Jesus Christ Probably Did Not Exist

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not sure 'his execution wasn't recorded in the Roman records' is a fair criticism. Who has these records now? Are they complete? Weren't a lot of records destroyed during Rome's various crises?

People often refer to these execution records, but no one seems to source them.

[Lemonvariable72]

If they ever wanted to convince people, why make up the town too?

[Bad Writer]

If they ever wanted to convince people, why make up the town too?

Some religious leaders don't think their lies will be fact-checked. Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, is one such example of a man who continuously spat out divine claims. None of his prophecies came to pass, but the people who followed him at the time couldn't possibly know that they would fail. His "translations" of ancient Egyptian later turned out to be fraudulent, but no one at the time of Joe Smith knew the first thing about Egyptian, and the Rosetta Stone was still halfway around the world, so he couldn't be checked by linguists of the time. Once he even prophesied that there were men living on the moon. How true do you think that statement was? And yet we still get people who believe this religious horseshit, centuries and millenia after the fact.

[Minimalist]

If they ever wanted to convince people, why make up the town too?

It isn't the town they made up, it is the association, LV. The term nazirite
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...14638.html has a specific meaning but remember how hebrew is written: no vowels. So nazirite and nazaret are both spelled NZRT. Add in that in the 4th century, when all this holy horseshit really got going, there was a heretical xtian sect known as the Nazarenes according to the xtian writer Epiphanius. There is thus ample room for confusion.

It seems clear that "Christian" was not the earliest term for the followers of Jesus, since Acts 11:26 reports its first use, in Antioch - at a time and in a place at least 10 and possibly 20 or more years after the death of Jesus. Many authors have argued that Nazarene was not just one term that was used, but the dominant term, and that it was also used to describe Jesus himself.

The chief argument for this claim rests on an interpretation of the way Jesus is referred to by the writers of the gospels. The original Greek forms of all four gospels call him, in places, "Iesou Nazarene". English Bibles generally translate this as "Jesus of Nazareth", and this is a reasonable translation given that it is clear that all four evangelists did believe that Jesus came from Nazareth. However, it is not the only possible translation. Linguistically, "Jesus the Nazarene" would be at least as correct, and some critics have argued that it is more plausible given that Nazareth seems to have been a place of no significance at the time; it is unmentioned in contemporary history, and it is not even possible to prove, other than by reference to the gospels, that it existed during Jesus's lifetime.

http://www.fact-index.com/n/na/nazarene.html

[DeistPaladin]

What Min said. I tend to favor the scenario of a story building over time and the way these urban legends work is someone mishears something and half remembers something else and it the story is so embellished. Someone heard Jesus the Nazirite (the pure or the holy) and assumed he must come from Nazareth.

Matt and Luke came along later with their own fanfic explanations. Matt has Jesus' living in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt and settling in Nazareth. Luke has Jesus' family living in Nazareth, moving to Bethlehem for some unlikely census, she gives birth there and then they went back home.

[Michael Schubert]

I'm not sure 'his execution wasn't recorded in the Roman records' is a fair criticism. Who has these records now? Are they complete? Weren't a lot of records destroyed during Rome's various crises?

People often refer to these execution records, but no one seems to source them.

Regardless of what may have happened to them, they're not available, assuming they even existed in the first place.

I also think the Holy Bible's authors plagiarized most, if not all, of Christ's story and character from previous and neighboring religions, including that of Horus and Pagan Gods.

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/wa...ified.html

[John V]

I also think the Holy Bible's authors plagiarized most, if not all, of Christ's story and character from previous and neighboring religions, including that of Horus and Pagan Gods.

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/wa...ified.html

When I started doing this, Jesus was based on Bacchus. Then it was Mithras. Lately it's Horus.

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm not sure 'his execution wasn't recorded in the Roman records' is a fair criticism. Who has these records now? Are they complete? Weren't a lot of records destroyed during Rome's various crises?

But it's not evidence of Jesus' existence to say that his name could have been in those records which now don't exist. And it's not just the execution records, it's all other contemporary records which somehow fail to mention anything about him at all.

[Lemonvariable72]

If they ever wanted to convince people, why make up the town too?

It isn't the town they made up, it is the association, LV. The term nazirite
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...14638.html has a specific meaning but remember how hebrew is written: no vowels. So nazirite and nazaret are both spelled NZRT. Add in that in the 4th century, when all this holy horseshit really got going, there was a heretical xtian sect known as the Nazarenes according to the xtian writer Epiphanius. There is thus ample room for confusion.

It seems clear that "Christian" was not the earliest term for the followers of Jesus, since Acts 11:26 reports its first use, in Antioch - at a time and in a place at least 10 and possibly 20 or more years after the death of Jesus. Many authors have argued that Nazarene was not just one term that was used, but the dominant term, and that it was also used to describe Jesus himself.

The chief argument for this claim rests on an interpretation of the way Jesus is referred to by the writers of the gospels. The original Greek forms of all four gospels call him, in places, "Iesou Nazarene". English Bibles generally translate this as "Jesus of Nazareth", and this is a reasonable translation given that it is clear that all four evangelists did believe that Jesus came from Nazareth. However, it is not the only possible translation. Linguistically, "Jesus the Nazarene" would be at least as correct, and some critics have argued that it is more plausible given that Nazareth seems to have been a place of no significance at the time; it is unmentioned in contemporary history, and it is not even possible to prove, other than by reference to the gospels, that it existed during Jesus's lifetime.

http://www.fact-index.com/n/na/nazarene.html

And then combine that with the fact the Gospels are being written 30 years after Jesus in different nation and language and that does make sense.Especially because thats the sort of thing that gets lost in translation and cultural context.

[AtheistCreed]

Conclusion: Teh Bible doesn't real.