In this blog post I would like to also explain one of the main reasons for my not only disbelieving in the existence of the biblical god or any gods, but the very existence of Jesus Christ the so called messiah. Simply put, my main reason for not believing in Christ is because there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever of him having ever walked the earth.
Outside of the scriptures the evidence for the existence of Christ what little there is of it is flimsy and unreliable. There were historians that existed around the time of Christ's so called ministry days and his alleged death and resurrection. My question to all the readers of this blog is if Jesus was such a great man and did so many wonders before the eyes of thousands, then why hasn't any secular historian of the day taken any interest to write one iota about him? You would think that for a man whom the bible claims did so many signs and wonders and who was continually thronged by large multitudes someone outside of the scriptures would mention him.
Another aspect of this investigation leads to that of the likeness of Christ. It was only a little over two thousand years ago that he allegedly existed, yet Christian art from his time to now show very different images of Christ indicating that no one knew what he really looked like. Even today we have so many depictions of what people thought he looked like and to me for such a great man who made such an enormous impact on the world that is inconsistent with the beliefs. We have likenesses of Pharaohs of Egypt and great emperors of China who predated Christ by several thousands of years, yet we don't even have a bust or image drawn on a cave wall. I think that the reason that many scholars cannot find the historical Christ is simply because he never existed.
The Jesus of the bible in my view is nothing more than a conglomeration of pre-Christian myths. There are many similarities with the cult of Sol Invictus (sun worship) that was practiced by the Romans at the time and the tale of Christ. And like so many god men before Christ he conveniently ascended up to heaven so that outside of the the oral and written traditions there exists no evidence that he ever was a real person.
Chatpilot,
ReplyDeleteI am with you 100% on this issue. I am even in strong doubt that any of the main characters of the gospel stories were real.
There are historical people referred to in the N.T., but the entire Jesus myth is just a tissue-thin veneer of lies that has been pasted over actual documented ancient history.
I think that some day, maybe sooner than we think, the "Jesus Myth" will become the common view of people.
Dude, You have some very interesting reasons for believing that Jesus did not exist. I can certainly see why you think that. But I think the question you need to ask yourself is not, "Did Jesus exist?", But, "who was he?" Many people who are not Christians believe that there was someone on earth named Jesus. They have included Atheists. I thought I'd try an answer some of questions:
ReplyDelete1) There was no such thing as "secular" historian in Jesus' Day. It was rare for to find someone who did not believe in a god of some sort. Not many people were Christians, but almost everyone believed in some sort of god, whether they were Roman Gods, Greek Gods, of the Hebrew God. My point is you any professional history that was written in that time period was written with some religious basis so its not fair to say that no secular historian wrote about him
2) Jospehus was not a Christian and wrote that there was a man named Jesus who led some sort of revolt and then died.
3) Outside the Bible there over 300 ancient books referring to existence of Jesus and claimed a different view of Jesus than Christians have. that are not Christian. Some are called the Gnostic Gospels. Here's the deal, those books were written anywhere between 100 years and 200 years after Jesus which in is extremely close to Jesus in context of written accounts in relationship to the dates they occurred.
Its estimated the letters in NT and Gospel were written anywhere btw 25 - 100 years after Jesus. I want you to think about that as you read this:
Plato:
Written 427 - 347 BC
Earliest Copy : 900 AD
Time Span between original and earliest copy 1200 years
Number of copies 7
Aristotle 384 -322 BC
Earliest Copy: 1, 100 AD
Time Span: 1400 years
Ceaser 100 BC - 44 BC
Earliest Copy: 900 AD
Time Span 1000 yrs
Number of copies 10
NT
40 Ad -100 AD
Earliest Copy 125 AD
Time Span 25 Years
Number of Ancient Copies, 24,000
Here's the deal all these are considered ancient documents and the time span between when something was written and the earliest copy we have is huge. Yet we trust them. The NT has the smallest gap between when the events of Jesus should have happened and when they were written and when the earliest copy was.
Whether or not you believe in Jesus, the number of religious writtings that are not Christian should at least tell you someone existed who named Jesus.Plus you have the Bible itself which even if you don't believe a word of it was written around a man named Jesus.
Here's my point. You may not believe that Jesus is who Christians say they are, but you can't not say that there was some man named Jesus. Lots of atheists and scholars who don't believe in Christianity would attest to that as seen through the search for the historical Jesus: Jesus Seminar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
6) Argument that becauet eh Gospels were written later Jesus does not exist I guess we can't trust these either...
ReplyDeletePlato:
Written 427 - 347 BC
Earliest Copy : 900 AD
Time Span between original and earliest copy 1200 years
Number of copies 7
Aristotle 384 -322 BC
Earliest Copy: 1, 100 AD
Time Span: 1400 years
Ceaser 100 BC - 44 BC
Earliest Copy: 900 AD
Time Span 1000 yrs
Number of copies 10
NT
70 Ad -100 AD
Earliest Copy 125 AD
Time Span 25 Years
Number of Ancient Copies, 24,000
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6
ReplyDeleteFor many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 2 John 1:7
I agree with those who believe Jesus Christ was a myth but within the Gospels he represents the personification of divine reason (or the logos) and the logos isn't a myth. It is an abstract notion but it represents that which shapes our relationships.
ReplyDeleteThe ancient Greeks had an understanding of the logos and the tripartite soul that we don't share but with that understanding, the gospel of Mark becomes truly one of the great works of literature.
Apologies for the plug but my book - Interpreting Mark - Christianity without an historical Christ is available on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-Mark-Christianity-without-historical/dp/147834430X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1347566851&sr=8-4&keywords=christianity+without+an+historical+christ
Regards
DominickG
There is no such thing as "divine reason" since the two words are contradictory to each other. Reason is defined in the Merriam Webster's dictionary as : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : sanity
DeleteAs you can see this is a human characteristic not a divine one. The religious concept of reason is faith which is the complete opposite of reason in my opinion. "Divine reason" is nothing more than an oxymoron and as I said before entirely contradictory.