Celsus

[Minimalist]

A second century neo-platonist writer who, c 180 AD, wrote a denunciation of christians.  The only reason we know of him is because the 3d century xtian writer, Origen, wrote what he thought was a refutation of Celsus' complaints in a work entitled Contra Celsus ( Against Celsus)  and quoted large portions of the original work.  When xtian thugs burned the libraries of antiquity they made sure that the works of their writers were preserved which is how we know of Porphyry and Celsus.

So, what does Celsus have to say about xtians?  The first three comments:

SCRITURAL REDACTION

"It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have heard that some of your interpreters...are on to the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism."

"There is nothing new or impressive about their ethical teaching; indeed, when one compares it to other philosophies, their simplemindedness becomes apparent."

"One ought first to follow reason as a guide before accepting any belief, since anyone who believes without testing a doctrine is certain to be deceived"

The bolded part gives him a 1900 year head start on Bart Ehrman.

[The Grand Nudger]

How often do we hear the whole "Well, if it was a scam why didn;t anyone notice?" song and dance - and then when we refer to any actual history (as opposed to..say.magic book)..we find that everyone did immediately recognize the scam. The overwhelming voice of supposed contemporaries was nothing -but- the realization that it was a scam. Christians were the scientologists of their day, and everyone knew it.

[Minimalist]

Not immediately, though.

Celsus writing towards the end of the 2d century is the first Greco-Roman writer to mention anyone named "Jesus."  Even Lucian of Samosata, some 20 years earlier heard the tale of the shitwits worshipping a crucified criminal but he never mentions the name.

Suetonius, Tacitus ( if not a total forgery ) and Pliny the Younger mention Christus.... or more probably "Chrestus" but none of them ever heard of this jesus guy.  Suetonius, the youngest of the three died in 130, some 50 years before Celsus.

This suggests that the addition of "jesus" to the story is a second-century rewrite.

[The Grand Nudger]

Understandable..we rarely take notice of the specifics of whatever it is the local vagrant is yelling to the clouds about.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Understandable..we rarely take notice of the specifics of whatever it is the local vagrant is yelling to the clouds about.

But the trouble with the Jesus narrative is that Jesus was more than just 'the local vagrant'.  The story would have us believe that both Herod Antipas (who was an historic figure) and Pilate the Prefect (who probably was as well) were involved, however peripherally, in the death of Jesus.  It is telling that there are no contemporary accounts from or about Pilate and Herod that mention the Jesus figure.  It seems hard to swallow that NO ONE alive and writing at the time would have mentioned, even in passing, that the ruler of Galilee and the military 'governor' of Judea managed to get themselves muddled up in the sideshow trial and execution of a wandering fanatical rabbi.

Boru

[Minimalist]

The story would have us believe that both Herod Antipas (who was an historic figure) and Pilate the Prefect (who probably was as well) were involved,

Antipas and Pilate were both historical (both are mentioned by contemporary historians ) .  So was Maximillian Robespierre but even though he was running the terror in reolutionary France he did not kill Sydney Carton as Mr. Carton was a fictional character invented by Charles Dickens in 1859.  Jesus was fictional, too.

[The Grand Nudger]

Understandable..we rarely take notice of the specifics of whatever it is the local vagrant is yelling to the clouds about.

But the trouble with the Jesus narrative is that Jesus was more than just 'the local vagrant'. 

Sure..but I'm not operating under the assumption that jesus -was- that vagrant saying crazy shit, at all.  He became, at some point in proto-christian development...the vagrants imaginary friend.  

We know that people just didn't notice them.  They were non entities.  Then they were confused for jews.  Then atheists.  Pliny notices them but doesn't know much about them and so "investigates"...describes the whole bit then (112ish) as "depraved, excessive superstition", and the emperors position in response..in effect..is "meh, fuck em..but don't go out of your way to do it". The only thing that concerned him in the slightest was that early christian "churches" (in this case run by a couple of skirts, lol)...were places where malcontents got together and bitched about the guv-mint. How familiar.

For the better part of early christian development they were seen (accurately) as a bunch of filthy uneducated rabble. The kind of people you step over. Even when later christians take control of the narrative and invent conversations with great pagans of the past as a vehicle for doctrine and refutation of criticism they don't care to distort that fact and simply acknowledge that yes..that's who they were...but tellingly pont out "we had some smart pagan converts also, too!". Again..how familiar.

The great irony of christianity, for me at least..is how transparent it;s always been..and that's -after- the holy degenerates went to incredible lengths to conceal that fact. It's a religious pet rock. An idea so dumb that no one thinks it will work.....and then.....

[FlyingNarwhal]

Not immediately, though.

Celsus writing towards the end of the 2d century is the first Greco-Roman writer to mention anyone named "Jesus."  Even Lucian of Samosata, some 20 years earlier heard the tale of the shitwits worshipping a crucified criminal but he never mentions the name.

Suetonius, Tacitus ( if not a total forgery ) and Pliny the Younger mention Christus.... or more probably "Chrestus" but none of them ever heard of this jesus guy.  Suetonius, the youngest of the three died in 130, some 50 years before Celsus.

This suggests that the addition of "jesus" to the story is a second-century rewrite.

I just realized how trashy the story of Jesus is. Mary is a "virgin" and has not yet slept with her soon to be husband Joseph. Mary fucks some other guy and gets pregnant. Real father bounces out of the picture, lets face it too it's not like he ever sent child support either. Jesus grows up knowing that Joseph is not his real dad, develops daddy issues and starts rebelling against authority. Father tells him to kill himself. Gets caught by authorities for being a criminal and executed.

Let's worship that guy!

[Minimalist]

Celsus addresses that point as well.  I was going to bring these out in order but since you mentioned it.

"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumourss about the true and insavoury circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?"

[The Grand Nudger]

I just realized how trashy the story of Jesus is.  

-it's always been a trailer park religion. It takes a trash person to kill a jew for all the times you looked at porn, to begin with.