read here to the contrary is just the crazy internet talking.

No eyewitness accounts of Jesus of Nazareth. No proof of miracles or divinity. Most scholars are religious and belief in the myth of jesus is just as natural as breathing. They, like you, were brainwashed by their parents. Its the only way to get smart people like you to believe in nonsense.

THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION

Such abuse begins with the involuntary involvement of children in religious practices from the time they are born. All religions, through ritual, preaching, and religious texts, seek to bring children into day-to-day religious practice. This gives holy books and scriptures, as well as those who teach them, an early grip on the developing minds of young people, leaving an indelible impression on them. In many cases, most notably in the Catholic Church, this forced and prolonged exposure of children to religious institutions has also been a key factor in the physical, mental, and sexual abuse of children by religious leaders.

This early grip is so strong that very few people, once grown, ever get an opportunity to change their minds, despite being exposed to science and rational thinking, or even other religious systems. Religious beliefs thrive by imposing themselves upon impressionable minds and gaining their blind adherence to certain dogmatic practices. In some ways, this lays the groundwork for sustained psychological abuse of young children by allowing adults the use of religion as a pretext for various other forms of abuse such as forcing them to fight in wars in the name of religion and ethnicity.

[MSUDuo]

They do anyways. Something like 15% of the youth in America will still be in church after the age of 25. So parents have them tag along. They'll get to make their own decisions and will have to answer for said decisions.

What a dumbass.

Yes you are. Problem with my post was what?

You say the same things about parents who force other things upon their kids? Or is it just about religion?

God help your soul

[D1B]

What a dumbass.

Yes you are. Problem with my post was what?

You say the same things about parents who force other things upon their kids? Or is it just about religion?

God help your soul

Which god?

[D1B]

The overwhelming assessment of historians is that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person. There is not one credible historian who contends otherwise.

Anything you read here is just internet crazy talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23]

Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed.[24][25][21] But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accepts that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[25][21]

Some other Jesuses...

The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yehoshua (Yeshua) bin Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Iesous in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people." – Josephus, Wars 6.3.Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.

Jesusneverexisted.com

[Ibanez]

The overwhelming assessment of historians is that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person. There is not one credible historian who contends otherwise.

Anything you read here is just internet crazy talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23]

Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed.[24][25][21] But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accepts that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[25][21]

FWIW, I could write a book, include real people and events (like the Census) and say it's 100% true and all the people existed. Once again, these scholars are probably Christians themselves and are using the Bible as a source.


Btw, I should clarify my position. I think a man, possibly named Jesus, did exist that is the basis for Jesus Christ. But the Jesus Christ of the Bible is a fabrication to sell a religion. If I were a stranger and told you that I could turn water into wine, cure the blind and raise the dead, you all would laugh in my face and have me committed.

[D1B]

The overwhelming assessment of historians is that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person. There is not one credible historian who contends otherwise.

Anything you read here is just internet crazy talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23]

Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed.[24][25][21] But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accepts that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[25][21]

FWIW, I could write a book, include real people and events (like the Census) and say it's 100% true and all the people existed. Once again, these scholars are probably Christians themselves and are using the Bible as a source.


Btw, I should clarify my position. I think a man, possibly named Jesus, did exist that is the basis for Jesus Christ. But the Jesus Christ of the Bible is a fabrication to sell a religion. If I were a stranger and told you that I could turn water into wine, cure the blind and raise the dead, you all would laugh in my face and have me committed.

Paul, the most important person in christianity, never met a "Jesus of Nazareth." Wrote about him 20-30 years after his death.

Yeah, that's enough for me to spend years in church and praying, tens of thousands of dollars over my lifetime and abuse my children by forcing them into my cult.

[MSUDuo]

Yes you are. Problem with my post was what?

You say the same things about parents who force other things upon their kids? Or is it just about religion?

God help your soul

Which god?

Come on, don't dodge the question

[D1B]

Which god?

Come on, don't dodge the question

What question? Oh, that stupid red herring? Yeah, I say similar things about other stuff. This thread though is about religion. Your claim that kids are just "taggin along" is what makes you a dumbass. With rare exception, they're forced into your cults.

[MSUDuo]

Come on, don't dodge the question

What question? Oh, that stupid red herring? Yeah, I say similar things about other stuff. This thread though is about religion. Your claim that kids are just "taggin along" is what makes you a dumbass. With rare exception, they're forced into your cults.

Sure you do. It's ok though. Just keep trying to turn others into like you. Just what this world needs although it wouldn't last long if everyone was like you

[D1B]

What question? Oh, that stupid red herring? Yeah, I say similar things about other stuff. This thread though is about religion. Your claim that kids are just "taggin along" is what makes you a dumbass. With rare exception, they're forced into your cults.

Sure you do. It's ok though. Just keep trying to turn others into like you. Just what this world needs although it wouldn't last long if everyone was like you

How old are you?

[kalm]

What question? Oh, that stupid red herring? Yeah, I say similar things about other stuff. This thread though is about religion. Your claim that kids are just "taggin along" is what makes you a dumbass. With rare exception, they're forced into your cults.

Sure you do. It's ok though. Just keep trying to turn others into like you. Just what this world needs although it wouldn't last long if everyone was like you

Yes, those thuggish, violent, secular humanist terrorists.

[JoltinJoe]

The overwhelming assessment of historians is that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person. There is not one credible historian who contends otherwise.

Anything you read here is just internet crazy talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23]

Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed.[24][25][21] But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accepts that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[25][21]

FWIW, I could write a book, include real people and events (like the Census) and say it's 100% true and all the people existed. Once again, these scholars are probably Christians themselves and are using the Bible as a source.


Btw, I should clarify my position. I think a man, possibly named Jesus, did exist that is the basis for Jesus Christ. But the Jesus Christ of the Bible is a fabrication to sell a religion. If I were a stranger and told you that I could turn water into wine, cure the blind and raise the dead, you all would laugh in my face and have me committed.

Not true. There are many historians who do not accept the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth but nonetheless accept the fact of his historical existence. Also, there is a nearly unanimous consensus among historians that Jesus of Nazareth is the most influential person who ever lived.

[JoltinJoe]

The overwhelming assessment of historians is that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical person. There is not one credible historian who contends otherwise.

Anything you read here is just internet crazy talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23]

Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed.[24][25][21] But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accepts that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[25][21]

Some other Jesuses...

The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yehoshua (Yeshua) bin Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Iesous in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people." – Josephus, Wars 6.3.Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.

Jesusneverexisted.com

The inaccurate information contained on this website is far more prevalent than any correct information.

[kalm]

FWIW, I could write a book, include real people and events (like the Census) and say it's 100% true and all the people existed. Once again, these scholars are probably Christians themselves and are using the Bible as a source.


Btw, I should clarify my position. I think a man, possibly named Jesus, did exist that is the basis for Jesus Christ. But the Jesus Christ of the Bible is a fabrication to sell a religion. If I were a stranger and told you that I could turn water into wine, cure the blind and raise the dead, you all would laugh in my face and have me committed.

Not true. There are many historians who do not accept the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth but nonetheless accept the fact of his historical existence. Also, there is a nearly unanimous consensus among historians that Jesus of Nazareth is the most influential person who ever lived.

Not to go all JSO on ya, but define "influential". Influential can be both positive and negative. And what about population? For his day, Ghengis Khan was pretty damn influential with a reach that stretched from the orient all the way to northern Europe. Hitler influenced the thinking, both good and bad, for much of the world and continues to do so to this day. John Lennon was the Walrus. Michael Jackson was the king of pop.

If you want to look at it from a modern perspective, which one of these would have more facebook friends?

[JoltinJoe]

Not true. There are many historians who do not accept the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth but nonetheless accept the fact of his historical existence. Also, there is a nearly unanimous consensus among historians that Jesus of Nazareth is the most influential person who ever lived.

Not to go all JSO on ya, but define "influential". Influential can be both positive and negative. And what about population? For his day, Ghengis Khan was pretty damn influential with a reach that stretched from the orient all the way to northern Europe. Hitler influenced the thinking, both good and bad, for much of the world and continues to do so to this day. John Lennon was the Walrus. Michael Jackson was the king of pop.

If you want to look at it from a modern perspective, which one of these would have more facebook friends?

Seriously?

[kalm]

Not to go all JSO on ya, but define "influential". Influential can be both positive and negative. And what about population? For his day, Ghengis Khan was pretty damn influential with a reach that stretched from the orient all the way to northern Europe. Hitler influenced the thinking, both good and bad, for much of the world and continues to do so to this day. John Lennon was the Walrus. Michael Jackson was the king of pop.

If you want to look at it from a modern perspective, which one of these would have more facebook friends?

Seriously?

Only partially. I was trying to be nice. Just wondering, did you take a poll of historians to find that out? And what's the point? Does he have to be THE most influential? Wouldn't "one of the" have sufficed?

[D1B]

Some other Jesuses...





Jesusneverexisted.com

The inaccurate information contained on this website is far more prevalent than any correct information.

Great. Enlighten us.

[D1B]

Not to go all JSO on ya, but define "influential". Influential can be both positive and negative. And what about population? For his day, Ghengis Khan was pretty damn influential with a reach that stretched from the orient all the way to northern Europe. Hitler influenced the thinking, both good and bad, for much of the world and continues to do so to this day. John Lennon was the Walrus. Michael Jackson was the king of pop.

If you want to look at it from a modern perspective, which one of these would have more facebook friends?

Seriously?

Jesus is influential not because he did anything unique or even existed. He's an influential character in the great myth of civilization. No different than Zeus.

If it wasnt for Constantine and the 1700 years of brutal oppression and forced indoctrination by the church, no one would have ever heard about jesus. Jesus was created by politicians and tyrants to fleece and control people. It has worked up untill about 50 years ago.

[D1B]

Seriously?

Only partially. I was trying to be nice. Just wondering, did you take a poll of historians to find that out? And what's the point? Does he have to be THE most influential? Wouldn't "one of the" have sufficed?

What criteria did they use? Jesus has only, allegedly, been around for about 2000 years. What about the previous 3-7 million years man suffered not knowing the savior of the world?

Tough to be influential when you ain't been born.



"Jesus? Who the fuck is that?......grunt"