Religion, Faith, and Spirituality : Jesus is not coming back

Jesus is not coming back

Because he never existed in the first place.

Dare to touch the edge and you shall bleed

Re: It is confirmed

You are a moron

You're a fucking asshole! I admire that.

Re: It is confirmed

For not believing in a kids story?

Dare to touch the edge and you shall bleed

Re: It is confirmed

Children wrote the Bible? I hate to break it to you but …

Uh, look man. Make tool! Caveman. No fool!
I GameBoy - H. superior

Re: It is confirmed

Kids didn’t write The Cat in the Hat either, Gameboy. That shit’s still a kid’s story.

Re: It is confirmed

I'm an atheist but it's a bit pretentious to dismiss all religion as a children's story. As if. We ain't so smart. It's great literature at least.

Uh, look man. Make tool! Caveman. No fool!
I GameBoy - H. superior

Re: It is confirmed

Christianity was created by the Roman Empire as a way to calm the masses and to make rich people in power even richer.Giving 10 percent of your wealth to the chuch. I bet the Roman Catholic Church is worth billions.

Re: It is confirmed

No, that's not true. It was a mystery religion began by John the Baptist. Politically, it was a way for poor Jews to take control away from the wealthy Pharisees. It was the religion of slaves for four centuries before Rome ever adopted it as its own.

Uh, look man. Make tool! Caveman. No fool!
I GameBoy - H. superior

Re: It is confirmed

It was a mystery religion began by John the Baptist.
I don't think so. The Mandaeans seem to have originally been their own sect, split off from the 'Parsees' (Zoroastrians; interestingly enough, so were the Pharisees. The name of the latter sect was derived from 'Parsees', or 'Persians'). These exhibited Persian innovations like a judgement leading to an afterlife in either heaven or hell). Christianity seems to have begun as one of the Greek Mystery sects, whose founding document was an allegory which has survived as the now greatly altered 'Gospel of Mark' (originally transvaluated from the Homeric Epics - see Dennis R. MacDonald, 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝐸𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑜𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘 - https://www.amazon.com/Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613). This sect became what was later known as gnostic Chrisianity.

As an allegory, the work was originally intended to be understood esoterically; non-initiates were either permitted to read it, or otherwise gained access to it. It's possible that the sect's hierophants encouraged this, in order to create a body of interested believers from which to select those who exhibited a talent or potential for understanding the book's mysteries. But it seems to have gotten away from them, and became commonly understood as some sort of literal history by both the 'psychics' and 'sarkics', non-initiates. These began to interpret "Mark" as coterminous with the body of Jewish literature in Greek, i.e. the Septuagint, and 'Jesus' as the Son of the God of the Jews, rather than the aloof 'Father of Lights' worshiped by the gnostics. Here were shaped the contours of the conflict which came to characterize Christianity, the proto-Catholics versus the gnostic Marcionites.

"Mark" was adapted by more than one proto-Catholic community, independently by the Matthean community and the Lukan community. They both copied and utilized some 95% of the text of Mark, freely altering what they thought of as its deficiencies, like the lack of a birth narrative for the Savior character. ("Mark" never had one because its Savior was never born.) Gnostic attempts to clarify the message merely served as a roadmap for where the proto-Catholics were taking their version of the religion; anti-Marcionite features were written into both Matthew and Luke, as a polemical back-and-forth between the sects began. In battling, the two sides gradually transformed each other. In the 3rd century, proto-Catholics began to make alterations to manuscripts of "Mark" in order to make it more consistent with their own gospels. By the late 4th century, they gifted it with a resurrection scene comparable to their own gospels (the great uncials of the early 4th century, like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, still lacked this scene).

Much of the details in Matthean and Lukan narratives were derived from the Septuagint, and also from works by Philo and Josephus - geographical names, and the names of persons like John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate. Whereas Josephus' mentions of these latter two persons were more or less historical recountings, the latter three gospels' embellishments were as far from the facts as 𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑎ℎ𝑎𝑚 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑛: 𝑉𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝐻𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 is from the life of Abraham Lincoln. To tame a rival sectarian religion (the Mandaeans), the proto-Catholics co-opted the name of one of its revered leaders, and depicted him as subordinate to Christ. The cultural impact of gospel narratives across decades and even centuries caused Mandaeans to craft their own polemical narratives in response, in which Christ became a character in the Mandaean scriptures.

That's more or less how John the Baptist wound up a character in the gospels, rather than being a luminary in an entirely unrelated sect that he originally was.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Jesus is coming back

Re: Jesus is not coming back

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
The Guardian article, written by Simon Gathercole (https://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/simon-gathercole), is a pretty poor comeback to the claim that Jesus Christ did not exist. Gathercole is a Christian theologian, so his perspective can hardly be said to be objective; after all, his job is predicated on belief in Christ.

The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul, and scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died.
This statement is less than honest. It would be more accurate to say that "most 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 scholars agree" to what is essentially a faith-based Christian position. Critical NT scholarship does not unanimously agree that the epistles are the earliest writings about Jesus, much less that they were written in the 1st century, or even that they were written by Paul. Nor is there critical consensus on the authorship of the gospels, for which some critical scholars have compelling arguments were written from the middle to late 2nd century.
It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place – under the aegis of the Roman empire – where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.
Not really. It's much the same reasoning being employed by modern far righters and white supremacists when they like to cite claims that there were blacks who fought for the South in the Civil War, or why H.K. Edgerton is a popular black figure for them. The point of the New Testament was to argue that God had rejected the Jews as his people, and that he had chosen a new set of followers. It was believed that the most effective depicted herald for a message of this type was a Jew.
the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus
This is flatly untrue, and it's part of how one knows that Gathercole is pitching a non-critical Christian readership, since only believers still buy into this claim. Josephus does not mention Christ at all. The "2 mentions" to which you allude, the "Testimonia Flavianum" (Antiquities 18.3.3; 20.9.1) are interpolations unattested before the 4th century CE. Within critical scholarship, Ken Olson has made a compelling case that the larger of the two passages (18.3.3) was composed in its entirety by Eusebius.
http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5871
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

The secondary passage, the so-called "Jamesian reference," has been answered ably by Richard Carrier in his book, 𝑂𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠: 𝑊ℎ𝑦 𝑊𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐻𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑏𝑡 (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), pp. 337-338. In fact, Carrier puts to rest any possibility that either passage is genuine.
About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus
Tacitus' Annals 15:44 was unattested by anyone prior to its discovery in the Laurentian Library in the 16th century. The manuscript itself dates from the 11th century. That's pretty late, and doesn't explain why *nobody* knew this tale or repeated it for the entire millennium prior to that point. The suggestion that 15:44 is an 11th century forgery is strong, no matter how many theologians and faith-based scholars one assembles to testify they believe in it.

Typical apologetics renderings of the text are usually inaccurate, for the manuscript from the Laurentian Library reads "Chrestians" instead of "Christians," agreeing with Suetonius's mention of "Chrestus," a Jewish rabblerouser alive in Rome during the reign of Claudius.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm
https://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-jesus-myth-tacitus/

The Letter of Pliny to Trajan, assuming it's genuine, attests only to the existence of Christians. Like the Tacitus passage, there is no mention of Jesus.
In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer.
Ah, yes - the Toledot Yeshu. And how early is that "earliest literature"? From the early Middle Ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu#Composition_and_dating
This makes it more than probable that the Toledot Yeshu is a polemical response to gospel claims, not any sort of early independent witness to Jesus.
we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.
Well, that's certainly disingenuous, to say the least, since most of the pre-Nicene and Nicene patristic literature was devoted to demonstrating Jesus existed as a man - against gnostics who insisted Jesus was non-corporeal, or only "appeared" to be human, and pagan skeptics who said Jesus was "invented" (Trypho, from Justin's 'Dialogue'). It's also the focus of most of the Catholic stratum of the New Testament, which kept insisting that the ostensible authors were eyewitnesses, and that anyone who taught that Jesus was non-corporeal was 'antichrist.' The late 2nd century pseudepigrapher of 2 Peter 1:16 attests to challenges to claims about Jesus when he writes, "For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." Clearly someone was saying that they were fables.
It is worth noting, though, that the two mainstream historians who have written most against these hypersceptical arguments are atheists: Maurice Casey (formerly of Nottingham University) and Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina).
While Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman may be atheists, their arguments against the non-historicity of Jesus have not been. Ehrman in particular has performed badly, with his 2012 book 𝐷𝑖𝑑 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡? 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑡ℎ exhibiting a poor grasp of Mythicist arguments.

And that's pretty much all Gathercole can muster. It may seem impressive to Christians, but not to anyone else.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Jesus is coming back

The Guardian article, written by Simon Gathercole (https://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/simon-gathercole), is a pretty poor comeback to the claim that Jesus Christ did not exist. Gathercole is a Christian theologian, so his perspective can hardly be said to be objective; after all, his job is predicated on belief in Christ.

So you would prefer an atheist source? Does that meet your standard for objectivity?

The point of the New Testament was to argue that God had rejected the Jews as his people, and that he had chosen a new set of followers.

Never happened. God never rejected the Jews as His people.

Question: What is the earliest reference to the existance of christians, not Christ, but christians in Israel that you do accept?

You're a fucking asshole! I admire that.

Re: Jesus is not coming back

So you would prefer an atheist source? Does that meet your standard for objectivity?
That depends on what they have to say on the subject. Nearly all atheists were raised in religion, and most take for granted many of the claims of the religions with which they were raised. While dismissing on the surface the miraculous claims regarding Jesus, they regard as reasonable the mere claim that he existed, without realizing that likewise, any and all of this material are literary borrowings, and themselves predicated upon supposed miraculous bases.
Never happened. God never rejected the Jews as His people.
Matthew 21:43, "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits" seems pretty clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism
https://medium.com/solus-jesus/five-common-anti-semitic-christian-teachings-ca72d5ac10aa
Question: What is the earliest reference to the existance of christians, not Christ, but christians in Israel that you do accept?
It's important to bear in mind that the appellative "Christian" originally meant "one who is anointed," rather than "a follower of someone named 'Christ'". As late as 169-183 CE, that was the way Bishop Theophilus of Antioch defined the term ("Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God" - 𝐴𝑑 𝐴𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑐𝑢𝑚, 1:12). This was that same Theophilus to whom both the Lukan gospel and 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑠 of the late 2nd/early 3rd century were dedicated, as a proto-Catholic corrective to his point of view.

"Christians 𝑖𝑛 𝐼𝑠𝑟𝑎𝑒𝑙"? Never. The attribution of Christians to 1st century Judea would be akin to accepting a religious fictional story that depicted Scientologists as living and interacting in the 19th century. It's anachronistic. The earliest reference to "Christians" would seem to come from Egypt of the early 2nd century, referring to the 'anointed' worshipers of Serapis; Serapis was their "Christ" ('𝐿𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑎𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑠,' 134 CE
http://robertmascharan.blogspot.com/2013/07/chrestus-forging-of-g-d.html).
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑠 tells the truth when it says that "the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (11:26), but it is incorrect as to 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛, and to what it meant at that time and place.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Jesus is coming back

In other words unless they whisper sugar in your ears [confirm what you already believe] then no. Still I present to you C.S. Lewis https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/node/48

You are taking Matthew out of context. Jesus was speaking specifically to the pharisees. Not about the Jewish people as a whole. God does not break his promises. Doesnt happen. And He has made multiple binding promises to the nation of Israel making them His chosen ones forever. Period.

Christain was a term originally meant as an insult. The first believers called themselves followers of The Way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
Point is it was already wide spread both in Israel and the middle east by the time it was noted. It also was close enough to the purported time of the events for people who lived during that time to still be around. They would have been able to dispute it if it were made up.

They'd have been like "I dont know where you got your information but there was no such man in Jerusalem on that date nor was there a triple crucifixion or and talk of a man rising from the dead."

But that is not what you see. There exists no such source who lived anywhere close to that area during that time that disputes the existence of Jesus or the source of this new belief system. Indeed without Jesus there is no credible explanation for the existence of the church.

You're a fucking asshole! I admire that.

Re: Jesus is not coming back

In other words unless they whisper sugar in your ears [confirm what you already believe] then no.
Before you post statements like that, you ought to stop and ask yourself if it applies better to yourself than the person you're saying it to. C.S. Lewis? 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦?
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝 “𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭”
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/excommunications/2015/02/what-christians-mean-when-they-use-the-word-atheist/
Christain was a term originally meant as an insult. The first believers called themselves followers of The Way.
Christ𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛 as an insult? I can believe that.

This link is a better Wiki article than the one you linked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
There are more resources. Yours is a limited version of the page. Still, I am uncertain why you appear to try to use it to source the statement you made which the citation follows, since as far as I can tell, it does not come from there. Nor is the link particularly helpful to your claims; a lot of the material debunks various apologetical claims of support for the historicity of Jesus.
Point is it was already wide spread both in Israel and the middle east by the time it was noted. It also was close enough to the purported time of the events for people who lived during that time to still be around. They would have been able to dispute it if it were made up.

That they did dispute it is evident from the examples I listed, as well as from the forms of the arguments Christians were making in articulating their own claims. That more of the kinds of pushback that led to these claims has not survived is understandable, since transmission of manuscripts from the early Common Era was made exclusively through Christian hands, and included very little that was not of utility to their claims (for instance, it's why we no longer have the works of Marcion, or of Celsus).
They'd have been like "I dont know where you got your information but there was no such man in Jerusalem on that date nor was there a triple crucifixion or and talk of a man rising from the dead."
That would not obtain if the gospel stories did not exist in the 1st century; there would be nothing to gainsay. That is the better, simpler explanation for the kind of silence you're trying to leverage as support for the stories. That works like 1 Corinthians are from the 2nd century, and its interpolations from later still, makes passages like 15:6 ("After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep") the worst, most cynical kind of punking, since the anonymous pseudepigraphal author 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑠 it's not true, and is preying upon his readership's gullibility and lack of awareness that the epistle isn't from the 1st century. (The "500 brethren" is a reference to the 500 Roman soldiers set to guard the tomb of Jesus from 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑜𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑢𝑠/𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒, yet another pseudepigraphal work.)
Indeed without Jesus there is no credible explanation for the existence of the church.
Silliest statement ever. To underscore just how poor that line of argument is, try these on for size:
Indeed without Tammuz there is no credible explanation for the existence of the cult.

Indeed without Bacchus there is no credible explanation for the existence of the Mysteries.

Indeed without Herakles there is no credible explanation for the existence of all of his shrines and legends.

Indeed without the Olympian gods there is no credible explanation for the existence of Greek religious observations, shrines, and local cults.
I've encountered Christian apologists who, when countered by this observation, went for broke and decided to claim 'they all existed; all of them! Every god, demigod, or hero ever worshiped by mankind. If not, where could they have come from?' That kind of absurdity also extends to every fantasy character: 'there is simply no possible explanation for characters like Batman and Superman, and the vast amount of material relaying their exploits except that they 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑡 have existed.' 'Spiderman is set in New York; New York exists, therefore Spiderman must be real.' (This latter is analogous to believers pointing to the Pilate stone as proof that gospel narratives must have happened.)

The existence of Christians is not evidence for the existence of Christ.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Jesus is not coming back

Agree to disagree. My faith is unshaken. Jesus Christ IS the only begotten son of God. He lived among us. He gave His life as a sacrafice for our sins. He rose again and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will return for His people. He will return again to reign for 1000 years. He will judge the living and the dead. Everyone will bow before Him and confess that He is Lord. YOU will bow before him and confess that He is Lord.

You're a fucking asshole! I admire that.

Re: Jesus is not coming back

Amen. ^ Everything he said is accurate and will happen. Repent and let Jesus into your heart.

The only poster who had his account banned 4 times without ever breaking any rules each of those times.

Re: Jesus is not coming back

Mmm-hmm. Sure.

I accept your capitulation in this discussion.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: Jesus is not coming back

Capitulation??? LOL!

You're a fucking asshole! I admire that.

Re: Jesus is not coming back

That's not edgy.

Uh, look man. Make tool! Caveman. No fool!
I GameBoy - H. superior

Re: Jesus is not coming back

Jesus was a fictional character conjured up by the rebellious iscariots against the roman empire.

Hrabak is nothing but an incestuous, shit eating goat fucking jew.

Re: Espergers

Get your car key and dig the SHIT out of your ear Espergers. How many times I got to tell you to fuck off? Even the people who agree with you don't want to actually hear from you. Time to go fuck yourself again.

You're a fucking asshole! I admire that.

Re: Jesus is not coming back

Well that's a relief.



Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 😼

Re: Jesus is not coming back

He exists in the hearts and minds of everyone. He is inside us all. Can you feel him coming?

Re: Jesus is not coming back

He came!

Re: Jesus is not coming back

If Jesus was real, he was black.

I'm Jake Steed! B I T C H !

Re: Jesus is not coming back

And gay!

Re: Jesus is not coming back

He'd be bi!

I'm Jake Steed! B I T C H !

Re: Jesus is not coming back

Yes he is. Jesús Malverde!

Mean people suck.
Top