The Origin of Religion

[Avatra1]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html#pseudotacitus

You might have to scroll down a bit to get by the "usual" suspects of christian "non christian" evidence.

At best, hearsay, at worst outright fraud.

Most things on the internet about the historical Jesus are biased. The articles are either written by Christians or the anti-religious.


At one point in history the city of Troy was either consider fiction, myth or a legend. That obviously change in the 19th century. One can even argue that Homer never existed as well, since there is very little evidence that he was an actual historical figure. So I believe it is a little premature to say that it has been proven that the historical Jesus never existed and most scholars believe that he did exist. But like I posted previously, I am not going to get into a drawn out debate over this.

Of course they are. It's the standard reply.

Did you even bother to read it?

There can never be a middle ground, (tm) everyone is always on an agenda.

The difference between Homer and jesus, is that Homer isn't portrayed as the "savior" of mankind and the "one" who died for our "sins."

If Homer turns out to be nothing but a story, so what.

If jesus turns out to be nothing but a story, shit will hit the fan.

I just find it amusing that in order to "proclaim" that jesus existed, you have to turn to document(s) that was written way after he was "dead."

I know you don't want to talk about this, (wonder why :roll so this will probably be the last reply.

 

[tuxbox]

Did you even bother to read it?

Yes, and it is not the first time I have read information on that site.

There can never be a middle ground, (tm) everyone is always on an agenda.

Indeed, but if the agenda is not in search of the truth, I do not want to have anything to do with it.

The difference between Homer and jesus, is that Homer isn't portrayed as the "savior" of mankind and the "one" who died for our "sins."

There is a difference between the historical Jesus and the Jesus the Christians claim to be the savior of mankind. He does not have to be both.

If Homer turns out to be nothing but a story, so what.

Indeed.

If jesus turns out to be nothing but a story, shit will hit the fan.

Life will continue one way or the other. Say that it was possible to prove that the historical Jesus never existed (I do not believe that there is), Christians with blind faith would continue to believe that he did.

I just find it amusing that in order to "proclaim" that jesus existed, you have to turn to document(s) that was written way after he was "dead."

Just because we have not found older documents that mention Jesus, does not mean he did not exist. Ancient history is tentative and is subject to change as new evidence is found.

The earliest known copy of the Iliad was created in the 10th century. Does that mean that it did exist before that date or that Homer never existed?

I know you don't want to talk about this, (wonder why :roll so this will probably be the last reply.

I changed my mind. I will discuss this, but I am sure I will get bored pretty quickly. The reason I did not want to in the beginning, is because people who claim that Jesus never existed have already made up their mind and there is nothing I say to change that fact.

 

[Avatra1]

Did you even bother to read it?

Yes, and it is not the first time I have read information on that site.

Any specifics about that page that you find false? Or iffy?

There can never be a middle ground, (tm) everyone is always on an agenda.

Indeed, but if the agenda is not in search of the truth, I do not want to have anything to do with it.

Which at least for me, rules out religion entirely.

The difference between Homer and jesus, is that Homer isn't portrayed as the "savior" of mankind and the "one" who died for our "sins."

There is a difference between the historical Jesus and the Jesus the Christians claim to be the savior of mankind. He does not have to be both.

Oh, I agree with you here too. I mean he could just be someone who walked the earth talking to people and then his story got exaggerated. It wouldn't be the first time a story has been exaggerated in order to make either the teller or the person the story revolves around, better.

But i fear you missed the point, the story homer wrote isn't contingent on "if you do not believe this story, you'll go to hell, but if you believe this story and follow homer, you'll go to heaven."

Which is pretty much the message of jesus.

Life will continue one way or the other. Say that it was possible to prove that the historical Jesus never existed (I do not believe that there is), Christians with blind faith would continue to believe that he did.

It's really up to christians to prove that he did. Or anyone who says that there is strong evidence that he did exist.

As for myself, I'm not sure, I lean more towards he probably didn't exist, and if he did exist, I don't think he existed as christians want to portrait him. Heck, it might even be that the early christians took a look at other dominant/successful religions at the time and saw that what they had in common was a "golden calf."

If they believe it on blind faith, because one of their main characters in their holy book, failed to make enough of an impact to make people record his life, then that's all they ever had to begin with.

I just find it amusing that in order to "proclaim" that jesus existed, you have to turn to document(s) that was written way after he was "dead."

Just because we have not found older documents that mention Jesus, does not mean he did not exist. Ancient history is tentative and is subject to change as new evidence is found.

Oh absolutely, It's just so incredible funny that there's really no contemporary evidence of jesus or of his so called miracles.

I mean, supposed that he was the son of god, and did do those miracles, it's kinda funny that there's very little to nothing that we can look at. Of course some christians say that the devil hid the evidence and what not.

As a man, it's no biggie.

The earliest known copy of the Iliad was created in the 10th century. Does that mean that it did exist before that date or that Homer never existed?

8 century.

Doesn't matter, since neither the story of the Illiad or homer, isn't weighted down by "this is the son of god, who died for your sins, and you must believe this."

I mean, if the Illiad is false, it's still a story, if Homer didn't write it, it's still a story. (I sadly cannot remember much of the story, I must read it again someday)

I know you don't want to talk about this, (wonder why :roll so this will probably be the last reply.

I changed my mind. I will discuss this, but I am sure I will get bored pretty quickly. The reason I did not want to in the beginning, is because people who claim that Jesus never existed have already made up their mind and there is nothing I say to change that fact.

You do not have to say anything really, just show me the documents that prove that he did exist.
If there's no documents that does show that he did exist, then the probability that he did exist is pretty poor.

It's not like there wasn't historians around when Jesus "lived."

(nice "close minded" stick there.)
(Time for star wars:TOR)

 

[tuxbox]

Any specifics about that page that you find false? Or iffy?

Yep, claims like this make it biased and subjective. Not only that, the majority of scholars disagree.

"In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus."

It's really up to christians to prove that he did. Or anyone who says that there is strong evidence that he did exist.

First off, proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Historians look at all the available evidence before they make the any conclusions. In the case of the historicity of Jesus, the majority have concluded that he existed. Which is why when you look up Jesus Christ in the Encyclopedia Britannica it gives his estimated DOB and DOD. Unlike Mithra which clearly states he is a god in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology.

As for myself, I'm not sure, I lean more towards he probably didn't exist, and if he did exist, I don't think he existed as christians want to portrait him. Heck, it might even be that the early christians took a look at other dominant/successful religions at the time and saw that what they had in common was a "golden calf."

I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that he did exist, but understand how others might see it differently. Early Christian scribes did not do themselves any favors by hacking Josephus.

If they believe it on blind faith, because one of their main characters in their holy book, failed to make enough of an impact to make people record his life, then that's all they ever had to begin with.

lol, indeed.

8 century.

I thought the Venetus A was the oldest know copy??

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-02-80.html

Doesn't matter, since neither the story of the Illiad or homer, isn't weighted down by "this is the son of god, who died for your sins, and you must believe this."

Yes, neither the Illiad or Homer is weighted down by "this is the son of god, who died for your sins, and you must believe this." but the methods used to determine their historicity are the same.

I mean, if the Illiad is false, it's still a story, if Homer didn't write it, it's still a story. (I sadly cannot remember much of the story, I must read it again someday)

You can get both The Illiad and The Odyssey free from Kindle books. If you do not have a Kindle you can still read them via the Kindle Cloud.

You do not have to say anything really, just show me the documents that prove that he did exist.
If there's no documents that does show that he did exist, then the probability that he did exist is pretty poor.

It's not like there wasn't historians around when Jesus "lived."

I cannot prove (see my earlier comments on proof) he existed, but I side with the historians which say that he did.

(nice "close minded" stick there.)

You may think that, but I am far from closed mined.

(Time for star wars:TOR)

I have been thinking about buying SWTOR, is it any good??


*Edited*

 

[Avatra1]

Any specifics about that page that you find false? Or iffy?

Yep, claims like this make it biased and subjective. Not only that, the majority of scholars disagree.

"In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus."

He did write why he thinks the passage is a fraud, and he lists the reasons why, didn't see you mention anything to counter it, well except "historians" disagree.

You are getting really close to appeal to authority.

It's really up to christians to prove that he did. Or anyone who says that there is strong evidence that he did exist.

First off, proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Historians look at all the available evidence before they make the any conclusions. In the case of the historicity of Jesus, the majority have concluded that he existed. Which is why when you look up Jesus Christ in the Encyclopedia Britannica it gives his estimated DOB and DOD. Unlike Mithra which clearly states he is a god in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology.

Bollocks,dodged, Estimated DOB and DOD, does not jesus exist make.

Again, what evidence? I did say prove, but by prove I mean, show evidence.

What's this majority you keep on about?

For them being a majority they are awfully silent ones (right before I get smacked on the head )

As for myself, I'm not sure, I lean more towards he probably didn't exist, and if he did exist, I don't think he existed as christians want to portrait him. Heck, it might even be that the early christians took a look at other dominant/successful religions at the time and saw that what they had in common was a "golden calf."

I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that he did exist, but understand how others might see it differently. Early Christian scribes did not do themselves any favors by hacking Josephus.

Oh I disagree of course, but if you accept that christians hacked Josephus writings, it wouldn't be so hard to accept that they might have had another go at other documents?

You know, to make it easier to believe?

Like the updated part of the website I linked regarding Tacitus?

If they believe it on blind faith, because one of their main characters in their holy book, failed to make enough of an impact to make people record his life, then that's all they ever had to begin with.

lol, indeed.

good one eh?

8 century.

I thought the Venetus A was the oldest know copy??

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-02-80.html

I used wiki, but let's go by your link , it doesn't really matter. I think the 8 century was when Homer is supposed to have lived.

And I couldn't find a source that showed that the Iliad was dated back to the 8 cent.

Doesn't matter, since neither the story of the Illiad or homer, isn't weighted down by "this is the son of god, who died for your sins, and you must believe this."

Yes, neither the Illiad or Homer is weighted down by "this is the son of god, who died for your sins, and you must believe this." but the methods used to determine its historicity is the same.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If he just was a man, then I'd say yes, otherwise no.

I think we are in agreement here.

I mean, if the Illiad is false, it's still a story, if Homer didn't write it, it's still a story. (I sadly cannot remember much of the story, I must read it again someday)

You can get both The Illiad and The Odyssey free from Kindle books. If you do not have a Kindle you can still read them via the Kindle Cloud.

I'll download it to my phone. Love to get it in spoken form though, especially by Stephen Briggs. I mostly listen to audio books while playing games or things like that.

Do you think that the bible is more then a story?

You do not have to say anything really, just show me the documents that prove that he did exist.
If there's no documents that does show that he did exist, then the probability that he did exist is pretty poor.

It's not like there wasn't historians around when Jesus "lived."

I cannot prove (see my earlier comments on proof) he existed, but I side with the historians which say that he did.

The proof thing I think is a way for you to get away from actually committing to show some evidence.

Can I like you proclaim bias? if you pick christian historians?

(I'm pulling your chain here)

What about those historians who lived at or around the same time as jesus who do not mention him, or when they do, it's most likely hack jobs by early christians?

Is their words less valuable of historians today? (or lack thereof)

(nice "close minded" stick there.)

You may think that, but I am far from closed mined.

Well, actually it was a stick from you to me.

(Time for star wars:TOR)

I have been thinking about buying SWTOR, is it any good??

Well, it's "good," the amount of time spent on the story is excellent, but I wish there was more of a difference between the two sides, I mean, have you played Jedi, then you have essentially played Sith. Of course there is a the story element, but there's no difference really between the two sides, just some change in their mechanics and altered graphics.

I don't know, I think I might have outgrown MMO'S.

I hope Diablo 3 comes soon.

 

[tuxbox]

I used wiki, but let's go by your link , it doesn't really matter. I think the 8 century was when Homer is supposed to have lived.

And I couldn't find a source that showed that the Iliad was dated back to the 8 cent.

Homer is estimate to have lived in the 7th or 8th century BC. The oldest know copy of the Illiad is dated to the 10th century AD

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If he just was a man, then I'd say yes, otherwise no.

I think we are in agreement here.

Agreed.

Do you think that the bible is more then a story?

I believe that the Christian bible is a mix of both fiction and non-fiction.

Well, it's "good," the amount of time spent on the story is excellent, but I wish there was more of a difference between the two sides, I mean, have you played Jedi, then you have essentially played Sith. Of course there is a the story element, but there's no difference really between the two sides, just some change in their mechanics and altered graphics.

I don't know, I think I might have outgrown MMO'S.

I hope Diablo 3 comes soon.

I have not played MMO's for a couple of years now. The last MMO I played was Star Wars Galaxies.

The proof thing I think is a way for you to get away from actually committing to show some evidence.

Can I like you proclaim bias? if you pick christian historians?

(I'm pulling your chain here)

What about those historians who lived at or around the same time as jesus who do not mention him, or when they do, it's most likely hack jobs by early christians?

Is their words less valuable of historians today? (or lack thereof)

[/quote]

You are asking me to post evidence that you dismiss. Dismissing evidence does not mean there is no evidence. It would be like a rational person presenting evidence of global warming to a global warming denier. That said I will do my best.. The article you posted outright dismisses the evidence written by Tacitus, when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Christians hacked it.

"Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/15B*.html (scroll down to 44)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Authenticity

Now lets look at Suetonius.

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Claudius*.html#25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christ#Questions_of_authenticity

Here the article says this:

"Jesus in Rome in 54 AD? Of course not. But the unwary can be misled by this reference.

'Chrestus' does not equate to 'Christ' in English but to 'The Good' in Greek, It was a name used by both slaves and freemen and is attested more than eighty times in Latin inscriptions. Clearly, Suetonius was explaining why the Jews (not Christians) were expelled from Rome and is referring to a Jewish agitator in the 50s, not to a Galilean pacifist of the 30s. Yet even this report is questionable. The historian Cassius Dio gives a more convincing account of the same Claudian "expulsion":"

First it does not imply Jesus was in Rome in 54 AD. Second, Chrestus is mutilated form for Christus in latin.

http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2010014&p2=c&p3=2

Thirdly, again there is no evidence to suggest that Christians hacked Suetonius writings and there is no evidence to suggest that he was not referring to early Christians, who at the time were considered just Jews. And at the risk of being accused of an "appeal to authority", most scholars believe that he was referring to Christians (read the wikipedia articles).

I am not in the mood to address any of the other claims in that article, so I will leave it at that.

I will post this link for others read if want more info on the subject of the historicity of Jesus, but other than that I do not feel it worth my time to discuss the evidence of the historical Jesus any further.

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


As far as Josephus is concerned, I too dismiss all mention of Christ in his writings, as I believe there is sufficient to suggest that it was hacked by early Christians.

 

[Avatra1]

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

You are asking me to post evidence that you dismiss. Dismissing evidence does not mean there is no evidence. It would be like a rational person presenting evidence of global warming to a global warming denier. That said I will do my best.. The article you posted outright dismisses the evidence written by Tacitus, when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Christians hacked it.

"Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/15B*.html (scroll down to 44)

Off another "close minded" stick. And actually your analogy is flawed, since after all, I know that global warming is happening, I can stick my head out the window and notice the lack of snow where I live for one thing. And I live in a country where in winter time, it snows. (of course mild winters have happened before, but not like this)

You are not presenting me with anything really new so far, it's the old tiresome tirade of the usual suspects. Most of has already been dealt by the link I posted at the beginning of our discourse.

An apt analogy would be that you are proclaiming to hold an apple in one hand, but I can clearly see that it's an orange.
Or better yet, you are holding up an empty hand. (But I suspect you are holding up a finger right about..... now.)

Tacitus.
Right, hearsay at best. Tells us nothing about jesus or if he existed.

Bonus!

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

<i>

</i>
And the link I provided to you already deals with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Authenticity

Again, hearsay.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

<i>

</i>

And the link I proved shows some tampering. You must have seen it if you read it.

Now lets look at Suetonius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christ#Questions_of_authenticity

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

Are Jews christians?

No mentioning of jesus by name, Chrestus means good, it's not a "*mutilated form" of christ. It could be a misspelling, but I think you might be reading into to much, also since Jesus was himself not alive at 54 A.D

How could he incite "disturbances?" it could be that Chrestus was a common name, and it actually was a man called Chrestus perhaps a Roman Jew? (Brian Chrestus perhaps? )

*I have to look into this some more, this is the first time EVER someone has proclaimed it to be a "mutilated form" of christ.

Nowhere in any writings that Suetonius wrote is there any mention of "jesus"

http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2010014&p2=c&p3=2

Thirdly, again there is no evidence to suggest that Christians hacked Suetonius writings and there is no evidence to suggest that he was not referring to early Christians, who at the time were considered just Jews. And at the risk of being accused of an "appeal to authority", most scholars believe that he was referring to Christians (read the wikipedia articles).

Well, I was talking about Tacitus so...

1. Did christianity spread as far as to Rome during the reign of Claudius?
2. Was it large enough to have caused a revolt?
3. Suetonius might have mixed up "jews" with "christians." Of course that might mean that see 4.
4. A Roman Jew took the name Chrestus and started some shit.

I am not in the mood to address any of the other claims in that article, so I will leave it at that.

Fair enough, you've been more then patient.

I will post this link for others read if want more info on the subject of the historicity of Jesus, but other than that I do not feel it worth my time to discuss the evidence of the historical Jesus any further.

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

As far as Josephus is concerned, I too dismiss all mention of Christ in his writings, as I believe there is sufficient to suggest that it was hacked by early Christians.

Meh, I'm off to bed, I spent way to much time on this.

 

[tuxbox]

@Avatra1

I somewhat understand your line of reasoning, but at the same time I understand why most of the academic community believe that the HJ probably existed. What I do not understand is why you discount evidence that most of the academic community believes to be authentic?(hence the global warming analogy) Furthermore, the assumption that the HJ existed is not just based on ancient documents. It is also based on the fact that so many first century Jewish secs followed his teachings. If there was not a Jewish rabbi by the name of Jesus, then why were there so many followers of his willing to risk being torn apart by lions and turned into human nightlights for the Roman streets?

Anyway, I respect your point of view. Take care...


*Edited*

 

[Avatra1]

@Avatra1

I somewhat understand your line of reasoning, but at the same time I understand why most of the academic community believe that the HJ probably existed. What I do not understand is why you discount evidence that most of the academic community believes to be authentic?(hence the global warming analogy) Furthermore, the assumption that the HJ existed is not just based on ancient documents. It is also based on the fact that so many first century Jewish secs followed his teachings. If there was not a Jewish rabbi by the name of Jesus, then why were there so many followers of his willing to risk being torn apart by lions and turned into human nightlights for the Roman streets?

Anyway, I respect your point of view. Take care...


*Edited*

Bollocks.

Tacitus etc, doesn't mention Jesus, and even if he did, he's not contemporary to jesus, at best (which I've pointed out) he's repeating hearsay.

Because there is no evidence for jesus in those documents, at best it's hearsay, at worst it's christians bending over backwards in order to find some shred of "evidence" to portrait him as existing.

It's really funny how far *theists are willing to bend what old documents say in order to prop up what they believe in with a false sense of "smugness"

So what, there's loads of stupid people following stupid ideas for stupid reasons, it doesn't add validity to your claim, it shows the stupidity behind a certain mindset.

Because "beliefs" make you do stupid shit if there's enough a "reward" for it.

Listen to "the atheists experience 619" Where they discuss this "Oh you wouldn't die for a lie" schtick you are trying to pull.

I'd recommend you to read "godless" It deals with a lot of the claims you proclaim proves that jesus existed

*Edit* added *

* I don't really know if you are a theist.

 

[tuxbox]

Yes I am a theist, but I am an irreligious one. I do not believe the bible is the word of god. I do not believe in the Christian heaven or hell. If there is a god (I do not like giving it a title) it more than likely resembles something like the "Force" in Star Wars. That said, I do not see how that is relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Laurens]

Jared Diamond sums it up pretty well:

First, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other - by proving a bond not based on kinship. Second, it gives people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks.

Guns, Germs, and Steel p. 278

 

[The Felonius Pope]

From my own experience I have concluded that the formation of the world's religions is due to a plethora of factors. These

include fear of death, fear of the unknown, and a desire to impose a strict, father-esque figure on the whole of humanity. I

think we forget sometimes, however, that each religion not only imposes dogmas but attempts to understand the natural

world. I view primitive religions (what other kinds are there?) as an early attempt to answer our deepest questions.