Ancient Confession Found: We Invented Jesus Christ

I showed this to my mom, who is a pious christian, and this also happens to be her field of research.

Upon having a discussion with her she says that there is historical evidence showing that there was a jewish man named jesus who was crucified around 33 BC. She also says that this is not surprising to her seeing as the rest of the biblical stories are shrouded in mystery as to their origins. She says this will not alter her beliefs, although it confirms mine.
 
Congrats, you found out that if you type in "black jesus christ" a lot of drawings of a black jesus pop up!

You are a fucking moron. I could type in "happy hitler" and say that's proof that hitler was widely accepted as a joyous person.
 
naughty-memes-religion.jpg
 
I said "based on" because they are not necessarily identical. In certain versions of the Old Testament, additional books are included. The point was that the history described in the Torah and Old Testament was before the time that Jesus Christ lived.
 
That is true to some extent but no the extent you are saying. Many mythlogical gods have had one to two similarities with Jesus but saying Jesus is nothing new is completely false.
 
You sir, are an idiot.

You do know that the Quran (correct spelling) was not written until 609 B.C.? Rhetorical question.

It would be pretty simple to write Jesus into a book 500+ years after he is alleged to have lived.
 
Look at this book from a historical perspective, it is complete shit.

One example, the Roman historian Tacitus clearly wrote about the existence of Christianity and Christ in his account of the burning of Rome.

"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 Judæa, 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their

deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and

perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and

burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired"

It seems counterintuitive that the Romans would try so hard to eradicate a religion that they helped create. And also why any would join said religion given the punishment for doing so.

Forget the fact that the Romans were able to forge an empire over the entire Mediterranean and beyond, their patricians (aristocrats) needed to invent an entire religion in order to deal with a few unruly Jews. Roman law and military might simply were not enough in this case.

All this "historian" has done is cherry-pick information from already well-studied historical accounts in order to come to convenient conclusions. His conclusions are not only convenient, they are bizarre, and seem invented solely to sell books and advance an agenda. It amuses me how all the staunchly atheist kids will mock Christians for accepting the bible on faith, yet will take this guy's revisionist history on (basically) faith solely because it conforms with what they want to believe, sounds familiar doesn't it?

 
On point. I'm sure he has some good evidence but there isn't any book that can be written today that will be able to tell the exact story of what happened 2,000 years ago.

I don't think it is necessarily wrong to try to sway people away from religion though....religion is too much about separation and that gets in the way of spirituality. You should do good things because your parents taught you good morals and you should be spiritual because it is the world you live in. But all organized religions are very 'meh' to me.
 
it is known and accepted that the Gospels were not written in the time of Jesus. they were written after the fact, as a recollection or for the preservation of a previously oral tradition. the earliest gospel (the gospel of Mark, i think) was written about 65 AD with the last (the gospel of John) written right before 100 AD i believe. and to say Jesus never existed is just false. Roman records have indicated there was a man named Jesus who was crucified around 33 AD. the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus both wrote of a man named Jesus in the early first century AD.
 
Horus born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.

Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.” He was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” He was identified with the Ram or Lamb. His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

 
That was an oversight on my part. Proofread your posts. The Quran was written 609 A.D. My point is still valid. It was written much after Christ's lifetime.
 
Oh PRWEB, how I have fallen for you before.

As much as I want this presentation to be real, I doubt it. Although, I don't believe all the jesus stuff and yeah, it was mostly made up (he probably did exist, he probably was crucified, but mary wasn't a virgin).

Another false headline to get me excited.

 
Great post.

The other thing that doesn't make any sense is this. You couldn't just create Jesus "the character" they would have had to fabricate essentially everything in the New Testament.

The likelihood of anyone being able to pull off something like that and convincing people to follow a religion based on history that they had never heard of is pretty remote.
 
Since it was written so much later, I would not be surprised if every reference in it to "Jesus" was taken from other literature. I was in no way defending the validity of christianity.
 
I don't disagree with that, however I personally feel that religion is fine as long as it is used as a guide on one's own life and not to control the lives of others.

I have the same problem with fervent evangelicals as I do with pretentious atheists. Both claim to have a monopoly on the truth.

It's fine to dissuade people from religion through reason, but not via unfounded theories presented as truth (like this guy's book).

 
The Mormons have done it, and in a more modern time when people shouldn't be as gullible.

They believe that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel that sailed to America in submarine type ships. This is inspite of the fact that we can genetically track them as coming over from the Asian/American landbridge.

Convincing people to believe made-up history is not hard.
 
^this sums up nicely how I feel about religion. It's always been for the money and power. I hate the Catholic Church with a passion so I hope this is true. Also I can't wait to see Italy's reaction. They're 99% catholic
 
I'm actually doing some research for school about the new theory. That we were great navigators and went island hopping to America.
 
Tell that to the Romans that were persecuted for practicing their faith before Constantine became emperor.

Pick up a history book.

 
What the are you talking about? The only thing remotely true in this is Dionysus being god of the vine. The rest is complete bullshit.
 
Haha I studied Italian history for 6 years of my life I think I know a little bit about the Roman Empire. I don't doubt that for the first millennia or so the Catholic Church wasn't that corrupt but for the last thousand years or so the church has been about money and power. Also I dont doubt the possibility that he existed but I highly doubt his magical powers
 
I hope this is true so we can show all of those stupid christians how dumb they are for not having the same beliefs as us superior intellectual logical atheists.
 
This dude finds hidden meaning in ancient text hidden right under our nose the whole time? Hmmmmm I smell Dan Brown.

How are you Atheists so quick to tout this work and you Christians so quick to dismiss it? You haven't even let the dude present his shit yet.

You have to buy tickets to the symposium and pay for the film though? What I really smell is someone profiteering off all you hyper polarized pricks.
 
Considering that the Roman Empire converted to Christianity in 313 AD, that would be possibly the biggest backfire in history.
 
That's pretty much 99% of NS religious discussion. People go out of their way to loudly preach about how stupid religion is and anyone who follows it.

Odd that they also complain about Christians "throwing the Bible in their face". It's idiotic at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top