Jesus Christ of the Gospels Never Existed. He's a Myth and I Can Prove It (Part 1). (soul, priest)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My prayer is that I never hate someone as much as thrill hates Christians and Christianity.
I don't hate Christians. I feel sorrow for them to bone marrow because they have been so deluded by the lies of the Christian hierarchy. It's Christianity Incorporated that I hate because of their dishonesty. God said he hates those that make a lie, right? Well I do too because of all the lives Christianity continues to ruin.
4. Christianity places faith as one of its top virtues. The bible teaches that blind faith is virtuous and doubt is evil. Every atrocity committed in history was done by people with blind faith in an ideology. Blind faith is a recipe for exploitation and oppression. On the other hand, every advancement we’ve made in science, government, economics, the humanities, etc. were achieved by doubting, questioning and improving on the ideas our ancestors came up with. Curiosity and doubt open the door to truth, clarity and genius. Christianity takes those keys away from individuals and society as a whole.
I'd be happy to answer, Miss Hepburn. The Christians have been lying to people about Jesus since he was invented. And they have fooled billions and billions of people over the millennia to believe he was real when in fact even their own church hierarchy has been in on the scam since at least the 13th century, Look at what Pope Boniface VIII said about Jesus:
“The sums of money which the fable of Christ has produced the priests are incalculable.” [SIZE=2](c.1290)[/SIZE]
In 1514, Pope Leo X, at a lavish Good Friday banquet, in the Vatican, in the company of seven intimates, Leo X famously stated the following as he raised his toast glass to the air: [1]
“How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors.”
The pope's pronouncement, since characterized as the “most infamous and damaging statement about Christianity in the history of the Church”, was recorded in the diaries and records of both Pietro Cardinal Bembo (Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, 1842 reprint) and Paolo Cardinal Giovio (De Vita Leonis Decimi..., op. cit.), two associates who were witnesses to it.
First of all, everything I bolded is from an anti-Catholic site. All you're doing is cutting and pasting, taking what the site(s) say(s) at face value, without doing any research on your own. Plus, the same information is on other anti-Catholic sites. Same old, same old. But, there are a few problems....
Just to address the alleged quote from Leo X, the "Letters and Comments..." 1842 reprint, DOESN'T EXIST. The closest thing that DOES exist is called,"Petri Bembi Epistolraum Leonis decimi Pontificis Max. nomine scriptarum libri sexdecim ad Paulum tertium Pont. Max. Romam missi."
Some of the sites also state that the quote is cited in (Encyc. Brit., 14th Ed. Xix, pg. 217). Sounds official, right? Except that not many people bother to look in the book. Britannica's 14th edition was printed from 1929-1973. If you look online, Volume 19, page 217 is about Respiration; not Leo X. The article on Leo X is actually in Volume 13, pages 926-928. But no mention about Leo and his "fable."
Care to try again?
Quote:
Now if the Popes are in on the Jesus fable, yet they're telling the common folks Jesus was real, doesn't that bother you in the least? And if it bothered you wouldn't you want to try to get the truth out to the hapless people being fed these lies when the Church's inner hierarchy has been in the scam from the start?
That's why I make these threads. I cannot stand the hypocrisy of the church leaders, most of whom are probably closet atheists anyway and are in the Christian racket solely for the job security.
I don't hate Christians. I feel sorrow for them to bone marrow because they have been so deluded by the lies of the Christian hierarchy. It's Christianity Incorporated that I hate because of their dishonesty. God said he hates those that make a lie, right? Well I do too because of all the lives Christianity continues to ruin.
You are completely one-dimensional. You're obsessed. It's all you've got. That's all we see from you is hate posts. I really really feel bad for you. Honestly, it's just not healthy.
I don't hate Christians. I feel sorrow for them to bone marrow because they have been so deluded by the lies of the Christian hierarchy. It's Christianity Incorporated that I hate because of their dishonesty. God said he hates those that make a lie, right? Well I do too because of all the lives Christianity continues to ruin.
4. Christianity places faith as one of its top virtues. The bible teaches that blind faith is virtuous and doubt is evil. Every atrocity committed in history was done by people with blind faith in an ideology. Blind faith is a recipe for exploitation and oppression. On the other hand, every advancement we’ve made in science, government, economics, the humanities, etc. were achieved by doubting, questioning and improving on the ideas our ancestors came up with. Curiosity and doubt open the door to truth, clarity and genius. Christianity takes those keys away from individuals and society as a whole.
Quibble: Christianity did not spread like wildfire in the first century. It almost died out in the second, and was revived with Marcion's Gospel.
I think you are referring to the stories of Acts by using the word supposedly. I guess what I'm saying is that it's not surprising that there are few mentions of Christianity in the first century since there were very few, provincial believers.
I was not aware it almost died out but for Marcion. Do you have a source to point me to? My impression so far is that Marcionim was one of many sub-sects of Gnosticism, which was itself one of probably a dozen different "orthodoxies" competing for primacy. I haven't read of Marcionism being some sort of rescue of Christianity from obscurity.
Marcion was an extremely successful "church planter" to use modern evangelical parlance. After he was spurned by the Christians in Rome, he traveled a great deal establishing churches. He was apparently a very persuasive and commanding presence. But his success didn't seem to extend to establishing something that would outlive himself. From what I have read, the basic problem was that he made a total break from Judaism, to the extent of claiming Jehovah was an inferior and corrupt god, replaced by Jesus. In the ancient world especially, the notion was that "nothing new can be right" because if it were right, it would already be known. Christianity was a new religion, and the modern Christian orthodoxy probably succeeded in part because it styled itself as a direct successor to the much more ancient religion of Judaism and offered up the full revelation of the Jewish god. It could thus be new and old at the same time.
The main contribution of Marcion may have been his promotion of Paul's writings, which he seems to have been the first known curator of. Marion's canon was what we know of today as Paul's writings plus a condensed version of the Gospel of Luke. Interesting to speculate how different Christianity and world history would have been if Marcion had had his full way in things.
No, we don't know that the four gospels had no names attached to them during the late 1st to 2nd centuries. Since we have no manuscripts of the Gospels going back that far there is no way of knowing whether earlier manuscripts had names attached to them or not. It seems likely that as soon as more than one Gospel was in circulation names would have been attached in order to distinguish them from each other.
The names Mark and Luke have the ring of truth to them because if the early church was looking to attach names to lend authority to the Gospels they could have chosen better names. Since Mark wasn't an apostle and it is said that Peter was the source for Mark's gospel then why didn't they just use Peter's name unless Mark actually did write it. As for Luke, he too wasn't an apostle and better names with a better air of authority were available to attach to the gospel, unless, again, Luke actually did write it.
And you are talking about the 'lies' of the early church fathers rather than the NT writers themselves. Prove first of all that Paul didn't write any of the letters that bear his name. Even critical scholars acknowledge seven of Paul's letters as authentic meaning that there was a real Paul to write them. Now prove that Paul was willing to give up the comfortable life he had as a Pharisee in order to endure a life of hardship, beatings, stonings, hunger, and other hardships for something he knew to be a lie.
Also, if no one really knew who wrote the four gospels it's highly unlikely that all traditions agree that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the writers, unlike in the case with the book of Hebrews in which there are differences of opinion as who the writer of Hebrews was.
Since I don't the capacity to multi-quote I'll just take it point by point:
So you're saying that since we don't know who wrote the gospels it's okay to just assume it was the names that have become traditionally attached to them based on conjecture. Well, okay if you want to assume that. I can't prove it's not true, I can only go with the standard that if history says Irenaeus named them we have to go with that. And there already was a gospel of Peter in existence as I"m sure you know so "it seems likely" that they wouldn't want the confusion of having to refer to both by the same name.
In the end history has chosen to write that Irenaeus named the gospels and what they were called before that we have no idea so we can only make assumptions.
As for Paul I have acknowledged that secular Bible scholars are in agreement on the six authentic Pauline epistles. My objection goes to the fact that, like Jesus who was well-known past the borders of Palestine according to the synoptics yet isn't mentioned by a single historian whose work hasn't been tampered with in one way or another [Read: Josephus], Paul similarly, for someone so well known in the Mediterranean for all his missionary work and setting up churches and such, is also not mentioned by one historian even in passing. But you've made the assumption before that historians simply had more important things to write about than Paul so I guess that will always be your position.
But I thoroughly object to your stance that the Christian leadership was so pristine that it would never have lied to people about doctrine. Let's have a look at some of the attitudes of the early church fathers about falsehoods starting with Paul:
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my falsehoods unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7.
Or Eusebius:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation
Or Clement of Alexandria who apparently had his own definition of what truth should be:
"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)
Or John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and bishop of Constantinople
"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.
Or Tertullian writing that Pilate had converted to Christianity:
All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions,
he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius.
– Tertullian Apol. xxi and Anti-Nicene Fathers, iii, 35.
And I could go on and on but is it really necessary?
Do you still think the early church fathers were that honest that they would never tell a lie?
First of all, everything I bolded is from an anti-Catholic site. All you're doing is cutting and pasting, taking what the site(s) say(s) at face value, without doing any research on your own. Plus, the same information is on other anti-Catholic sites. Same old, same old. But, there are a few problems....
Just to address the alleged quote from Leo X, the "Letters and Comments..." 1842 reprint, DOESN'T EXIST. The closest thing that DOES exist is called,"Petri Bembi Epistolraum Leonis decimi Pontificis Max. nomine scriptarum libri sexdecim ad Paulum tertium Pont. Max. Romam missi."
Some of the sites also state that the quote is cited in (Encyc. Brit., 14th Ed. Xix, pg. 217). Sounds official, right? Except that not many people bother to look in the book. Britannica's 14th edition was printed from 1929-1973. If you look online, Volume 19, page 217 is about Respiration; not Leo X. The article on Leo X is actually in Volume 13, pages 926-928. But no mention about Leo and his "fable."
Care to try again?
No. It's "he said, she said". Where there's smoke, there's fire. Given how corrupt many of the Popes were I don't doubt for a second they believed Jesus was a fable to be used and sold as a means of attaining earthly pleasures. Read about the corrupt popes the church has had:
Pope Alexander VI
fathered several children with his many mistresses.
killed off rival cardinals to claim their property
Pope Leo X
sold indulgences to cover his lavish spending on himself
Pope Benedict IX
sold the papacy to his godfather, who became Pope Gregory VI. Then tried to steal it back.
It was nice to see that jimmie has a sense of humor!
But seriously, I think the bigger question is: when is a dream a vision? What separates my dream from one of our other poster's vision?
And this is where people like me turn to science. Because any individual can have what they think is a "vision". So what? My crazy aunt thought she had been given the power by god to bless people with holy water and ashes. "Visions" are a dime a dozen.
''The Christians have been lying to people about Jesus since he was invented''
And speaking of hostility, your threads are full of hostility toward Christianity. You do have a problem.
Yes, Thrillobyte is hostile toward christianity. As an atheist myself, that doesn't bother me since he has a right to his opinion. What bothers me is not his 'opinions', but his 'pronouncements' that, for example, "Jesus Christ of the Gospels Never Existed...and I can prove it". No, he hasn't and can't prove it.
Since I don't the capacity to multi-quote I'll just take it point by point:
So you're saying that since we don't know who wrote the gospels it's okay to just assume it was the names that have become traditionally attached to them based on conjecture. Well, okay if you want to assume that. I can't prove it's not true, I can only go with the standard that if history says Irenaeus named them we have to go with that. And there already was a gospel of Peter in existence as I"m sure you know so "it seems likely" that they wouldn't want the confusion of having to refer to both by the same name.
That's not what I said. And show your source to back up your claim that history says that Irenaeus named the Gospels.
Quote:
In the end history has chosen to write that Irenaeus named the gospels and what they were called before that we have no idea so we can only make assumptions.
Again, show your source that says that Irenaeus was responsible for naming the Gospels
Quote:
As for Paul I have acknowledged that secular Bible scholars are in agreement on the six authentic Pauline epistles.
Seven. Not six. Seven - Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon.
Quote:
My objection goes to the fact that, like Jesus who was well-known past the borders of Palestine according to the synoptics yet isn't mentioned by a single historian whose work hasn't been tampered with in one way or another [Read: Josephus], Paul similarly, for someone so well known in the Mediterranean for all his missionary work and setting up churches and such, is also not mentioned by one historian even in passing. But you've made the assumption before that historians simply had more important things to write about than Paul so I guess that will always be your position.
''Evidence for the reality of Paul comes from the dozens of writers who quoted him within a generation of his death. Every single Christian source agrees that he was a real person. Clement (AD 95) mentioned Paul. Peter {AD 60) mentioned Paul. Ignatius, Polycarp, and many other late first century and early second century writers mentioned Paul. That they could have been duped about the existence of the most important leader in all of Christianity while people who were alive when Paul was alive is beyond the possibility of belief. To say that they were deceived that Paul was an apostle and that he was a real person is to verge on irrationality. There is not a single example of an opponent of Christianity in the first two or three centuries who doubted his reality. It would have been like doubting that Seneca or Ovid or Cicero lived. Bart Ehrman, one of the biggest critics of the reliability of the Bible has debated unscholarly atheists who claim that Paul is not real and struggled to not laugh at his atheist friends for making the foolish and unfounded claim that Paul was not a real person.''
Historians of Paul's time didn't need to mention him for him to be a real person. Many writers did mention him. But since you reject anything written by Christian sources you automatically dismiss them as being invalid evidence. And that is irrational.
Quote:
But I thoroughly object to your stance that the Christian leadership was so pristine that it would never have lied to people about doctrine. Let's have a look at some of the attitudes of the early church fathers about falsehoods starting with Paul:
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my falsehoods unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7.
Or Eusebius:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation
Or Clement of Alexandria who apparently had his own definition of what truth should be:
"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)
Or John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and bishop of Constantinople
"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.
Or Tertullian writing that Pilate had converted to Christianity:
All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions,
he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius.
– Tertullian Apol. xxi and Anti-Nicene Fathers, iii, 35.
And I could go on and on but is it really necessary?
Do you still think the early church fathers were that honest that they would never tell a lie?
Without having looked at the context in which the statements of the church fathers you quoted were made I will not make any assumptions regarding them, and I will not take your word regarding their honesty or lack of it. However, your claim that the apostle Paul, first on your list, admitted to lying is based on not understanding that Paul was dealing with arguments made by some of his critics and objectors. Taking the position of a hypothetical objector Paul deals with a possible argument made by that objector. It is that hypothetical objector who makes the statement in Romans 3:7 - 'But, if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? Paul had already stated in v.5 that he was speaking in human terms.
As scholar F. F. Bruce put it in his commentary on Romans, the objector was making the argument that if
The end ---God's glory---is good; why is the means---my sin---counted wrong? Surely the end justifies the means?'
Romans, F. F. Bruce, p. 101
Paul then goes on to say in verse 8 that this argument made by the objector in verse 7 is what some people say Paul's gospel amounts to and he states that the charge is slanderous. Paul is refuting the charge made by the objector in verse 7 and by certain people . . . not admitting to it.
So, no. Paul was not admitting to being a liar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
