Jesus did not exist?

Jan 17, 2009
118
1
#1
I think this theory is best put in this section as it might get too heated for the religion section.

I remember surfing through the net one day and encountering a site about a film that supposedly proved that Jesus was a fraud, or something along those lines.

I don't think it said that Jesus did not exist, but instead, the main point was that it wasn't the Jesus that Christians claim existed.

I have not seen this film so I don't know much about it, but from my understanding there is historical proof that he did exist. What there is no solid proof of, besides the Bible and witnesses, is that he rose from the grave along with the miracles from my understanding, I could be wrong though as I'm not an expert on this subject matter.
 

The Parakeet

Retired Moderator
Jan 19, 2009
639
2
#2
That was probably "The God Who Wasn't There." If I remember my time on the Randi website correctly, it was alright, but took some leaps of faith and even the atheists viewed it as propaganda (I haven't personally seen it so I can't judge).

I think it's pretty obvious that the Jesus in the Bible isn't a literal representation of the man. It's mostly metaphor to speak of his ideals and actions. The Bible does use a number of literary techniques that were popular for other religious works. People told back then to convey messages. That was just how it worked. Somewhere along the way, we started to take the fable as fact.

I personally always figured that there was no true Jesus. I figure that it was a group of disciples and religious figures who were condensed for the sake of simplicity. It's basically what happened with Homer. A group of bards is condensed into one figure so it is easier to handle.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jan 17, 2009
118
1
#3
Yeah that was the name of the film.

As for the propaganda statement, what was it trying to promote? Or was it just made to profit off the controversy, as from what I recall that movie was not free, nor that cheap.

As for there not being a true Jesus, if he was really the son of God, he should have been able to do all the things that the Bible claimed he did.
 

The Parakeet

Retired Moderator
Jan 19, 2009
639
2
#4
I'm actually not sure about the nature of the propaganda side. I just knew that it turned into a movie that was primarily anti-theist rather than skeptical.
 
Jan 17, 2009
151
0
#5
I think this theory is best put in this section as it might get too heated for the religion section.

I remember surfing through the net one day and encountering a site about a film that supposedly proved that Jesus was a fraud, or something along those lines.

I don't think it said that Jesus did not exist, but instead, the main point was that it wasn't the Jesus that Christians claim existed.

I have not seen this film so I don't know much about it, but from my understanding there is historical proof that he did exist. What there is no solid proof of, besides the Bible and witnesses, is that he rose from the grave along with the miracles from my understanding, I could be wrong though as I'm not an expert on this subject matter.
I bolded the sentence that I didn't quite understand, could you maybe explain that a bit better for me? ^^ (I know, I'm slow :().

But yeah, there's no such film in the world that could PROVE that such and such didn't exist, I mean there's no proof to even claim Jesus existed in the first place. They are called beliefs for a reason, and I think they should be left as beliefs, and not try to bash on someone else's religion (the film, not you :p). It'd be very interesting to see the film anyhow, just to see how miserably they failed. Do you by any chance remember the name of the film?
 

The Parakeet

Retired Moderator
Jan 19, 2009
639
2
#6
"The God Who Wasn't There"

The description said that it focused a lot on how Jesus was really a build up of past religious figures. It's pretty standard claims. There's a lot of stories and attributes that seem to come from other ancient religions. I think it hits on the Pagan traditions that were accepted into the fold of Christianity to make it more acceptable. It boils down to the idea that Jesus was a little exaggerated in the Bible, although, like I said, they seem to go a little overboard and use it as a platform to attack Christianity as a whole. It doesn't get a lot of love in Skeptic and Atheist circles, so that should say something.

I don't know if it is available for free or not. "Zeitgeist" is free and the full first 1/3 of the "documentary" is basically a blatant rip off of "The God Who Wasn't There."

Note: Do not watch Zeitgeist except to laugh at it. I've never been able to take more than 2 minutes without turning it off. The other 2/3rds goes into a bunch of claims about the Fed being evil, 9/11 being a conspiracy, Pearl Harbor being planned, etc. It then tries to tie it into the first third by saving that religion was a product of the government to control the population (turn to a point...there was a reason the Catholic Church had so much power in the Medieval ages...but still really crazy). So yeah. Good video to just laugh at and lose faith in humanity.
 
Jan 24, 2009
140
1
#7
Talk about far reaching looooooooool. Yes jesus was exaggerated. This is why he himself claims that he is god:). He even said it a few times.
 
Feb 10, 2009
43
0
Chuck Norris' Chin
#8
If you watch the original zeitgeistmovie you will see how BS religion truly is. Jesus may or may not have existed but the majority of the facts from that time speak nothing of this so called Jesus. This could mean one of two things, the freemasons destroyed all evidence of his existence and put out disinfo, exactly like they do today, or he really never did exist in the first place. However you look at it you have to see religion for what it truly is, a big load of BOLLOCKS!:D
 
Feb 10, 2009
40
0
#9
I guess the only way to really know for sure is turn the clock back and see for yourself, if only we had a time machine......
Personally I think Jesus was a very over hyped character and I've bee leaning towards 2 options.
1. He was a bed tiome story parents told their kids....
2. He was an alien that was far more advanced than any current human (that I'm aware of)

I really don't like how religion earns so much money from his name and all those idiots that wack the jesus fish on their cars, it's just a zodiac sign that we're meant to be moving into.
 
Feb 19, 2009
30
0
Earth
#10
I guess the only way to really know for sure is turn the clock back and see for yourself, if only we had a time machine......
Personally I think Jesus was a very over hyped character and I've bee leaning towards 2 options.
1. He was a bed tiome story parents told their kids....
2. He was an alien that was far more advanced than any current human (that I'm aware of)

I really don't like how religion earns so much money from his name and all those idiots that wack the jesus fish on their cars, it's just a zodiac sign that we're meant to be moving into.
Although, i'm not a Christian but I strongly believe that he atleast existed. He was a person who thought of others more than his own and told people about God and how life should be lived. Both of your options are nothing short of .......foolishness!
 
Mar 15, 2009
369
1
#11
I believe he probably existed - but only as a man and nothing more. He was no god, o water into wine, no resurrection or anything of the sort - to me those aspects are no more than fairy tales. I would be just as inclined to believe hobbits, elves and dwarfs once tried to destroy an all powerful ring.
 
Nov 24, 2016
1,376
283
Victoria, BC
#12
'
As far as Jesus goes, the entire New Testament is nothing more than legend. ( With the exception that Pontius Pilate was a prefect [not a procurator! That is an anachronistic error by Tacitus] in Judea in the first century A.D. )

There is no independent attestation to any of the New Testament. There is not a single mention of Jesus in any non-biblical writing of the first century A.D. [ I discount the two fragments in Josephus. Only the longer fragment is significant, and it is all too obviously an interpolation by a later Christian scribe ]

First century Judea was lousy with religious fanatics, rabbis and "Christs" ( that is, supposed "Anointed Ones" or "Messiahs" ). The Gospels could easily be ( and probably are ) a mish-mash of "wise saws and ancient instances" and confused recollections about any number of the religious lunatics who were wandering through Judea during that century. It would not surprise me that one of these "Christs" was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and that he had a brother named James; but neither would it surprise me that the whole story was woven out of pure fantasy and bits and pieces of various incidents which occurred during that century.

The first significant mention of Christians comes from the second century. Tacitus, in his Annals, describes the Great Fire of Rome during Nero's reign, and he states:

Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.
---- Annales XV 44

[ But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.]

The Latin says that certain people confessed to "attacks," or to "seizing of plunder." Then, apparently because all or most of the people first arrested were Christians, the rest of the cult of atheists ( as the Romans thought of them ) were rounded up because "they hated mankind" and were prone to terrorism.

I do not know why so many people assume that the Christians were not, in fact, responsible for the Great Fire of Rome. They were hysterical religious fanatics; they considered Rome to be Great Babylon, a sewer of sin; they thought the world was going to end at any moment, ushering in a golden age of the reign of the saints ( that is, of their own humble selves ). What could be more natural than to attempt to hurry along the advent of so much glory and happiness? The ramshackle area of Rome where the fire started was inhabited by many Jews ( and so, presumably, by many Christians ). The Roman authorities at the time were convinced that the Christians had a hand in starting or spreading the fire.
.
 
Nov 24, 2016
1,376
283
Victoria, BC
#14
'
Tacitus also writes:

nec quisquam defendere audebat, crebris multorum minis restinguere prohibentium, et quia alii palam facies iaciebant atque esse sibi auctorem vociferabantur, sive ut raptus licentius exercerent seu iussu.
---- Annales XV 38

[ And no one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames, because again others openly hurled brands, and kept shouting that there was one who gave them authority, either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders. ]

Even if the Christians did not start the fire, it seems very likely that they did everything they could in order to keep the fire burning and to spread the flames.
.
 
Oct 7, 2012
1,916
383
NC
#17
'
Tacitus also writes:

nec quisquam defendere audebat, crebris multorum minis restinguere prohibentium, et quia alii palam facies iaciebant atque esse sibi auctorem vociferabantur, sive ut raptus licentius exercerent seu iussu.
---- Annales XV 38

[ And no one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames, because again others openly hurled brands, and kept shouting that there was one who gave them authority, either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders. ]

Even if the Christians did not start the fire, it seems very likely that they did everything they could in order to keep the fire burning and to spread the flames.
.

you don't demonstrate that with this quote.

The "one" who gave the plunderers authority could very well be referring to Nero, eh?
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 24, 2016
1,376
283
Victoria, BC
#18
'
I don't buy the hatchet job done on poor, artiste manqué Nero.

When the fire broke out, Nero was vacationing down south on the coast of Campania.

Also, the fire broke out in the docks area of Rome where the Jews, Christians and other lower-class scum of Rome were crowded together in high fire hazard tenements.
.
 

Similar Discussions