Christianity and its non-historical Jesus

[ForgedinHell]

What will Christianity look like once the general public accepts the fact that Jesus was never a real person who lived and died? Will it die off? Return to its roots?

I believe it will be greatly reduced in size when the truth becomes accepted, and the few remaining Christians will carry on with the belief that Jesus simply acted in the supernatural realm. It actually may become considerably more peaceful as well, because it will no longer be a religion focused on a murder of an innocent man. In any event, the truth coming out should be for the best, as no system of morality should be based on a demonstrably false belief.

[Grendel]

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte

This quote covers both the positions he existed and he didn't exist.

Also I believe the world population of Christians is going up daily, so the "few remaining Christians" bit seems unlikely.

[mickthinks]

This is a forum for philosophers, Forgy. So it's an odd place to choose to troll Christians.

Do you have a philosophical argument to support your belief that Jesus never existed, or is it just an article of your own particular faith?

[Kayla]

is that not more of a historical question rather than a philosophical one

[ForgedinHell]

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte

This quote covers both the positions he existed and he didn't exist.

Also I believe the world population of Christians is going up daily, so the "few remaining Christians" bit seems unlikely.

The facts are in, no historical Jesus existed. As this truth comes out, how can Christianity survive? It may, but not in its present form.

[ForgedinHell]

This is a forum for philosophers, Forgy. So it's an odd place to choose to troll Christians.

Do you have a philosophical argument to support your belief that Jesus never existed, or is it just an article of your own particular faith?

I have historical evidence he never existed. The fact he wrote nothing himself is a key fact, right there. The fact that not a single person wrote anything about him while he allegedly lived, is another crucial fact. The fact his life story, every single so-called miracle he ever performed, exists in an earlier religion, is also very telling. The fact that no one visited the site where he allegedly died until centuries after his alleged death is also key. Etc., etc. The evidence is exactly what we would expect if no historical Jesus existed.

The philosophical question is how long can a religion survive by covering up a lie? Should a religion based on such a lie survive? Why would that be moral?

I posted this topic on religion. There is a religion section here.

[ForgedinHell]

is that not more of a historical question rather than a philosophical one

Is it? So, what does philosophy consist of? Nothing? I asked a question regarding how Christianity will be structured after the truth about there being no historical Jesus comes out and is accepted by most people. Why is that not a philosophical question?

[tbieter]

What will Christianity look like once the general public accepts the fact that Jesus was never a real person who lived and died? Will it die off? Return to its roots?

I believe it will be greatly reduced in size when the truth becomes accepted, and the few remaining Christians will carry on with the belief that Jesus simply acted in the supernatural realm. It actually may become considerably more peaceful as well, because it will no longer be a religion focused on a murder of an innocent man. In any event, the truth coming out should be for the best, as no system of morality should be based on a demonstrably false belief.

Here Forgedinhell dogmatically asserts, as a fact, a theory that is known as the "Christ as myth" theory. His assertion is obviously not philosophical since he offers no supporting arguments, nor is it historical since he offers no historicl evidence.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

His message causes me to doubt that he is really an attorney as he claims to be in his profile. He certainly proves, however, beyond a reasonable doubt that he is no scholar and that he is ignorant of the office of the scholar.

Those here who are sincere, have an open mind, and perhaps are new to the question, should consider the following:

"The historicity of Jesus refers to the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as a historical figure, approximately where and when he lived, and if any of the major milestones in his life, such as his method of death, can be confirmed as historical events.[1][2][3] ...

Virtually all modern scholars of the New Testament and Christian origins agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and some Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20]" [21][22][23] (Underlining added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I recommend Dr. Schweitzer's classic which I read many years ago. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_ ... al%20jesus

[ForgedinHell]

What will Christianity look like once the general public accepts the fact that Jesus was never a real person who lived and died? Will it die off? Return to its roots?

I believe it will be greatly reduced in size when the truth becomes accepted, and the few remaining Christians will carry on with the belief that Jesus simply acted in the supernatural realm. It actually may become considerably more peaceful as well, because it will no longer be a religion focused on a murder of an innocent man. In any event, the truth coming out should be for the best, as no system of morality should be based on a demonstrably false belief.

Here Forgedinhell dogmatically asserts, as a fact, a theory that is known as the "Christ as myth" theory. His assertion is obviously not philosophical since he offers no supporting arguments, nor is it historical since he offers no historicl evidence.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

His message causes me to doubt that he is really an attorney as he claims to be in his profile. He certainly proves, however, beyond a reasonable doubt that he is no scholar and that he is ignorant of the office of the scholar.

Those here who are sincere, have an open mind, and perhaps are new to the question, should consider the following:

"The historicity of Jesus refers to the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as a historical figure, approximately where and when he lived, and if any of the major milestones in his life, such as his method of death, can be confirmed as historical events.[1][2][3] ...

Virtually all modern scholars of the New Testament and Christian origins agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and some Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20]" [21][22][23] (Underlining added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I recommend Dr. Schweitzer's classic which I read many years ago. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_ ... al%20jesus

I will gladly debate anyone, any time, on the non-historical Jesus.

If you understood how trials work, you would realize that a party has to produce evidnce. Only a simpleton would conclude that if the maority believe something that it must be true. The fact is for most of history, the people who studied the history of Christianity, were Christians, and so they had a bias. When one looks at the evidence, it is clear that no historical jesus existed.

How come he didn't write anything down? How come not a single contemporary historian mentioned anything about him while he supposedly lived? How come the alleged trial could not have taken place the way it is alleged? How come Paul never mentioned an historical Jesus, mother Mary, Joseph, or a crucifixion? I'm going with the evidence, not with some "majority opinion," which in this case is 100% false. I don't think you are an attorney. Your racists statements on here alone are offensive and make you out to be trah.

[ForgedinHell]

What will Christianity look like once the general public accepts the fact that Jesus was never a real person who lived and died? Will it die off? Return to its roots?

I believe it will be greatly reduced in size when the truth becomes accepted, and the few remaining Christians will carry on with the belief that Jesus simply acted in the supernatural realm. It actually may become considerably more peaceful as well, because it will no longer be a religion focused on a murder of an innocent man. In any event, the truth coming out should be for the best, as no system of morality should be based on a demonstrably false belief.

Here Forgedinhell dogmatically asserts, as a fact, a theory that is known as the "Christ as myth" theory. His assertion is obviously not philosophical since he offers no supporting arguments, nor is it historical since he offers no historicl evidence.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

His message causes me to doubt that he is really an attorney as he claims to be in his profile. He certainly proves, however, beyond a reasonable doubt that he is no scholar and that he is ignorant of the office of the scholar.

Those here who are sincere, have an open mind, and perhaps are new to the question, should consider the following:

"The historicity of Jesus refers to the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as a historical figure, approximately where and when he lived, and if any of the major milestones in his life, such as his method of death, can be confirmed as historical events.[1][2][3] ...

Virtually all modern scholars of the New Testament and Christian origins agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and some Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20]" [21][22][23] (Underlining added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I recommend Dr. Schweitzer's classic which I read many years ago. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_ ... al%20jesus

What evidence, actual concrete facts, do you have for an historical Jesus? The answer is none.
Do you have a single shred of paper written by Jesus? No.
Do you have a single shred of paper written by anyone who allegedly spoke to Jesus? No.
Do you have a single shred of paper written by any historian about Jesus, while Jesus alleedly lived? No.
Luke (2:1-4) claims Jesus was born in the year of a universal Roman tax census. But, Roman records show that the first such census to occur was in the year 74 C.E.
Matthew claims Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, but Herod's reign ended in 4 B.C.E. Which means that at a minimum, there was a ten year gap between the time Matthew claims Jesus was born and Luke does. So, where is there even an attempt in the gospels to examine real historical evidence for the life of this so-called Jesus? There is none.
Here is the actual birth dates of some of the historians that Christians rely on, proving that no contemporary historian ever wrote about him:
Flavius Josephus: 37 - c. 100
Clement of Rome, c. 98
Ignatius c. 35-107
Pliny the Younger c.62
If you go through every single historian the Christians rely on, without exception, they were all born at a time when they could not have written while Jesus was supposedly alive.


Now, what is your evidence? Where is it? Go crawl back into your racist cave.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The person 'Jesus' has never felt real to me and it comes as no surprise that the idea of him being a fictional character is becoming more mainstream. If a young child can smell a rat at such patent nonsense then something must be amiss.
I don't think it will make much difference to Christians though, he's really a symbolic figure. God doesn't exist either, and that doesn't seem to bother them.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You have to wonder why though. Why invent a cult around some person who may never have existed, or at least not in the way he's portrayed? The figure may have been adapted from one of the many 'Messianic' figures around at that time.

[ForgedinHell]

You have to wonder why though. Why invent a cult around some person who may never have existed, or at least not in the way he's portrayed? The figure may have been adapted from one of the many 'Messianic' figures around at that time.

There were two different movements that made up Christianity. One movement, centered near Galilee. where it was preached the coming Kingdom of God and the arrivale of a god-like being to judge the world. The other movement was from the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, and this tradition preached of a heavenly intermediary that acted in the spiritual realm only, not on earth, and was often referred to as the Anointed One, Yeshua, and Christ. The two movements merged, and that's how modern Christianity was born.

[mickthinks]

The evidence is exactly what we would expect if no historical Jesus existed.

No it isn"t, Forgy. You just like to think it is, and you aren't really disposed to consider the alternative.

[ForgedinHell]

The evidence is exactly what we would expect if no historical Jesus existed.

No it isn"t, Forgy. You just like to think it is, and you aren't really disposed to consider the alternative.

The evidence is exactly what we would expect if no Jesus actually existed. It is you who can't handle the truth about Jesus, not me. The thing is the truth is fast spreading through atheist groups, and I have never met anyone yet who could put forth any convincing counter argument. Most Christians just assume he must have existed and that the Gospels are some sort of eyewitness historical account. They aren't.

Just take a look at the alleged trial of Jesus? That alone has so many holes in it that any thinking person has to know, after considering the evidence, that it is a completely false story. Now, when you take away the fiction, what is left? Nothing. Jesus did not actually exist as a real person. The only reason people believe otherwise is because they have not looked at the evidence.