Agnostic.com

29 18

It is impossible to believe a person (a man named 'Jesus,' for instance) did what is described in the bible and no one close to him, or in his immediate vicinity, ever bothered to write it down themselves, or ask anyone else to record it in any way.
In fact, NO ONE chronicled ANYTHING he said or did at that time. Friends, neighbors, anybody who knew him.
That makes absolutely no sense. It proves if he did exist he did nothing so remarkable as to merit that kind of attention.

Storm1752 8 Dec 13
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

29 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

5

Hardly anyone could read or write back then, if you knew how you could make a damned good living being a "scribe". Everything was oral....

Exactly Anne!

So not one of these scribes wrote ANYTHING about this miracle worker, either for pay or out of his own volition?
You'd have to assume people who came later, and wanted confirmation and information about 'Jesus' life, were turning over every stone looking for SOMETHING written about him ..
How likely is it they'd find NOTHING if he in fact existed?

@Storm1752 I am not fighting your OP, just pointing out that only one of thousands & thousands could read/write, and they got paid handsomely for it by high-borns/wealthy who could afford it. Period.
Geez Louise!

@AnneWimsey I understand, Anne.
But, again, NONE of these highly-paid scribes felt the slightest inclination to do some free-lance scribbling about this incredible worker of wonders?!?
NONE?
Wouldn't at least a one wealthy patron pay at least ONCE for a compilation of his sayings, or a chronicle of his super-adventures?
You'd certainly think so.

@Storm1752 aaanndd, if an unemployed fisherman did scrape up the Big Bucks to pay a scribe to write something (which neither he or anyone else he knew could read), where would you suggest they store it?
When 99.9% of the population has No concept of the written word to begin with, "writing something down" doesn't happen!
Your arguement not only reveals No knowledge of the past, it fails on this alone!

4

And nobody shot video on their phones! can you believe it?

4

Yes, all myths and legends. If you believe in Jesus you may as well believe in Thor and Odin.

3

And when someone finally wrote the bible ... they used middle east names like Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, and Mark etal ... ?! HA! What bullshit.

Ah but that was for the benefit of the Gentiles who ONLY spoke English at the time of it being written, funny though that when you think about the actual English Language did NOT come into being UNTIL well after the Goat-Herders Guide to the Galaxy was written down.

@motrubl4u No, there weren't such things as 'nerfs' back then, most of them were very illiterate goat-herders who would believe just about anything they were told, hence all this Christian rubbish got such a good foot-hold.

@Triphid There were VERY few 'Christians' in the beginning. If anything, they were just another Jewish cult with a tiny following. Most likely, there WERE no 'Christians' at all; chances are very good they were an invention.

@Storm1752 What we now call 'Christians' were originally known as the Messianic Cult/Movement before the Second Council of Nicaea decided to call them "The Followers of the Christ" and later to become shortened to the term "Christian" as we have today.
I tend to think that perhaps you may have mis-read my comment, I know there were No Christians as such back then.

3

Jesus wrote absolutely nothing. None of his contemporaries wrote anything about him at the time. How do we get stories about when Jesus was alone?

BDair Level 8 Dec 13, 2019
3

In Matthew's Gospel, there is a passage, which contains several proofs that Matthew's Gospel is Fiction.
Matthew 28:11-15 (New American Standard Bible)

11Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened.

12And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,

13and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.'

14"And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble."

15And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

List of Proofs.
Here is my list of proofs.

  1. The Jewish Priests and Elders tell the guards to say "" 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep."" This is a ridiculous story to tell. Everyone knows that if the guards were asleep they would be unconscious and not know what happened. The ruling Jewish Sanhedrin was 71 members, seventy elders and the High Priest reputed to be amongst the wisest men. It is not believable that these very smart Jews would concoct such a dumb story.

  2. In the Roman world, the penalty for sleeping while on guard duty was death. It is doubtful that even with a "good word" from the High Priest [Matthew 28:14] to the Roman Governor, he would have suspended the death sentence. It is not believable that the guards would have lied and said they were sleeping and subject themselves to the death penalty. Can't spend money if you're dead.

  3. The Priests and Elders were very religious men. According to Jesus they were very careful about observing every point of the law, but were missing the spirit of the Law. Matthew 23:23-23-24 It is not believable that these religious men would suborn false witness and commit such a grave sin.

4)The Roman Governor would never believe such a dumb story ""'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep." One did not get to rule an entire country by being an idiot.

  1. This conspiracy to tell this lie, that the disciples stole the body, involves, the guards, the Jewish leadership, and even the office of the Roman Governor. It is not believable that a conspiracy based on such a poor lie would have held together. But that is what Matthew asks his readers to believe. "And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day." Matthew 28:15 Matthew would have his readers believe the conspiracy lasted for years after the event. Not believable.

  2. We have the witness of the four gospels. But only Matthew's gospel mentions a guard on the tomb. Not even a hint from the other gospels. The guard on the tomb is a vital element of the Jesus resurrection story. Had the guard existed the other gospel writers would have most assuredly mentioned it. To fail to mention such an important aspect of the story would be to miss the point of the story. Jesus was in the tomb, the guard was on duty, the tomb was now empty, so Jesus must have resurrected. The other gospel writers didn't mention the guard because this was Matthew's fiction.

3

Not only no one who knew him, and supposedly witnessed anything he did, wrote about it, this Jesus and his followers would have spoken Aramaic. All of the writings about him, even those by Paul, which were done years, even decades, later were written in Greek by people who never knew him.

3

Christianity is a contrived religion, but some of its precepts are of value. Take it or leave it and move on. There’s no need to belabor the issue or wallow in grievance.

3

Given the time in history, most events were passed on orally. Oral transmission is a common method for many cultures to keep important items alive. Oral transmission is subject to the tellers memories and personal embellishments.

Yes and in all reality one has to say that the Goat-Herders Guide to the Galaxy, aka the Bible, would undoubtedly be the most over-embellished piece of written work in the history of Humanity and Human Writings.

3

Most people, especially those he ministered to, couldn’t read or write, so it is futile to expect any personal testimony or representation, other than through administrative tracts or historical exegesis.

You are also making the mistake of considering making notes for posterity. That was not a consideration. This was a people subjugated by an occupying power, with a Messianic promise of relief, any day.

Who cares about tomorrow. ‘One of these Messiahs must be right!’

Actually many people of the time could read. Now, writing, not so much.

@Beowulfsfriend Good point.

3

Well. A lot of people DO believe it, so that's not a true statement.

My first thought. Hell, some believe the Hebrew god wrote the King James version of the bibly in English.

2

Religion was concocted by the rulers as a control mechanism for the masses. The Catholic church is notorious for it and extorting money also like saying you must give 10 percent of your earnings to the church.

We still do the same except it’s called taxes and runs at about 30%! 😱

2

Yup fantasy

bobwjr Level 10 Dec 13, 2019
2

Watched a comedian a few days ago who did a routine about how all the paintings of Jesus make him look depressed. Asked how come none of them showed him walking on water smiling saying, "hey bro, look at this", while he was standing on one foot.

2

The Roman occupiers were known for meticulous record keeping, especially in occupied territories far from Rome, no contemporary records or anything exist of such person.

2

It was thousands of years ago, we have maybe a few percent of the literature of the day preserved. So yes, entirely possible that what was written about him didn't survive. Especially since the early church may well have destroyed anything that didn't fit their canonical view.

2

I would not make use of an argument like that, it is just to weak for my liking, because not much remains from anything . . . . that existed from that era, and who knows what we do not know. On the hopeful side of things though, they have a shitload of scrolls that they found in Herculaneum, that they are working on recovering . . . and this trove pre-dated that of the great library of Alexandria that the fucking christians destroyed.

1

To be fair, I think our modern level of literacy and access to information may contribute to your incredulity.

To be respectful, I understand your desire to be fair contributes to your level of credulity.
There would have been plenty of literary people with access to information in Jerusalem and it's surrounding environs who would have rubbed elbows with our waterwalker.
They would not have been able to contain their fervor to spread the word as soon as possible, to as many people as possible, of this amazing, life-changing phenemenon, this superhero with otherwordly, godlike powers.
It would've been as if a fleet of spaceships had set down just outside the city gates.
Scribes would be fighting each other for quotes, politicians would be swooning, religious leaders would be signing up.

1

It is even more extraordinary when you consider that there are copious historical records of John the Baptist, and in all those records there is no mention of his being the Herald of anyone, but that he is in fact himself the promised messiah of a much older religion one that fragmented after the death of JTB by execution for treason against Herod Antipas (without the aid of Salome the Stripper who seems also to be a new testament invention.)

There aren't "copious" historic records of JtB, only an account by the historian (of doubtful authenticity) Josephus and the Christian gospels

@NeverSure There are also the Roman records, which is how we know the bible account is wrong and that Herod Antipas was married to his sister in law by his brother Philip, Not herod the tetrarch , that there was no step daughter Salome (Herod the great did have a sister named Salome, which is where the story probably came from) and that Herod executed JTB as a favour to a foreign ally.
There is also the historic records of the Mandaeans who claim John as one of their historic prophets.
No reputable source has ever disputed the Josephus records of John the baptist, only those purported to refer to Jesus of Nazareth.
When I get round to it I will look up the other historical records John and his successors if you are really interested.

What's JTB???

@Storm1752 John the Baptist

@NeverSure Josephus was in general a reliable historian, and his detailed descriptions of John the Baptist confirm his life and immense influence.
The bible casts him as a relatively minor figure, compared to Jesus, but Josephus never even MENTIONS Jesus (except for one fraudulent passage)!
This also proves Jesus did not exist.

@Storm1752 Thank you for the clarification

@Storm1752 The JtB passage is also debated, though less so than the Jesus ones. For an argument against its authenticity, see, e.g., chapter 5 of this doctoral dissertation here, which also gives references to previous scholars who did dispute this record: [repository.nwu.ac.za]

@NeverSure Nicholas Allen? That is your source of verification? Are you serious?

@LenHazell53 Sounds like a rhetorical question, but I'm afraid you'll need to explain yourself.

1

do we really care? anything about religion makes no sense... time we got over the minutia .....

blzjz Level 7 Dec 13, 2019

Why, is not that which is truly and logically ridiculous not truly and logically well worth the ridiculing it gets and richly deserves?

1

Well there is Bible Jesus, The Miracle-Working God-Man(tm) and then there is -- potentially -- Historical Jesus, on which the fabulist mythos of the gospels might have been (but needn't be) based.

But nearly nothing is written about Historical Jesus either, apart from the NT. The most compelling reference is by the Roman historian Tacitus, who says that the "Chrestians" name themselves after "Crestus", who suffered "the ultimate penalty" under Pontius Pilate, thereby temporarily stamping out a "pernicious superstition" which, regrettably, kept arising anyway.

While "Crestus" or "Christ" is a title, not a name, obviously someone who was more than a figurehead was executed under Pilate. This is probably the key piece of extra-Biblical attestation for a historical Jesus-person. It is well accepted by scholars as genuine and reliable. Tacitus has a good reputation as a careful historian who cites his sources, or mentioned low levels of confidence in them where appropriate; he is clearly a hostile source, which means he's unlikely to be shilling for Christianity for some reason; and so this is evidence that there was a historical leader in early Christianity who was executed by Pilate -- suggesting that small bit of the gospel account is real. And it could be so; many florid, elaborate myths have a kernel of reality at the center.

But a historical Jesus presents zero problem for me as an atheist, and provides zero comfort for a Christian apologist. The gospel accounts are fabulist, self-inconsistent nonsense, and 95% of the Jesus narrative, even ignoring the huge discrepancies between the gospels, never happened unless you believe people walk on water and raise the dead and fly up into heaven. Whether the gospels are (very loosely) "based on" a real person or not scarcely matters. GodBoy is an invention either way.

For the record, I'm still a Jesus mythicist, for a variety of reasons, despite Tacitus. That historical Jesus (HJ) is the consensus of historians based on their standards of evidence and based on the very thin and somewhat debatable evidence they have to work with, does not rise to the level demanded by the skeptic. Particularly when many historians rendering this verdict have direct and indirect motives for seeing things that aren't really there. It impacts their tenure, their professional standing, their research funding, etc., to take a minority view here.

Chrestus was a very common name at the time.
Tacitus could have been referring to anyone in the Jewish community in Rome, especially one who was a leader of one of the many Jewish cults who was stirring up trouble, a frequent occurrence.

@Storm1752 Yes, critically he doesn't mention Jesus Bar Joseph so it could be anyone, although with Pilate as the executioner, it wouldn't have been in Rome, but in Judea.

@luckytobealive As I mentioned, I was speaking of the evidence accepted by historians. For reasons you mention and more, this is not enough to convince a skeptic. History is simply the preponderance of (very, VERY thin) evidence from the era, pushed to view that evidence through the lens of two thousand years of church hegemony.

Paul does mostly speak of a celestial Jesus, but in a few places does speak of him as flesh and blood, too. Paul's more gnostic Jesus, when you understand that his writings came well before the gospels, show the evolution of the Jesus mythos from a much more spiritual one to a more human one. Sure, it's possible there was a human in there the whole time, whose humanity was later emphasized; but it is more plausible to me that the human was gradually built up from a purely spiritual idea.

One telling problem is that if you compare the various historians attempting to tease out a "real" or historical Jesus from the gospels, each one comes up with different versions of historical Jesus, demonstrating that HJ is himself mythical, ultimately. Indeed, each of the canonical gospels has a very different take on Jesus. As a skeptic, I default to considering Jesus a complete invention unless more compelling evidence surfaces to the contrary.

@luckytobealive Thanks for the links. There are a lot of theories circulating that don't have scholarly purchase, that I think should not be dismissed out of hand. One other is that it was actually the "heretic", Marcion (ca AD 110), who collected the Pauline corpus and a version of the currently canonical gospels into the first canon. As far as I know the writings of Paul from the Marcian canon are lost to us, but the gospel survives. At any rate ... depending on what dating you accept for the writings of various early church fathers and that of figures like Marcion, it can be argued that before Marcion there was no Paul. If true, then Christianity owes all of Paul to a heretic with very different objectives from that of orthodoxy. In addition, those who question the now-accepted 1st century dating of the NT have some ammo to support pushing the whole NT canon into the 2nd century, which is where the earliest manuscript fragments peter out anyway.

This is an example of a lot of things that just aren't thinkable or discussable in modern textual criticism, because people who wield academic authority are more worried about their tenure and professional standing than about following the evidence where it leads -- even if away from Christian orthodoxy and the confident pronouncements of scholars over many centuries.

@luckytobealive Not an unreasonable line of deduction, in my view. But scandalous and "blasphemous" by Christian standards, of course. I have long urged people to read the NT in the chronological order it was written and approach it just as someone in that year would approach it. In the case of Paul's writings, there were no gospel accounts; at best, there was oral tradition. Followers of a historical Jesus would be eager to write down those accounts and you're right, Paul was the perfect person to do it. Yet he chose not to. Further, instead of appealing to eyewitnesses, like Peter ... he feels he has to make a MUCH weaker appeal to the claim that god revealed his teaching to him personally, in a vision. The least forced explanation is that there WERE no witnesses to appeal to.

1

Let's assume he did exist and he drew no attention from anyone at the time. Keep in mind that the believers think the gospels are a first hand narrative but later this is proven un-true. Next we have the biblical fact that he was so popular that he has an audience with Pilot. This would be highly unlikely and it would be doubtful if they even spoke the same language. Assume for a moment it was true and then ask yourself why nobody of his time wrote about him except for in the bible. Not only is Jesus as we know of him missing from history of his era but manipulated events are missing as well. History shows there was no "slaughter of the innocents" as the bible records. A careful reading of the bible shows that prophesy and events are contrived to fit the situation. Someone wanted very strongly for this Jesus to be the promised one but outside of the bible there is no evidence. This must all be another trick of the devil just like the dinosaur bones.

0

Maybe he couldn't write.

0

Oh boy, I'm so glad I have this site to turn to in times of frustration with the ignorance and gullibility of the masses. I have NO one to talk to because the only folks who see religion as a hoax are my siblings and they don't live close to me. We are in such a toxic political climate and religion is at the heart of all evil so the 2 collide, leaving me feeling hopeless for the future. ugh!

0

According to who ever and wikipedia, the book called James is considered to be written by a sibling of Jesus.

The author identifies himself as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" who is writing to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad". The epistle is traditionally attributed to James the brother of Jesus (James the Just),[1][2] and the audience is generally considered to be Jewish Christians, who were dispersed outside Palestine.[3][4] wikipedia

Word Level 8 Dec 13, 2019

Considered by WHOM to be a sibling of Jesus? It has been established Mark was written near the end of the first century (66-70) because of it's internal references to the Jewish revolt and other events. It certainly was NOT written by a 'brother of Jesus.'

@Storm1752 the book of James not the book of mark

@Word The "Book of James" was written in refined Greek, YEARS after any such 'James' would have and probably DIDN'T live.
It wasn't even noticed for centuries. Could that mean it wasn't WRITTEN for centuries?
Yes, it could
You use the usual weasel words, I notice: "traditionally," and "generally considered to be .."
Has it ever occurred to you the "scholars" in question are all committed Christians whose starting point is a strong assumption these books are legitimate historical documents rather than skillfully-wrought fiction?

@Storm1752 I do not notice I have used any weasel words.

I left christianity not because of some minor discrepancy in biblical text but because after experiences of some supernatural things I have come to conclusion Jesus is Lucifer the devil.

I look to better explain so that christianity can be exposed properly and shut down along with Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worship.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:437769
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.