Excellent analysis that CLEARLY shows Jesus is a MYTH! ChristNUTS OWNED!

P. The idea that Jesus was an itinerant non-literary prophet preacher is modeled after the same theory that Elijah and Elisha were also itinerant, non-literary prophets / preachers, but whose lives we now know are based entirely in fiction. 

Q. Josephus, as governor of Galilee, had firsthand knowledge of the area and tells us that Galilee had “two hundred and four cities and villages” (7), yet he knows nothing about any town or village in lower Galilee called Nazareth . . . a place so important to Jesus in the Gospels.  Neither is Nazareth mentioned in the Old Testament, nor in the Talmud nor in the Midrash.


Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH!

So you're just going to forget about the fact that you posted an article from a website that deliberately publishes hoaxes as if it was real? And just go ahead as if you're not a discredited buffoon that even other atheists despise?

Okay.

I don't know why you're bringing up dinosaurs--any paleontologist will tell you that we only know of a small fraction of the life forms that existed in that time period. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete. But if you need a fossilized Jesus to convince you he existed, then you shall never be convinced. We don't have a fossil of Julius Caesar either, of course. We don't have fossilized remains of basically ANY historical figure from that era. We do have the Shroud of Turin, but I continue to believe that's a work of art from a much later period.

A)We have Paul's epistles, which clearly refer to Jesus as a person who lived and walked on this planet. Paul may have personally believed Jesus was an angel who agreed to take on human form, but he talked to people who had known him--including Jesus' own brother, James. Whose existence is independently attested to by Josephus in a passage nobody thinks is forged. It's amazing we have even that much evidence of the existence of a little-known Jewish preacher with a handful of followers who was executed as a criminal. The fact is, the gospels themselves are the result of stories told about Jesus by people who did know him. That does not mean everything described in them happened as described, or at all. But they are still represent a living memory of a real person who really existed.

B)We have nothing written by Socrates either. And we know for a fact Socrates could write. Why do you keep bringing this up as an argument?

C)Then I suppose the George Washington who chopped down the cherry tree and threw a coin over the Potomac can't be separated from the real George Washington either. Any famous figure has myths spring up around him or her. By the way--you just admitted Jesus was a real person.

D)Now you expose your total ignorance of ancient history--because of Alexander's conquests, and the dynasties that sprang up throughout them, Greek was at this time the 'linqua franca' of much of the world. It was commonly spoken by Romans, Jews, Egyptians, and many others. By using Greek, you assured yourself of the largest possible audience of literate people--since most literate people had at least some knowledge of the language. In any event, you seem to be forgetting that many texts of the OLD Testament were written outside of Palestine, by exiles. Oh wait--did you ever actually know that to begin with?

E)Hardly surprising, since the great majority of Jews never accepted Jesus as Messiah.

F)They are based on scholarship. Something you neither know nor care about.

G)Philo lived in Alexandria--was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, who wrote in Greek, and tried to blend Jewish and Greek ideas. He could not possibly have witnessed any part of Jesus' life, and would not have been in touch with the Temple authorities of that time (who would probably have viewed him as a heretic). It would be most unlikely he'd have ever heard about Jesus. Why did you even bring this up? It contradicts your argument about the gospels being written in Greek instead of Hebrew or Aramaic. Where was he supposed to have heard about the crucifixion--on CNN?

One more thing about Philo--as with Josephus, we only have his writings because Christian scribes preserved them--why didn't they interpolate stories about Jesus into his writings, as was supposedly done with Josephus? Being more contemporary, this would have been more persuasive. And yet no such stories appear in Philo, substantiating the view that the mentions of Jesus in Josephus were REALLY THERE TO BEGIN WITH, and were just slightly rewritten by Christian scribes to be a bit more respectful. Thanks for bringing this up, schmuck.

H)I've read this through several times, and I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I)Nobody has ever said Josephus had firsthand knowledge of Jesus. But the fact is, his writings prove that people living in Jerusalem at that time still remembered Jesus, still remembered his crucifixion, and that Jesus' brother James was still alive, and his death was witnessed by Josephus. And since Paul also mentions James, that's a pretty high standard of proof. That's more evidence than we have of many historical figures whose existence you are perfectly fine with.

J)"Saint" Paul? Can I just ask, how religious were you as a younger moron?

For the record, we have no surviving contemporary firsthand accounts of Jesus. Or of many other historical figures who were vastly more famous and powerful in their own time. Leonidas, leader of the 300 Spartans--nothing from anyone who ever saw him in the flesh--and absolutely no mention of him in any Persian writings that have survived. Do you think he's a myth? Answer the question, please.

K)The original apostles are described as a collection of poor men--it's likely that most if not all were illiterate. Paul was probably the first one to have any real education, coming from a more privileged background. That's precisely why he was far and away the most influential, even though he never met Jesus. He still met many people who did meet Jesus, and by the standards of a historian, that's clear evidence of Jesus' existence. If history depended entirely on firsthand accounts, history would cease to exist in any meaningful sense.

L)Thank you for pointing out that Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest minds of his age or any other, and a man who despised superstition, still believed not only that Jesus truly existed, but that his ideas were a beacon of enlightenment to the world. Your first real contribution here.

M)You're just padding now.

N)Tacitus refers to "Christ", probably not understanding that was a title, not a name--it's not as if he can go around talking to Christians under the existing political climate. He says this Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Gods are not crucified. He believed there was a real person who was really crucified, and if there was any belief at this time that this never happened, and it's entirely a myth, why wouldn't he report that? Nobody at this time in history believes Jesus did not exist. All of the many enemies of Christianity, pagan and Jewish alike, never once bring this idea up. They say bad things about Jesus, but they never suggest he's just a figment of someone's imagination. They believe he was a false prophet who was crucified as a criminal. The total absence of any evidence that anyone at this time believed Jesus did not exist is the strongest possible evidence that he did, in fact, exist. It would have been the best possible way to discredit the Christians--but it would only work if Jesus was, in fact, a myth.

O)The Dead Sea Scrolls are not a newspaper. They are not an attempt to chronicle what was happening at the time of the people writing them down. They are mainly alternate versions of much earlier Jewish religious texts. Tremendously helpful to historians, but the absence of any mention of Jesus is hardly surprising, since none of the people writing them are Christians. Nor would any of them have been witnesses to any part of Jesus' life. So if they had mentioned him, you wouldn't accept that as evidence either. Because invincible skepticism is invincible. And also terminally stupid.

Now again--why don't you explain why you posted a link to a hoax website as if it were a real story? You really showed a total lack of class in not admitting that you screwed up there.