15 5

Do You know there are actual eyewitness, historically accepted and verified testimonies for the existence of John the Baptist , the roles and kingdoms of sons of Herod (which the bible gets wrong) Simon Magus, Pontius Pilate, Hillel the elder, Caiaphas and even Joseph of Arimathea (as a tin merchant).
But there is not One verifiable source for Jesus of Nazareth, we have historical evidence for politicians, Clerics, wandering magicians and the leader of an heretical Jewish sect and even a Tin Merchant, but no one thought to mention they are all supposed to know the actual living son of God, The saviour of mankind?

Bit ODD that isn't it?
Bit suspicious?
Bit of a give away that he was made up years later and fitted in to actual history to give his myth a bit of credence?

LenHazell53 9 Apr 28

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


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


I've seen Monty Pythons "Life of Brian" total proof that Jesus existed..but he WASN'T a messiah ..he was just a very naughty boy...


Hi Len, are these writings you mention, peer reviewed please???

Leon Level 5 Apr 29, 2018

Hi Len, are these writings you mention, peer reviewed please???

Leon Level 5 Apr 29, 2018

He was made up years later and fitted into the actual history of the time. This is partly why there are scriptures that are said to apply to him and have nothing to do with him at all. This is also why there are 2 completely different genealogies given for Jesus and some preachers try to explain it away by saying one is also tracing him through Mary. Sorry. The Jews would never ever do that. It's all made up. They try desperately to get Jesus to fit in as Messiah and they miss the mark. Since the Messiah was an earthly king and leader the next hurdle would be to explain just why he was killed and came back as zombie Jesus.
Was the entire thing to convince the Jews not to fight Rome because they had already killed their Messiah? The best I can tell you is that certain Gospels were written after 70 AD and the big battle that happened then.


Have a look at the attached and look at the common denominators in each religion. Look also at the time difference between the revarious religions.

Leon Level 5 Apr 29, 2018

Exactly my point, nothing in Christianity is original, the whole christ story is a myth copied from earlier religions and brought up to date by including contemporary characters from about 50 years before the publication date.
It's like me writing the story of a messiah who came in the 1970s and including the name of the then pope, the president of America and the Olympic massacre as contemporary events to give the story creedence.


Hi, would you like to advise where is can read these accounts please?

Leon Level 5 Apr 29, 2018

There is an entire history of the Herodian dynasty in the works of Josephus Flavius, as is an account of the teachings of the proclaimed Messiah John the Baptist, the rise of his cult and his death by execution for insurgency. Jesus Barabbas is recorded in the Roman chronicles of Judea for his attack on Fort Antonia, The Tin mining operations of the Romans in what is now known as Cornwall include the trade and Haulage agreements with Joseph of Arimathea, a ship owner and trader from Jerusalem.


I don't know one way or another if Jesus ever exists; but it's more his parentage that I question.

There are historically nine Jesus' in and around the time of the supposed Biblical Jesus, and since Jesus is a Latinised version of Joshua, traditionally used by claimant to the messiahship, this is hardly surprising since Israel was at the time under Gentile occupation.

@LenHazell53 Sure, sounds legit... Lots of dudes names Jesus alive now, why not then... Like I said, dude may have exictded, just not believing the claim of who is father is said to be.


Here is a thought…Maybe there was a Jesus. I think of it this way…There is a group of young men who hang out and socialize together. They drink wine and talk about a myriad of different subjects, religion, politics, and social and economic injustices of the time. In the group, there is a young carpenter who is philosophical in his thinking and has many ideas, thoughts, and opinions on how to improve all these things.

This young carpenter dies at a young age and the group of men goes on with their lives and careers. A few stay in touch and continue to socialize and often talk about the carpenter and his ideas. At some point, they each decide to write down some of these ideas in story form making the carpenter the central character of the story, the hero. A sort of what if kind of thing.

Storytelling is not new, neither is fiction writing. The problem may be that what was fiction has been redefined as a documentary.

Could you imagine what kind of religion we would have in a couple of thousands of years from now if the original manuscripts by Dan Brown and Stephen King were discovered? Can you imagine a “Clown” as the devil?

Betty Level 8 Apr 29, 2018

Oh...Ricky Gervais said it best.

“… Science is constantly proved all the time. You see if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.”
― Ricky Gervais

Well thought out, just give it more time, and their having been 9 not one Jesus (which there were) and you have an action packed life of someone who never actually existed (the same thing happened with Robin Hood, there were six of them over a two hundred year period, Robert Fitzooth, Robert of Loxley, Robyn the Yeoman, Alan a dale known as Robin itherhood, Robin Lincoln-Grain (who was a fiction invented to sell Red Cloth Grain is not green, it is red) Will Scarlet the companion of Lincoln Grain) but only one legend of one man who never existed.


Jesus was a charismatic schizophrenic.

Have you read Dennis Potter's "Son of man" that takes exactly this idea as its main premise?

@LenHazell53 no I haven't. I get a lot of flack for my pov. Had this pov for like 30 yrs sense I left seminary. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this lol


No smoke without fire. I bet there was a Jesus who was a bit clever and stould out.


And to think that Islam and Mormonism, among other religions, “build” on that. P. T. Barnum was right in predicting that there's no lack of suckers.

Scientology too


Yes this is what I've come to understand. I agree with the scholars who feel that Jesus was likely a combination of mythical characters tailored to fit into a believable historical tale to deceive the commoners, and suit the needs of the government at the time.


I don't think jeezy ever existed.

He didn't, he is a composite propaganda character, meant to serve as a titular founder of the anti-Johanism cult.


Which records outside The Christian Scriptures document John the Baptist?

That looks like a reference to Josephus' account of the death of John the Baptist.

The writings of Josephus Flavius, Hillel the elder, and the Mandean scriptures including the Ginza Rba

@LenHazell53 Josephus also refers to Jesus. It is when he refers to James, the "brother of Jesus, the so called Christ." It is not much, but it is there. There is another reference which extols the virtues of Jesus, but secular scholars show that, linguistically speaking, it was an addition by a later editor, not written by Josephus. If the account of John is accepted as proof of his existence, then the the existence of Jesus should be, too.

@Gwendolyn2018 It is also a proven fake, no serious historian is of any doubt that the passage, what there is of it, about 4 lines, was edited in around the 6th century.
Even if it is real, why give four lines to Jesus and almost an entire chapter to John the Baptist?
Assuming he ever existed at all Was Jesus that unimportant?

Since I have said there were many Jesus about at the time, and the the word Christ simply meant anointed one, and did not carry the connotations we give it today, the James passage could refer to anyone (if you use the douay Rheims version of the Bible, there are two other Jesus' mentioned in the Bible, barabbas and Jesus the wise).

@LenHazell53 I know this is Wikidpedia, but it backs what I have read about the James passage in more scholarly works. On the passage about James: "Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity."

And, "Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ) and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation."

The entry goes on to say that some scholars doubt the authenticity, but they are few. So, no, the passage has not been proven a fake.

As I said, the other passage about Jesus is an addition by an editor.

"Jesus" (a Greek translation) means "Joshua," which would have been a common name, but it was not synonymous with "Christ." "Christ" means "the anointed one": "Joshua" means "Jehovah is generous/Jehovah saves." So while there were other "Christs," it does not mean that they were named "Jesus." For example, the OP mentions Simon Magus (Simon the Magician); he might have claimed to be a Christ, but he was not a "Jesus."

As to why Josephus would give a couple of lines about "the so called Christ," it is because he did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Apparently, he thought John the Baptist was a more important figure.


Did you know there is no trace of Nazareth itself until the second century? Even Joesephus, who traveled all over the area, and lived less than a mile from that location, and made mention of every other water hole for a hundred miles, never mentions Nazareth.
And the Archeology itself is 2nd century and later.

That my friend is not the only thing there is no trace off.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:68783
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.