I came accross the question while browsing online and was wondering if I could get some opinions on the matter.

I for one am really not sure.

-The biblical accounts of the 4 gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) conflict on pretty much all points of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.
-None of the gospels were written during Jesus' supposed lifetime of the lifetimes of anyone that could have met him.
-The census mentioned in the bible as the reason for Jesus being born in Bethlehem never occurred. No contemporary historical or eyewitness account of Jesus exists anywhere.
-The blacking out of the sun claimed by the bible during the crucifixion never happened.
-Of the 4 pieces of historical evidence christians point to as evidence of Jesus, none are from Jesus' supposed lifetime or the lifetimes of anyone that could have met Jesus
-The 2 most important (Josephus and Tacitus) have been shown to be fakes and were never mentioned by early christian scholars
-1 is a letter from a prisoner who only states his belief in Jesus, which is no more evidence than if I were to write a letter stating I believe in unicorns
-The other was written centuries later and makes impossible claims about events known to have never occurred (like the sun blacking out).
-The shroud of Turin has been shown to be fake.

The idea that a supposedly powerful and influential figure living and being publicly executed, and according to one gospel raising an army of zombies, yet not one single historical record exists anywhere? This goes beyond reasonable doubt into the realm of pure fantasy and gullibility. The default position for any claim of existence is non-existence unless otherwise proven, given the total lack of any evidence the only reasonable position is non-existence. Is it remotely possible that there is a 1 in a billion chance he existed in some form and somehow dropped through the cracks of history? Maybe, but then it's possible a pink elephant lives in the centre of the sun and shits jellybeans, doesn't mean it's sane to believe it's there. Christianity is a cult of made up stories, same as any other cult, the authors of the gospels, whoever they were, created a mythical figurehead/hero for their cult just like the ancient Greeks created Hercules (also the son of a god).

Could the stories, like other myths and legends actually have been based on a certain person or multiple persons or some basis in historical fact.

(May 18, 2010 at 7:23 am)darkwolf176 Wrote: Could the stories, like other myths and legends actually have been based on a certain person or multiple persons or some basis in historical fact.

Anything is possible, we can only look at the evidence and evaluate likelihoods and based on the evidence (or lack thereof) the likelihood of anyone having actually existed that even slightly resembled the character known as Jesus is astronomically remote (ie about as likely as life on the moon).

Flyingfree, I would add that Paul, who is the only writer between the claimed time of Jesus's life and the first Gospel, talked about Jesus as a heavenly being and not as a living being. This sways my opinion that the Jesus story was a religious myth that eventually became something people believed happened.

In any case, there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. Even if there was contemporary evidence that this man existed, it's insufficient to claim that Jesus did the miraculous events he is said to have done. I don't stake my atheism on whether Jesus specifically existed or not, though I think he did not. If the stories are proven to be based on a man, they still do not prove the gospels true.

I think that if Jesus where to come back today and read the new testament he would actually have to be told that he was reading about himself as I'm sure he wouldn't recognise a single story.

There are big problems with the whole "Paul" scenario, too. There is little in the way of historical markers in Paul but here 1 Corinthians 11 32-33

Quote:32
At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus, in order to seize me,
33
but I was lowered in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.

Damascus was ruled by King Aretas III of Nabatea in the time period of 84-64 BC. The political situation in Judaea in the beginning of the ist century BC was one of constant turmoil with various claimants to the throne jockeying for position. Even the arrival of Pompey the Great and his legions in 64 did not stop the turmoil but it did establish Roman rule over Damascus for the next few centuries.

Xtians attempt to create their own reality by assigning Damascus to Aretas IV who died in 40 AD but this is silly for a number of reasons.

1. It is asserted that Damascus was "given" to Aretas IV by Caligula in some sort of "settlement" of the east. Yet, all that Caligula did was remove Herod Antipas as king of Galilee and Perea and assign those territories, along with Judaea, to Herod Agrippa, his boyhood friend.

2. Anyone who ever looked at a map will see that Damascus is far to the north of Nabatea. There would be no way that Aretas IV could govern the region as he would be separated by Roman territory. It would be like the US giving Mexico back the state of Utah and then saying, "good luck getting there because we're keeping Arizona and New Mexico!"

3. Josephus reports that in the aftermath of the attack by Jewish rebels on Cestius Gallus' legion in 66 the citizens of Damascus rose up and massacred the Jews living there. Certainly seems as if the good citizens of Damascus considered themselves "Romans."

4. No Greco-Roman writer gives the slightest hint that the city was conveyed to another power.

5. Josephus recounts that Aretas IV was actually an enemy of Rome c 35/36 AD. He attacked Antipas kingdom and ended up fleeing from the army of the Roman Governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius on the direct orders of Tiberius. The only thing that saved him was Tiberius' death in 37 which Vitellius decided canceled his mission.

6. Damascus was the western terminus of the silk road. It was, arguably, the most important overland commercial spot in the empire. The Romans did not become a great empire by giving away such lucrative pieces of real estate.

So, if "Paul" (or whoever) was writing about a first century BC political reality in one of his so-called authentic epistles, what does this say about JC? Note that none of this considers other problems with "Paul" in the first century AD such as the whole issue of Corinth itself.

Have you ever compared the lore associated with Jesus to the mythology of the Persian god Mithra?

Check it out: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

(May 18, 2010 at 11:42 am)Thor Wrote: Have you ever compared the lore associated with Jesus to the mythology of the Persian god Mithra?

Check it out: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

Some of this needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Quote:

Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ.

While true it ignores the fact that the Romans had a traditional start of winter festival, the Saturnalia, which went back to the 3d century BC. When the cult of Sol Invictus (as the Mithras cult was known) was imported into Rome it too either was fitted into existing traditions or fortuitously did fit into those traditions. It is not so odd. Many cultures had a winter celebration.

Some of these 'similarities' between Mithraism and xtianity are a stretch but some seem quite real.

While it is true that the Vatican Hill was seized by xtians in a land grab this was far from uncommon. Excavations on Vatican Hill have dug up shrines to many earlier gods, including the Cybele and the site was a cemetery for a long time. Building or usurping the religious sites of older gods is a common theme in many places. NO reason why Rome would be any different.

I too am torn.

The evidence for his existance is less than convincing.

But I tend to think that Jesus was a David Koresh or Charles Manson charismatic type.

I have no evidence for this but that is what I think at present.

As always I am ready to be swayed by convincing arguments.