Writer finds little evidence of Christ; says he was 'mythical'

[Alan C.]

'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a 'mythical character'

 

Historical researcher Michael Paulkovich has claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a ‘mythical character’ and never existed.The controversial discovery was apparently made after he found no verifiable mention of Christ from 126 writers during the ‘time of Jesus’ from the first to third centuries.He says he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship.. . .The 126 texts he studied were all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus, when Paulkovich says they would surely have heard of someone as famous as Jesus - but none mention him.'When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not - and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions - I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character,’ he writes.‘"Jesus of Nazareth" was nothing more than urban (or desert) legend, likely an agglomeration of several evangelic and deluded rabbis who might have existed.’Of the writings he examined, written from the first to third centuries, he found only one book that contained a mention of Jesus - The Jewish Wars by the Roman historian Josephus Flavius written in 95 CE, but he claims it is fabricated.Paulkovich says the mentions of Jesus were added later by editors, not by Josephus.Even in the Bible Paulkovich says Paul, often credited with spreading what would become Christianity, never refers to Jesus as a real person.. . .‘The Jesus character is a phantom of a wisp of a personage who never wrote anything. So, add one more: 127.'

 

There is no evidence that the Jesus character in the Bible was a real person, let alone that he performed physics-defying acts of magic. Jesus is an anthropomorphized solar deity worshiped by throngs of credulous, feeble-minded followers. He's nothing more than a comic book character like Superman.

 

Search for Robert Price on YouTube.

[_LiveFree_]

Alan, you are so wrong, and I hope you repent for your error. 

 

 

 

 

EVERYBODY knows who Superman is. 

[ParaSait]

I find it amusing when people quibble over whether he was real or not. What does it matter? Would it make Christianity any less bullshit if he did?

[hannahbanana]

 

Historian Richard Carrier has also done a lot of research about the historicity of Jesus, as well as the Gospels. Interesting to watch, even if you are skeptical.

[hannahbanana]

Also, I find it amusing that people scoff at modern religions that were created based on science fiction (ahem, Scientology, ahem), but are completely flabbergasted as the mere suggestion that fiction existed 2000 years ago (it did), and maybe the Bible was fiction too.

[dsayers]

Also, I find it amusing that people scoff at modern religions that were created based on science fiction (ahem, Scientology, ahem), but are completely flabbergasted as the mere suggestion that fiction existed 2000 years ago (it did), and maybe the Bible was fiction too.

 

It is indeed delightful listening to the religious talk about OTHER religions/believers as if they're batty. My father, who is Christian, recently stated that Catholics always rubbed him the wrong way because everything they do seems made up, but they seem to be the experts on "unpossessing." 

[Snafui]

The points made by Earl Doherty on his site The Jesus Puzzle sum it up rather well: if you read the New Testament in the order they were written rather than the order they are presented you see that it was a demi-god myth turned flesh to found a religion.

 

I haven't bothered to research this issue for years now because there is so much information to show that there is no reason to bother: a) Jesus was not real; 2) it was designed to create a new religion; and 3) the Bible is full of errors. You have the internet at your fingertips and if people want the truth they can dive into it, too. Arguing about these issues with a believer is a minefield.

 

It was the studying of the above that led me to philosophy.

[powder]

"He says he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship."

 

I would challenge this statement.  I too have studied much on the history of religion over the years and I think that it was the creation of the Roman Empire to coral the masses with a funky new mind control scheme.   It was not a new game for the oligarchs, even back then.  Joesphus worked for the Flavian Caesar's and had a lot to do with the founding of the new religion.  

[King David]

Homer, Socrates, and ahem, King David all most likely never existed.  Does this mean that the message and history that was conveyed through such personifications should no longer hold any relevance to our current knowledge?

 

What I am curious about is why in particular Jesus of Nazareth was reported to have validated and co-opted the Hebrew bible.  As well the Muslims.  

 

For all of its flaws, the bible is the most complete and coherent interpretation of the spiritual history of mankind during an age that saw the advents of agriculture, writing, animal husbandry, governments, currency, mathematics, language, and culture.  A distinct change in our make up occurs during 13 000 bc - 0, which is very clear.

 

If you believe that you can know who you are without knowing where you came from then I would tend to disagree with you.  For instance, I today know that my great grandfather and grandfather who I bear striking resemblance to, suffered from significant immunodeficiency's.   I used this knowledge to modify my personal health regime and have overcome great obstacles including digestive health, allergies, asthma, and aging.  

 

Funny enough I corroborated a lot of "my personal health regime", with what the Jews called rules and worship.  

 

KD

[dsayers]

Homer, Socrates, and ahem, King David all most likely never existed.  Does this mean that the message and history that was conveyed through such personifications should no longer hold any relevance to our current knowledge?

 

This is why appeals to authority are fallacious. Consequently, why I've made a conscious decision in my own life not to put forth quotes from people as if it's proof of anything.

 

If we understand that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral because they're logically inconsistent--and not because some guy named Jesus said so--then it doesn't matter if there ever was a Jesus or not.

[powder]

Homer, Socrates, and ahem, King David all most likely never existed.  Does this mean that the message and history that was conveyed through such personifications should no longer hold any relevance to our current knowledge?

 

 

yes

[Xbander]

Stuff like this has been going on for decades:

 

Offense says "X figure was mythical" followed up with arguments from silence, misinterpreted texts, dusty old books, subjective positions.

 

Defense responds with rebuttals to mistaken interpretations of ancient texts, dusty old books, logical fallacies, and probably some ad-populum statements.

 

Discredit

Discredit

Followed by more discredit.

 

If the debate remains pure, this will go back and forth for some time, audience falls asleep.

One side will deviate from the topic, throw in some red herring.

One side will make appeal to emotion, or appeal to authority.

 

Both sides will eventually depart, neither convinced, but one will have had a better presentation and won over a larger part of the audience, if not already decided from the beginning.

 

If either side of this topic was so ironclad in their conclusions, we wouldn't see headlines from both camps every few years and still have debates on the subject. That's one of the problems when debating mysteries of ancient history.

[dsayers]

If either side of this topic was so ironclad in their conclusions, we wouldn't see headlines from both camps every few years and still have debates on the subject.

 

Are you saying that the act of challenging a position is proof that the position is false?

[Xbander]

Are you saying that the act of challenging a position is proof that the position is false?

 

 

What I'm saying is, a topic like this isn't easily settled, but it will sell a lot of books.To give an example, there was a great debate in 1998 on the American Civil War, even C-span had aired segments of it. All debates on the Civil War prior to it were eclipsed, and no debate since it has ever been so grand. There were certain affairs regarding the Civil War that were actually settled once and for all through evidence and testimony, though both sides were well armed with documentation, there was a victor.Since the 1930s there were many 'wild' arguments and positions about the war, it took 65 years to set the record straight about a conflict 140 years prior.It is inexperienced to say that the Jesus issue can be proven or disproven so simply.

[King David]

yes

Okay, I would like you to return your keys to the Socratic Method of reasoning.  While you're at it you should give up all the scientific, and engineering implements which are afforded you by the scientific method.

 

KD

[Bel Rick]

Where did this myth come from that Socrates wasn't real?

[shirgall]

Where did this myth come from that Socrates wasn't real?

 

Good discussion of it here:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2484/was-socrates-a-fictional-character-invented-by-plato