Jesus Never Existed Com

[Minimalist]

Product of a mis-spent youth, Fidel.

[*Deidre*]

I think that it's possible that a man named ''Jesus'' may have existed. But, I'm of the opinion that the ''story'' of the NT, was a fabrication, concocted long after Jesus' death. The attachment of divinity, his mother's virgin birth, his resurrection, etc...all fabrications.

I believe this because in the NT, it is pretty clear that Jesus didn't like religion. I've often wondered why a religion was 'built' around him, to worship him?

My opinion...he was a Jewish Socialist, who was against religion, but perhaps ''pro'' spirituality...and maybe, he was put to death for going against the religious leaders of the time. He had followers, and I'm of the opinion that he was looked at as perhaps a respected leader. Maybe. But, the rest of it? Add ons to create a religion that would dominate all others.

And it has. It's still the number one religion in the world. Islam is second.

[DeistPaladin]

I'm leaning towards Marcion inventing him (Paul) and later xtians finding the concept useful.

This is something I find most curious. Paul was the poster boy of Marcion, the primary prophet of his religion (even historists like Bart Ehrman acknowledge this). That later Orthodox Christians would later incorporate him and turn him into a docile servant in The Book of Acts seems consistent with early Christian theology. After all, they did the same to John the Baptist, whose followers were rivals of the early Christians. Muhammad would later use the same tactic with Jesus.

What I find curious is that Paul's letters are wholly incompatible with Marcionite theology.

The Marcionites believed Jesus was a higher god, superior to Yahweh. He was never born on earth and had no parents. He appeared in the temple one day as all gods do: fully formed and an adult.

Now if I read Paul's letters (or those attributed to him) it seems that he believed Jesus was born of a woman and of the seed of David (which btw is also inconsistent with the virgin birth since David's bloodline through Joseph wouldn't have been passed on since the child was The Holy Spirit's and not his).

So there are three possibilities that I can see:
1. Marcion advocated for Paul as his prophet, basically "discovering" his letters the way most pseudo-epigraphy was done but never actually read what his manufactured prophet wrote.
2. Marcion knew what Paul had written but hoped nobody else would ever read his letters.
3. The letters of Paul that we have today are different from what Marcion had.

Guess which one I consider most likely.

By the way, speaking of John the Baptist, our resident Anglican maintains that his baptism of Jesus is a historical event, accepted by all scholars. Curious. I read what Josephus had to say about John the Baptist. It seems he had a large following and was preaching his own Gospel. There was no mention of him being a mere "forerunner" of anyone nor is there any mention that he claimed only to be a warm-up act. It seems like, shocking I know, he had his own religion going and was only later assimilated by the Christians.

[Minimalist]

What I find curious is that Paul's letters are wholly incompatible with Marcionite theology.

Of course, we don't know what Marcion originally wrote. All we have is what later church liars claim they said.

Just because some proto-orthodox bastard says something does not make it true. I treat political advertisements the same way.

[Mudhammam]

Min, I think you're essentially arguing that we have to view all ancient history as it relates to Christianity suspiciously due to the oppressive nature of the Christian states that dominated the better portion of the last two millenia. I concede the point.

BUT... I guess I just prefer to grant them the consensus view (don't forget that even secular New Testament scholars still typically accept the authenticity of Paul) on dating certain manuscripts, otherwise I don't think you'll ever be able to get past that... and demonstrate that even then their apologetics fail miserably.

[Confused Ape]

What I find curious is that Paul's letters are wholly incompatible with Marcionite theology.

That could be easily explained. Tertullian wrote five books against the Marcion Heresy. This is a chapter heading from Book 5 just for one example of what Tertullian seemed to be up to.

Book 5

CHAP. III.--ST. PAUL QUITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ST. PETER AND OTHER APOSTLES OF THE CIRCUMCISION. HIS CENSURE OF ST. PETER EXPLAINED, AND RESCUED FROM MARCION'S MISAPPLICATION. THE STRONG PROTESTS OF THIS EPISTLE AGAINST JUDAIZERS, YET ITS TEACHING IS SHOWN TO BE IN KEEPING WITH THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS, MARCION'S TAMPERING WITH ST. PAUL'S WRITINGS CENSURED.

The way I interpret that is anything in Paul's writings which didn't fit Tertullian's version of Christianity was explained away as Marcion tampering with the original text. Tertullian then changed it and said he'd just restored the original.

PS: I came up with a conspiracy theory related to this. I've condensed it from a draft of long, complicated post which I never got round to posting.

...................

Justin, who wrote never mentioned Paul, wrote two treatises against heresy.

From Early Christian Writings introduction to Justin Martyr's Works.

Justin's first work seems to have been his treatise Against all Heresies [now lost]

Irenaeus tells us that Justin Martyr wrote a work against Marcion, which is now lost. Some authentic materials are preserved in the fragments of Justin quoted by other writers, although some of these fragments may be suspect.

The 'orthodox church' tended to cherish books against heresies but Justin, although he was praised by all, including Tertullian, wrote two anti-heresy books which mysteriously disappeared. Eusebius has heard of one from Justin's First Apology.

But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

Eusebius doesn't include the treatise against all the heresies in his list of Justin's works because he'd only heard about it from Irenaeus who died not long before Tertullian published his own five books against Marcion, written in 207 or 208.

I wonder what Justin said in his texts against heresies. Could he have complained about Paul being promoted as more important than Jesus's disciples? If so, it's possible that his texts were whisked away when Tertullian's faction decided to promote their own version of Paul as being super-apostle.

[Minimalist]

Min, I think you're essentially arguing that we have to view all ancient history as it relates to Christianity suspiciously due to the oppressive nature of the Christian states that dominated the better portion of the last two millenia. I concede the point.

YES!!!


Seriously, propaganda can never be taken at face value.