Must Watch Video: Jesus Never Existed

[Augustus]

HOWEVER, there are many facts in this video, particularly with regard to the parallels between various "saviors" and the movements of astronomical bodies that are quite striking.

The problem is that stating that something is a fact doesn't actually make it a fact if it is completely made up. If you say 'this video is full of easily disproved bunk created by a fabulist' then it isn't really that striking at all.

It's quite funny that many people who are very sceptical regarding religions are massively credulous regarding any criticisms of religions.

 

[Augustus]

And the skeptical enquirer ─ the impartial historian ─ will notice that it's not just the miracle tales that should be removed, but all the fulfillment-of-prophecy stories as well.

Another thing the sceptical enquirer will notice (along with the rest of the overwhelming evidence in favour of a HJ) is that, if there was no HJ, and they thus had a blank slate to start with, why on earth would they need to come up with such convoluted stories to make Jesus fit the necessary criteria?

Why would you not just invent someone who actually met the criteria neatly in the first place?

 

[Desert Snake]

Having watched it I went back through it and each time there was a claim I hadn't heard of, which was often, I tried to verify it independently from credible sources and repeatedly failed.

At this distance I forget the details, but I concluded it was far more bunk than not.

No need to take my word for it though. Anyone can put it to the same test.

The theology of christianity, /the church of God, biblically, isn't the polytheism of other places. The deity, man deity nature of Jesus, does not have a parallel in the non-man deities that He is compared to. Whether you believe that Jesus existed as a person in Yisrael, or not, would not change the fact of the religious differences between Jesus adherence, and other religions.
Note, that Scripturally, the Jesus adherents are not 'Gentiles'; this means that the Jesu adherents were aware of "Gentile" differences in belief , so forth.

 

[JesusBeliever]

I encourage Christians to watch this with an open mind, and perform additional research on this topic.

I watched and researched this several years ago and it is a very convincing documentary indeed, especially for anyone who hasn't had a personal encounter with the Risen Christ. The greatest concern I have about it is it's supposed solution to all the world's woes. An old lie repackaged.

 

[JesusBeliever]

In fact, the gospels are entirely based upon the movement of the sun through various stages of the Zodiac.

Hi there, I think an important consideration is that the Zodiac may have originally had prophetic significance in relation to the Gospel and not the other way around. A simple illustration from the Bible to support this is the 3 Magi who came seeking the "King of the Jews":

"Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him." Matthew 2:2

It always puzzled me as to how these Magi even knew about the prophesies of the Christ until someone pointed out that the Prophet Daniel was made ruler over the Magi while he was in exile in Babylon. (Daniel 2:48)

 

[JesusBeliever]

however, there are many issues raised in the video that have NOT been debunked, primarily those connecting Christianity to astrology.

This link might be of interest to you:

God Prophetically Named the Stars--Final

And this is a recommended follow up in that it talks about what the Magi would have observed around the time of Jesus birth:

God's Kingdom Ministries :: Chapter 1: When REALLY Was Jesus Born?

 

[blü 2]

The theology of christianity, /the church of God, biblically, isn't the polytheism of other places.

It's a singular mixture of Hebrew (eg endtimes, Son by adoption, one non-Trinity god) and Greek (eg souls, Son by insemination, taking to the roads to spread the word) ideas.

The deity, man deity nature of Jesus, does not have a parallel in the non-man deities that He is compared to.

Matthew and Luke model him on Greek sons of gods, but give him an unhappy ending, so it's an odd flavor.

Whether you believe that Jesus existed as a person in Yisrael, or not, would not change the fact of the religious differences between Jesus adherence, and other religions.

It's easy to overstate that. Little that Jesus says is original.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's a singular mixture of Hebrew (eg endtimes, Son by adoption, one non-Trinity god) and Greek (eg souls, Son by insemination, taking to the roads to spread the word) ideas.
Matthew and Luke model him on Greek sons of gods, but give him an unhappy ending, so it's an odd flavor.
It's easy to overstate that. Little that Jesus says is original.

The character you're portraying, seems fictional.

Such a character would most likely have not actually existed, at all.

And yet, the Jesus adherents were there, at the time.

Don't you think that there would have been more notation of theory, that Jesus did not exist at all?

 

[blü 2]

The character you're portraying, seems fictional.

Yes. Necessarily so, since neither Paul nor Mark seems to know anything biographical about him, and Matthew, Luke and John are all based on Mark. If it were otherwise, the matter wouldn't be so

And yet, the Jesus adherents were there, at the time.

There's reasonable evidence for a cult of Jesus early in the first century. But a cult doesn't need an historical figure or An, Marduk, Amun, Zeus, Yahweh, would all have bios.

For example, the Gabriel's Vision (Gabriel's Revelation) stone may (or may not) point to the existence of a cult in Jerusalem late in the 1st century BCE that believed in someone who died and rose again after three days. Paul recites the 'Kenosis hymn' (Philippians 2:5-11), which appears to be the earliest Christian text we know, and which says Jesus wasn't called Jesus until after his death; and although it's metrical, the meter is broken in the line that says he was crucified, meaning that part is a later gloss, raising the possibility that in the original version he died in some other manner. And so on.

Don't you think that there would have been more notation of theory, that Jesus did not exist at all?

An HJ simply isn't necessary to explain the documents we have. But I don't think there's a clincher either way, so I rate the odds on an HJ as 50-50.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes. Necessarily so, since neither Paul nor Mark seems to know anything biographical about him, and Matthew, Luke and John are all based on Mark. If it were otherwise, the matter wouldn't be so
There's reasonable evidence for a cult of Jesus early in the first century. But a cult doesn't need an historical figure or An, Marduk, Amun, Zeus, Yahweh, would all have bios.

For example, the Gabriel's Vision (Gabriel's Revelation) stone may (or may not) point to the existence of a cult in Jerusalem

Why do you still think that there is a good chance of a historical Jesus? What you are describing , clearly isn't a historical Jesus, yet you think historical Jesus, just as likely. Historical Jesus religion, is completely different from a mythic Jesus religion; they aren't the same in inferences, to occurences, or religious belief, at all.

 

[Augustus]

There's reasonable evidence for a cult of Jesus early in the first century. But a cult doesn't need an historical figure or An, Marduk, Amun, Zeus, Yahweh, would all have bios.

Cults based around mythical figures don't rapidly emerge around the lifetime of said mythical figure though.

As far as I'm aware, an imaginary Jesus would be unique in that regard.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

First, there's no such account in Mark, the earliest gospel. Second, the purported facts are largely contradicted by history, so certainly erroneous, and considering the rest of the gospel, very possibly made up, either by the author or one of his sources. Third, if you can map it onto a story in the Tanakh, it's a fulfillment-of-prophecy story. But ... it's possible.

Sure, but I wasn't proposing the census actually happened, more that it seems an unnecessary fabrication if no HJ existed. If you have a blank sheet of paper to make up a Messiah, make him one that strongly fulfils prophecy without the need for an implausible census to put him in the place he was supposed to be born in. That's what I'd do rather than make up something that, even allowing for the massive cultural differences in ancient culture compared to ours, makes no sense at all. Asking people to return to their place of birth for a census...why? I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows of anything similar ever happening in human history.

It is just my own particular background, but if I had the choice to meet any figure from history it would be Jesus, just to satisfy myself and put the argument to bed. I'd be damned disappointed if he turned out to be a fictional character, but I accept there is a chance that is all he might be!

 

[blü 2]

Cults based around mythical figures don't rapidly emerge around the lifetime of said mythical figure though.

If an HJ existed, then his own message was that he was Yahweh's agent, and in Paul, Yahweh's lieutenant, Lord to Yahweh's God. In all four gospels he denies he's Yahweh, or a god, and declares he's Yahweh's agent. His 'son' status is derived by adoption in Mark (at the time of his baptism) on the model of Psalm 2 &c while in Matthew and Luke he's Yahweh's son by insemination, on the Greek model. So he starts out like an RCC saint, with the special quality that you can't get to Yahweh except through him. Not until the 4th century, with the invention of the Trinity doctrine, does he get to be a god.

(But it appears that Christianity starts to see itself as distinct from Judaism by the late 1st or early 2nd cent.)

 

[blü 2]

Sure, but I wasn't proposing the census actually happened, more that it seems an unnecessary fabrication if no HJ existed.

This seems to jog a distant memory of reading the proposition that the census was necessary to relocate our heroes to the right place to fulfill one or other place-specific prophecy. Apologies that the details escape me.

It is just my own particular background, but if I had the choice to meet any figure from history it would be Jesus, just to satisfy myself and put the argument to bed. I'd be damned disappointed if he turned out to be a fictional character

Good luck with that! You'll need a babelfish or a Tardis, of course.

 

[Augustus]

If an HJ existed, then his own message was that he was Yahweh's agent, and in Paul, Yahweh's lieutenant, Lord to Yahweh's God. In all four gospels he denies he's Yahweh, or a god, and declares he's Yahweh's agent.

Quite possibly, his actual message is far harder to confirm than his existence as a person (although it was probably eschatological).

Not until the 4th century, with the invention of the Trinity doctrine, does he get to be a god.

It's actually much earlier than this, there was a 'binity' from even as early as the 1st C. The Holy Spirit was officially added in the 4th C, but it didn't jump from 1 to 3, Jesus was already part of the Godhead.

For me, it was likely a product of his early followers trying to deal with the problem that the eschaton was supposed to happen in his lifetime. When he was crucified, they had to rationalise this away and perhaps did so by saying his sacrifice prevented the eschaton, and seeing as God is the only one who can prevent the eschaton...

 

[oldbadger]

This video is a short excerpt from a larger documentary movie entitled Zeitgeist. HOWEVER, there are many facts in this video, particularly with regard to the parallels between various "saviors" and the movements of astronomical bodies that are quite striking. I encourage Christians to watch this with an open mind, and perform additional research on this topic.

Rubbish Evidence should be sent straight where it belongs, into the rubbish bin.

 

[blü 2]

Quite possibly, his actual message is far harder to confirm than his existence as a person (although it was probably eschatological).

You remind me that I should have said, 'according to Paul and the gospels' at some point in my previous post, since Paul admits frankly (Galatians 1:12) that everything he says about Jesus comes out of his own head, and it's my view that the gospels contain a lot of fiction, possibly 100%.

As for his actual message, I agree ─ likely like JtB's Get ready. the Kingdom is nigh!

It's actually much earlier than this, there was a 'binity' from even as early as the 1st C.

I wasn't aware of that (though the promotion of Jesus is a predictable yearning of his followers). Do you have a link to the details?

For me, it was likely a product of his early followers trying to deal with the problem that the eschaton was supposed to happen in his lifetime.

Or shortly after ─ as Mark, Matthew and Luke record, the Kingdom was to come in the lifetime of some of the audience. In John c. 100 CE (say about 20 years after Matthew and Luke) that idea is inferentially dead,

When he was crucified, they had to rationalise this away and perhaps did so by saying his sacrifice prevented the eschaton, and seeing as God is the only one who can prevent the eschaton...

Interesting hypothesis. Do any of the early documents hint at that?

 

[Desert Snake]

Quite possibly, his actual message is far harder to confirm than his existence as a person (although it was probably eschatological).



It's actually much earlier than this, there was a 'binity' from even as early as the 1st C. The Holy Spirit was officially added in the 4th C, but it didn't jump from 1 to 3, Jesus was already part of the Godhead.

For me, it was likely a product of his early followers trying to deal with the problem that the eschaton was supposed to happen in his lifetime. When he was crucified, they had to rationalise this away and perhaps did so by saying his sacrifice prevented the eschaton, and seeing as God is the only one who can prevent the eschaton...

Wrong.

The end times are spoken of in future tense by Jesus, continually in scripture.

 

[Desert Snake]

Matthew 24:3
The disciples ask Jesus about the end times
Matthew 24:5
Many will come , pretending to be Jesus
Matthew 24:6-7
More future events spoken of

Clearly, the end times were not expected immediately.

 

[blü 2]

Matthew 24:3
The disciples ask Jesus about the end times
Matthew 24:5
Many will come , pretending to be Jesus
Matthew 24:6-7
More future events spoken of

Clearly, the end times were not expected immediately.

So the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Son of Man don't represent the end times? ─

Mark 9
1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."

Mark 13
28 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.

Matthew 16 -
28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 24 -
32 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.

Luke 9
27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."