Friday, August 20, 2010

Several reasons why Christ did not exist a cumulative argument

Several reasons why I don't believe in an historical Jesus

1. Considering how great he was supposed to have been there is no known image of Jesus that was made during his lifetime, no drawings, paintings, nor busts etc. the earliest known image of Jesus is a fresco of the healing of the paralytic at Dura-Europos (c.230-40) Images of Christ

2. Considering the importance of his mission and message to the world Jesus never wrote down a single word about it. The gospel of John says that he on one occasion wrote with his finger on the ground, what did he write? Nobody knows nor cared to take note of it I guess it must not have been important. John 8:6 'This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.'

3. The fact that none of the many historians that lived during Christ's alleged lifetime and some even were present around the region where he is said to have walked and preached never bothered to utter a single word regarding Christ.

4. The so called holy sites are all symbolic the church does not even know where the alleged tomb of Christ is located nor the actual location of the crucifixion.

5. There are no surviving relics that belonged to Jesus, not even a damn sandal!

6. The earliest of the synoptic gospels (Mark) is dated at circa 70 A.D. approximately 40 years after the alleged death of Jesus. I think that given the amount of time between the alleged death of Jesus and the aging of the author (Mark) that his memory may be compromised as to what actually occurred. I know from experience that sometimes our memories tend to fail us or even exaggerate a past event when we try to describe it in detail.

7. There are also many similarities between the Christ myth and that of other ancient myths in the region that predated Christianity. The N.T. in my opinion just borrowed many of the ancient so called prophetic sayings of the O.T. and built their story as the fulfillment of those prophecies around a fictional deity; namely, Christ. Some christians argue that if Christ did not exist how can we account for the rise of Christianity etc. But many religions that predated Christianity arose based on fictional characters or deities so that argument fails to support the existence of Christ. In fact some scholars have gone on to say that the real founder of Christianity was Saul/Paul of Tarsus.

8. Relative to my first reason have you ever noticed that any religious person who claims to have seen Jesus, Buddha, the virgin Mary happen to see them exactly as they had imagined them based on what they have been taught that their deity of choice looks like? This indicates to me that these so called revelations and supernatural experiences are rather a psycho-emotional experience instead. Even if those experiences appear to be life changing for the individual who claims to have experienced them.

9. The gospels don't seem to agree as to certain key events that happened during Christ's alleged death, burial, and resurrection. Let's take a quick look as to what the synoptic gospels say about the death of Jesus and what occurred. Comparing Matthew 27:45,51-53 Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:44 we will see huge inconsistencies. They all agree that the temple veil was split in two right down the middle upon Jesus death except that in Luke's version this happened immediately before Jesus uttered his last words and expired. Matthew and Luke must have been high on mushrooms when they wrote that there was a solar eclipse that lasted approximately from the sixth hour to the ninth hour. Generally a solar eclipse from start to finish would last a couple of hours but when the moon obscures the sun completely this only lasts a couple of minutes. Matthew is the only one of the authors who takes it one step further by adding an earthquake and many accompanying resurrections of the dead who were supposedly seen in the holy city by many. Yet no one who saw any of this was shocked or curious enough to want to write it down outside of the biblical authors whose gospels were originally presented as anonymous works till at least the middle of the 2nd century.


  1. Chapiliot,

    I realize that you think not one reason alone is ground for the non extinence of Jesus, but a collective factors gives enough merit for the non existence of Jesus. However, these are really weak arguments. I will explain why in a moment. Before I do I just want to say one thing. MY hope is one day you'd be okay with Jesus.
    Now I know thats probably not going to happen. Since that may not happen, i want to make sure your an atheist for the right reasons and you argue well. The way you argue is well, weak and if you want to be a good athiest you need to argue better than this. It's my hope that pointing out your flaws you'd either 1) make stronger arguments 2)Know Jesus ( I know, you're laughing at that, but gotta try right ;)

    1) Your presumption that Jesus was so famous that he needed a painting assumes lots. I think this is mere speculation.This is an agruement from silence. There all plenty of famous people in Jesus' day we know existed who did not have their painting or sculpture, like Gamilea, an religious Jewish leader of incredibly great standing. He didn't have a paint, yet historians believe he existed... For this argument to work you would need to show that historians use the existence of paintings to valiate the non existence of someone
    a. According to Christian tradition Jesus was lived a humble life, why would get a painting painting of himself? Only the wealthy would do such things.
    b. We know from History that Ceaser's often embellished their paintings to make them look a certain way when they were not. One of them, was fat and mad himself ripped. Yet He did exist and the sculpture was made in his lifetime This goes show visual evidence didn't give us an accurate of this man, yet we do not dispute his existence
    c. If you think about it, who have time to make a painting of Jesus anyway. If Christianity was persecuted in its infacy, would it not seem logical to you that you were too busy trying trying not to die that they didn't have enough time to? Also would not that have drawn attention to them selves, "Hey I'm going to make a picture of Jesus and hang on my wall, so Romans can use me as human torch" This is argument from silence, CHat, The problem with this is there are many reasons why there a painting may not exist. You'd have to prove the all the reasons why false before this argument can work

  2. 2) Argument - Jesus didn't exist because he didn't write his own gospel....
    So all the famous people throughout history that could not read or write didn't exist too? Umm... yeah.... Socrates, didn't write anything down himself either.... his is actually a very good question, but it is one that does not take into account the social background data. There are two factors that should be taken into account:

    The prevalence of orality over writing in ancient society. Today transmitting something orally is considered equal with not relaying it in a trustworthy manner, and we demand to see things "in writing" before we believe them. As hard as it may seem to believe, exactly the opposite was true in ancient times.

    Ancient literacy was no higher than 10 percent at any given time, so the primary method of communication was oral. Memory capabilities were correspondingly much stronger, so that it can not be said that oral transmission was unreliable, or that because something was important, it "ought to have been written down". Neither Jesus nor anyone else in ancient society would share this modern sentiment.

    For more on this, see here. For a full overview of the ancient view of writing as a less-trusted "supplement" to orality, see Tony Lentz, Orality and Literacy in Hellenic Greece.


  3. e role of scribes. Related to this, the rarity of literacy made for an excellent business of scribal activity. And the paradigm of the day did NOT require that a teacher be the one writing down his own works -- rather, he would hire a scribe to do it as he recited his teachings.

    The role of Matthew in this regard is quite obvious and mirrrors precisely the scribe/teacher relationship of Jeremiah and his faithful scribe Baruch. And as one commentator pointed out, wouldn't Jesus' time have been better spent preaching and healing anyway, rather than pursuing the laborious task that writing was in those days?

  4. This point is further elucidated by Achtemeier in his article "Omne Verbatim Sonat" (JBL, 109, 1990, 3-27). He stresses that in antiquity the "normal mode of composition" was to dictate to a scribe. "Dictation was recommended over writing in one's own hand by Dio Chrysostem, and famous personages, we are told, were regularly accompanied by a slave prepared at any time to take dictation" -- even if they were on horseback, or in the public baths.

    Though there was some disagreement on this preference (Quintillian preferred writing himself to dictation), it is clear that Jesus "doing it himself" was not a requirement.

    Thus the general objection that Jesus did not write anything misses the point, because it anachronistically assumes a modern view of the importance of writing upon ancient peoples.

    One added point about the idea that if Jesus had written things himself, it would have meant less controversy over what he said: I doubt this would stop critics, who could just as readily use such rationalizations as, "It was added by a later writer" -- just as they do now -- for lines they found objectionable. I can also see them questioning the authenticity of such works just as readily.

  5. 3)Umm yeah... I think I dealt with this earlier

  6. But just in case

  7. 4)How does not knowing the tomb and crugixtion disprove the existence of Jesus? You'd have to the explain that one to me

  8. 5)K, Really sersiously? You call us irrational. Let me humor and say I would count this as factor
    Jesus was a commooer a poor man. It's not like he was Alexander the great with a whole place to plunder. He didn't have every much to begin with. Ontop of that people hated him, so who would keep his stuff. and when he did become famous, I think I'd as a follower Id be more concerned with running away from the big guys with swords then keeping a smelly sandal... and ontop of that if you did find something like a sandal, how would you prove its Jesus? Dude lots of people existed in Jesus day that were ordinary people, yet if we picked on from an old census log, he probably would not find there sandals either....

  9. Argument that becauet eh Gospels were written later Jesus does not exist I guess we can't trust these either...

    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

    70 Ad -100 AD
    Earliest Copy 125 AD
    Time Span 25 Years
    Number of Ancient Copies, 24,000
    August 21, 2010 11:09 PM

  10. 7) I gave 5 requirements that by secelur scholars need
    to be met before this borrowing can take place. You have yet to show this

  11. So let me get this straight, throughout your blog you beleive that church rewrote history to mention Jesus , and the gospels themsleves were made up by the church. Hmmm. Let's say they did. That would have taken a lot of resources and time to pull that off. Esspecially to go to all that trouble to track Down people like Josephus and rewrite him. Don't you think it's really weird how the church went to all that trouble to fake everything only to forget to stream line the gospels so they all end the same? I mean if I wanted to control people I wouldn't over look such an obvious mistake. I think the fact you brought this up kind of weakness your whole the church wants to ruin my life theory. The fact you brought this weakness your stance and adds valididty to mine. Who'd make up a story only to. Not stream line it? I will
    post an articale on this below

  12. Dan you must really love me lol to dedicate so much time and effort to show me the "error of my ways".

    1. hey u guys are all wrong and right or are u are wrong that is the question

  13. Dude I do respect you a lot! And honestly I am okay with idea that you are an Atheist. Really I am. It's not my job to "covert" you. It's my hope that you would know Jesus, but id still respect and hang with you even if you never did If you came to Vancouver, I'd show you around and invite you over for BBQ and just chilax.
    That said I do like a good debate. and I hope you see it as that I enjoy interacting with people that don't think the way I do. It keeps me thinking

  14. Dan before I go on I would like to know where you stand on Christ,for instance: Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God or God incarnate? Do you believe that the miracles described in the N.T. were real occurrences or later exaggerations? Do you believe that when he died that he literally ascended up to the heavens in front of about 500 people? I know that I could never prove whether he existed or not but when you weigh all of the evidence for his existence I think that the evidence against his existence far outweighs the evidence for. All we have left is a book that was written mostly by a bunch of unknown authors and a religion based on that book. The book is riddled with inconsistencies, and it's in my opinion a poor example of literature. Btw I would hang with you too I don't take debates personally at all. Like yourself I too enjoy a good debate from time to time.

  15. One more thing I forgot to give you this link: it argues that Christ is a product of previous pagan myths. And it is chock full of evidential documents etc.

  16. Dan - stop pretending to "respect" Chatpilot and stop pretending to "help him be a better atheist." How condescending is that?!
    The fact of the matter is that no contemporary source mentions Jesus. Josephus mentioned Jesus on hearsay alone... 60+ years after the fact ("Antiquities of the Jews"). Another reference to him by Josephus (in the same work) is contested as a forgery by a later translating *Christian* monk.
    Jesus was not a "lowly commoner" - he supposedly walked on friggen' water and fed 5,000 people in just one region alone! His death supposedly resulted in a massive earthquake that damaged a national landmark (the temple in Jerusalem). He supposedly ammassed throngs and crowds in cities he'd never been to previously, by word-of-mouth alone.
    Face it, all we know about Jesus was what we got from a dozen or so gospels - only four of which were finally accepted as canonical (for arbitrary and man made reasons - the rest, like the gospels of Peter, Thomas, Mary, and Judas were tossed like the book of Enoch which influenced Paul and Jude who believed TBoEnoch). The earliest of which was passed around like oral herpes for *DECADES* before someone finally wrote it down and attributed it to a dude named Mark.
    Magicians, water walkers, resurrecters? That's rational? An undead, half-god, back-from-the-grave Zombie Christ strains a sane mind. If Jesus did exist, he was just a dude - not a magical, fairy dust sprinkling, David Blaine imitation. The burden of proof is on the fairy tale believers, not the skeptics/atheists.

  17. JohnnyCrash, He can respect his opinion on Jesus just like I do as well. I question whether he existed or not myself, and I was raised Catholic. The fact of the matter is that Jesus was a lowly Commoner. His mortal "father" was Joseph, a carpenter and by way of trade back then Jesus would have been a carpenter. There were 8 social classes back in Jesus' time. Jesus belonged to the 6th class according to his father's trade. The sixth class was the tradesmen class. The class above Jesus was the peasant class. The two classes below Jesus were the Unclean class and the Expendable class in that order. Of course Josepheus wrote Jesus down as committing hearsay because he was deemed a heretic by the Jewish Authorities of the time. And of course it was 60 years after Jesus. It probably took Josephus a long time to write everything down. Again I respect this guy's opinion because every man has a right to an opinion. As I stated above I question his existence myself, but I felt the need to lay out the background facts of Jesus time because Dan is right Jesus was a lowly commoner. Walking on water does not raise your social class.

  18. This Is why god is not real : 1) no one has ever seen god and no one in the world today can describe to you what he looks like. 2) think about things you see and touch and feel every day. Those things are reality. God is a supernatural man in "heaven" that any Christian will tell you is real, yet no physical evidence is put forth. 3) Everything in the bible happened long ago, and most seem to be amazing stories with supernatural occurrences, and none of these things happen in peoples lives of the modern day world. 4) people say that they feel the weight of god on their hearts to do the right things. This is not god. These are chemically induced emotions by your brain that have been developed over time in to morals and beliefs taught by your parents so that your a "good person". Think about it. God never came to you and told you to be nice to others or be cleanly. Your parents taught you that so your automatic reaction to people is to be nice. 5) men wrote the bible and said god told them what to write. That's no different than me and some friends writing a book about a seperate god who can do all these amazing things and telling people it's real. People will believe anything and you all have seen it first hand. Christianity is not the only example.

    1. All fine points you have made there Clan Mitch and I completely agree. I equate religious thinking to primitive superstitious beliefs and ideas. None of it is based on factual events that can be proven today. Proving history is hard enough but when you add miracles and supernatural occurrences in my opinion all that does is take away from the story and makes it yet more unbelievable.