Christmas "Unwrapped"

The Magi actually visited Mary and Joseph, months after the birth of their child.

They weren't present at his birth.

The "star" of Bethlehem might have been a comet.

Assuming there was a Jesus at all, which some doubt, the birth narratives are entirely made up by whoever wrote "Matthew" or "Luke." So there are no actual truths to get at. He was presumably born somewhere at some time of year and nobody really has any idea where or when.

The Fox Christmas Tree fire was not an isolated incident:

In Oakland, Calif., at least one person set fire to a 52-foot Christmas tree in Jack London Square this week, according to the Sacramento Bee. An aerosol can was found near the blaze. In Chicago, the Christmas tree in Washington Park was set on fire for the third year in a row, reported CBS Chicago.

R3 is absolutely right.

Whatever, R3.

It doesn't change the fact that everything about Christmas is totally made up.

Especially the religious aspect.

Lightning is gonna strike you, OP!!

So what if the Christmas story is made up? What difference does it make?

[quote]3. Jesus was probably born in the Fall, not in December. In the cold months in Israel, shepherds usually don't let their sheep out to pasture, nor would Mary have given birth outdoors in the cold manger.

Bethlehem is not in Israel - it's in the Palestinian West Bank.

[quote] Bethlehem is not in Israel - it's in the Palestinian West Bank.

This was 2000+ years ago. There was NO "Palestinian West Bank."

Fucking idiot.

r10 There was no Israel either.

Israel has existed for thousands of years, R11.

Now please shut up. You're embarrassing yourself.

There is no record of a Roman Census that was used as the excuse for Mary and Joseph to go back to their home town Bethlehem.

Plus what government, in its right mind, would stop all commerce for weeks on end, make everyone travel home, for a census?

That whole thing about a Messiah called Jesus....

A major mistake is the mistranslation of how Old Testament prophets described the birth of the Messiah. While they said he would be born to a young girl (virgin = young), it was mistaken to mean actual virgin.

So those trying to make Jesus the Messiah concocted this wild story about how Mary had to be a Virgin--She was born without original sin; she and her older husband never had sex; she was visited by the angel Gabriel informing her of her pregnancy by God.

Bethlehem and Nazareth were in the Kingdom of Judea.

The winter solstice has been celebrated around the world by different cultures for eons. It is the moment the days start getting longer and the growing season is around the corner.

What a coincidence that Xmas is smack during that solstice!

[quote] Plus what government, in its right mind, would stop all commerce for weeks on end, make everyone travel home, for a census?

It's because Herod feared that this child would steal the rulership from him, which was foretold by his fortune tellers.

[quote] Herod appears in the Gospel of Matthew, which describes an event known as the Massacre of the Innocents. According to this account, after the birth of Jesus, a group of magi from the East visited Herod to inquire the whereabouts of "the one having been born king of the Jews", because they had seen his star in the east (or, according to certain translations, at its rising) and therefore wanted to pay him homage.

[quote] Herod, as King of the Jews, was alarmed at the prospect of a usurper. Herod assembled the chief priests and scribes of the people and asked them where the "Anointed One" (the Messiah, Greek: Ὁ Χριστός, ho Christos) was to be born. They answered, in Bethlehem, citing Micah 5:2.

[quote] Herod therefore sent the magi to Bethlehem, instructing them to search for the child and, after they had found him, to "report to me, so that I too may go and worship him". However, after they had found Jesus, they were warned in a dream not to report back to Herod. Similarly, Joseph was warned in a dream that Herod intended to kill Jesus, so he and his family fled to Egypt.

[quote] When Herod realized he had been outwitted, he gave orders to kill all boys of the age of two and under in Bethlehem and its vicinity.

There were many men during that time in Israel claiming to be the Messiah. Everyone thought it was close to the End of Times so there were many Messiah cults. John the Baptist, for example, headed one.

The Jesus cult ultimately won out historically (mainly because it became the official religion of the Roman Empire). The Jesus story specifically makes a reference to John the Baptist agreeing that Jesus is the true Messiah and how Jesus baptized him. That was a specific effort to gain all of John the Baptist's followers.

The irony is that Easter should be the major Christian holiday because it was that act that gained them entrance to heaven.

Easter, is of course, just another Spring Solstice celebration.

While Mary may have been a virgin when the seed of God was implanted, she sure wasn't a virgin after Jesus popped out of the canal

What are some Christmas "traditions" that are totally false?

1. The "three wise men" were actually psychics/magicians/sorcerers, originally sent by Herod to kill Jesus. Hence, the name "Magi."

Actual biblical historians recognize that the "Wise Men" is a fable added to the myth of the alleged child's birth.

2. The "Star of Bethlehem" was not a "holy" occurrence, but an astronomical sign used to lead the Magi to Jesus, in order to kill him.

There was no Star, there were no "Wise Men," and not explication of the biblical texts has suggested that the Magi were intending harm to the alleged child.

3. Jesus was probably born in the Fall, not in December. In the cold months in Israel, shepherds usually don't let their sheep out to pasture, nor would Mary have given birth outdoors in the cold manger.

Responsible scholars unhindered by "faith" or Christian apologetics recognize that there was no historical Jesus. The life stories were created, like those of Hercules and other mythic figures, to make the concept more "real" to concrete thinkers, and to set scenes where imaginary "fulfillment of scripture" could be claimed.

4. Christmas is based on the pagan Roman tradition of "Saturnalia," held in honor of the Roman god Saturn, and was usually held between mid and late December.

So? It also was chosen because of it's proximity to the solstice and conveniently located at the time of Yule.

5. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "The use of evergreen trees, wreaths, and garlands to symbolize eternal life was a custom of the ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Hebrews. Tree worship was common among the pagan Europeans and survived their conversion to Christianity in the Scandinavian customs of decorating the house and barn with evergreens at the New Year to scare away the devil and of setting up a tree for the birds during Christmas time."

Horse shit, as far as the claims about Christmas and actual pre-Christian Scandinavian customs, which were numerous and diverse.

The Vikings and Saxons worshiped trees.

Please. Not true. So simplistic and untrue. Are you pulling these out of a trivia game or from your grandma's Reader's Digest from 1975?

Anything else?

[quote] Easter, is of course, just another Spring Solstice celebration.

That's another one.

The rabbits associated with Easter are actually based on pagan fertility rites performed during the Spring Solstice.

[quote] As Christianity began to sweep across Europe, many pagan festivals and traditions were absorbed and adapted into the Christian faith. It made sense that the already ingrained concept of new life being celebrated during springtime should become associated with Jesus conquering death and being reborn.

[quote] What about the Easter egg? Where did that come from? Dating back to ancient times, eggs, like the rabbits, have also been symbols of new life and fertility in various cultures. As Christianity absorbed pagan spring traditions, the egg was also adapted to become the perfect representation of Jesus’ resurrection; the eggshell symbolising the tomb, whilst the cracking of it representing Jesus’ emergence; life-conquering death.

Christianity is just a melding of customs of other religions. Hinduism has a god named Krishna, born of a virgin birth. Coincidence?

[quote] Christianity is just a melding of customs of other religions

But that's the problem, R24.

Christians act all high and mighty and pious and religious, while looking down their noses at you.

Little do they know that all of their practices and observances are based on pagan rituals from thousands of years ago.

It's all tainted by paganism.

But you try to tell them that, and they will deny it and call you a liar.

When Jesus said “blessed are the cheesemakers“, it was not meant to be taken literally. It referred to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Re20 and R23, I don't mean to be pedantic, but the solstices only take place in Winter and Summer. In Autumn and Spring, we have equinoxes.

[quote] Responsible scholars unhindered by "faith" or Christian apologetics recognize that there was no historical Jesus.

Not true. Historians completely unhindered by faith or apologetics acknowledge that there is as much evidence for Jesus' existence as you would expect of someone of his station and time and that his existence is the best explanation of the movement that rose after him.

[quote] The life stories were created, like those of Hercules and other mythic figures, to make the concept more "real" to concrete thinkers, and to set scenes where imaginary "fulfillment of scripture" could be claimed.

Where is your direct evidence for this? You demand direct evidence for the existence of Jesus but this is true entirely without evidence?

[quote] Easter, is of course, just another Spring Solstice celebration.

What exactly are you suggesting? That Christians invented Easter as a way of claiming a spring fesitval?

Passover was a spring festival. Jesus went to Jerusalem at Passover and was killed. Easter, as in the memorial of Jesus' death (and resurrection, if you are believer) is in the spring for that reason.

Eggs and bunnies have nothing to do with that.

No, there is a lack of good evidence supporting the existence of Jesus.

If you think there is, provide links. The Romans kept good records and they had no record of Jesus, for starters.

[quote] The Romans kept good records and they had no record of Jesus, for starters.

What records are you talking about?

[quote]nor would Mary have given birth outdoors in the cold manger.

There wasn't any room at the Inn, dumbass.

It's amazing there are still so many people who still think all the Xtian lies are true.

There's no god. There's no Mary. There's no Joseph. There's no virgin birth. There's no Jesus. There's no crucifixion. There's no resurrection.

People crack me up believing in any of this.

"Little do they know "

And that is the basis of all religions, control over those who know little

[quote] There's no god. There's no Mary. There's no Joseph. There's no virgin birth.

With you...

[quote] There's no Jesus. There's no crucifixion.

Why?

[quote] There's no resurrection.

Back with you.

Erna (né Cunt) frequently dressed up as Mary Magdalene and presented hole to Roman soldiers.

Zero evidence of "Jesus" and as said above, it is a fantasy tale, as are all religions.

And yes, we have histories written by Romans, and they do not make any mention of Jesus.

[quote]What are some Christmas “traditions” that are totally false?

That people still want to hear Mariah Carey sing All I Want For Christmas.

Even the Jews didn't remember any Jesus...

R28, let me assure you that the points you're making are far too subtle for the DL's resident religious historians.

[quote] And yes, we have histories written by Romans, and they do not make any mention of Jesus.

Why would they make mention of Jesus. This is an argument from silence.

[quote] Even the Jews didn't remember any Jesus...

Actually the rabbinic texts mention Jesus and they don't question his existence.

[quote]Even the Jews didn't remember any Jesus...

Well they had him killed, so of course they "don't remember"

[quote]There wasn't any room at the Inn, dumbass.

They should've booked ahead on hotels.com.

So, Jesus walks into an inn, hands the clerk 3 nails and says "Can you put me up for the night?"

[quote]There's no Jesus. There's no crucifixion.

Well then what the hell was that whole crucifix masturbation scene in The Exorcist all about? Huh? Didn’t think of that now, did you?

Next, you guys are gonna tell us there's no such thing as Santa Claus, either...

[quote] Even the Jews didn't remember any Jesus...

Josephus made contemporaneous reference to Jesus.

R48 - what!?!

Jesus is believed to have been born in April, according to experts, not the Fall.

How on earth do they prove the Magi were Herod’s assassins?

They were Zoroastrian emissaries from Persia.

OP is making those Magi claims up.

Prove it, bitch.

Those passage are extremely debatable, r49, and not contemporaneous. Around 50 years after Jesus' death, assuming the rough outline of the Jesus story is true and he died around 33 A.D.

And if experts are relying on stories of shepherds and mangers and Angelic appearances, not to mention a very weird and crazy census, r51, they are being really gullible.

[quote]How on earth do they prove the Magi were Herod’s assassins?

There are plenty of paintings depicting them with their uzis.

Yes, Mrs. Claus, there is a Virginia.

[Quote] Historians completely unhindered by faith or apologetics acknowledge that there is as much evidence for Jesus' existence as you would expect of someone of his station and time and that his existence is the best explanation of the movement that rose after him.

Could you provide an example? No historian I know would just say “There must have been a Jesus because everyone believes in him.”

[Quote] Josephus made contemporaneous reference to Jesus.

It is universally accepted that it was inserted but others afterwards. Josephus actually calls him “the son of God” which is the giveaway that he didn’t write it.

Even people soon after the death of Jesus were uncomfortable that there were no written references to him so stuck this line in there.

[Quote] What exactly are you suggesting? That Christians invented Easter as a way of claiming a spring fesitval?

No, it’s just very coincidental that the two most important events in Christianity just happen to occur when the two most important events of nearly every other religion also occur

The date that Easter falls on is calculated as being the first Sunday following the first full moon following the Spring Equinox. Now, why would that be?

[quote] How on earth do they prove the Magi were Herod’s assassins?

They're Persians.

[quote] The date that Easter falls on is calculated as being the first Sunday following the first full moon following the Spring Equinox. Now, why would that be?

It's not random.

"Easter" coincides with the Jewish Passover, during the month of Nisan. I believe it falls on the Sunday after Passover.

Jesus was a gay prostitute. He serviced all the Roman soldiers, especially Longpinus, who was his sugar daddy. History was recorded for the Old Testament in a passage that translates to "Jesus's 50 Soldier Seed Spill Weekend". Kissing under the mistletoe is a tradition that began when Jesus gave blowjobs in the park under a mistletoe bush. The classic story of The True Meaning of Christmas. Praise Jesus, and he'll do the same!

Easter is tied to Passover, because the Biblical texts refer to Jesus coming to celebrate Passover with his disciples shortly before his crucifixion. The Jews have had a system using their lunar calendar for figuring out when the various calendars should be for thousands of years, unrelated to spring festivals or equinoxes.

Although it is clear that much of the Gospels is fictionalized material, it doesn't follow that Jesus is a fiction. (That's a separate idea from whether or not he was divine). It seems entirely plausible that there was an influential teacher/philosopher roaming around Judea in that historical time, someone who was admired enough that people were inspired to write about his life. If we can believe that Socrates (who didn't write down anything) existed because other people wrote about him, we can believe that Jesus existed for the same reason. It's not definitive proof, but it's rather unlikely that people first made up a person or god and then started to write about him.

Obviously Christmas is not the actual birthday of Jesus, and it also seems obvious that it didn't occur exactly at 1 AD. For one thing, Herod was already dead then.

[quote] Although it is clear that much of the Gospels is fictionalized material

That itself is a myth that the Gospels are fictionalized.

You'll have to do better than that. (Counter-examples). Dates don't line up with either astrological events or political events as described by people who were living contemporaneously with those events, which means that they were poorly reconstructed about a century after Jesus supposedly lived and died.

Next you will tell me that there is no Santa Claus!

Josephus was born after the fictitious character Jesus died. Josephus had zero first hand knowledge of Jesus. There is no record of Jesus among contemporary historical accounts. ZERO folks.

Time to head back to that Bible playland and commune with all the animals on the ark, lol. Oh yes, ZERO evidence of any catastrophic flood wiping out the earth. And on and on.

This thread is another example of why my DL subscription is a bargain.

What about Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer? Any clues about whether he's real or not?

The first evidence that Christmas was celebrated on 25th Dicember is in the Chronograph of 354, wich is a calendar and an almanac produced in Rome by Filocalus for Valentinus. When Christians started to celebrate the birth of Jesus on this date is simply an information we don't have, unlike Easter: the rule cited by R61 was established by the first council of Nicaea summoned by Costantinus in 325AD. The 300 bishops agreed on a calculation method based on the Julian Calendar, a solar calendar official in the Roman Empire, while Jews use a lunar calendar to calculate passover, see R65 there isn't a pagan festivity, Easter is tied to passover that falls in the spring.

[quote] It is universally accepted that it was inserted but others afterwards. Josephus actually calls him “the son of God” which is the giveaway that he didn’t write it.

Absolutely false. That is not the "universal" position. The dominant scholarly opinion is that Josephus referenced Jesus but the passage was augmented by believers later.

[quote] There is no record of Jesus among contemporary historical accounts. ZERO folks.

Again, why would there be?

It’s necessary to have direct evidence, and not circumstantial, to disprove accounts of Jesus. The default will always be that the accounts are true.

[quote] 1. The "three wise men" were actually psychics/magicians/sorcerers, originally sent by Herod to kill Jesus. Hence, the name "Magi."

Whether you believe the Bible or not, this is not true according to Bible text.

First, the Bible doesn’t say how many there were. It says that wisemen came bearing three types of gifts.

Second, the book of Daniel mentions that Daniel was part of a group of magi. So there is historical evidence that magi existed in foreign locations long before Jesus or Herod.

R75 You are clearly no biblical scholar. Historians understand that magi were typically priests/dream interpreters/sorcerers who served the King of Babylon then Persia and his subordinates/more minor rulers. They were most likely Zoroastrian.

But DL historians have already shown that there is no evidence of Jesus. Regarding Daniel:

"The consensus of most modern scholars is that Daniel is not an historical figure and that the book is a cryptic allusion to the reign of the 2nd century BCE Hellenistic king Antiochus IV Epiphanes."

Most people just read the Bible and not the companion book, Behind the Bible: The True Story of Jesus. If you'd read that you know that Mary was well known through Bethlehem as the Queen of Anal. The use of the term virgin was a bit of mistranslation. For the first eight months of her pregnancy, she was sure that she was going to have a butt baby.

[quote] Most people just read the Bible and not the companion book, Behind the Bible: The True Story of Jesus

Pfffft.

Was this written by Joseph "FRAUD" Smith, the author of the Book of Mormon??

So many fucking religious grifters.

Freddy Mercury was a Magi.

[quote] Freddy Mercury was a Magi.

Actually, he was from Zanzibar.

His family was Zoroastrian.

Not the same thing.

[quote] Although it is clear that much of the Gospels is fictionalized material, it doesn't follow that Jesus is a fiction. (That's a separate idea from whether or not he was divine). It seems entirely plausible that there was an influential teacher/philosopher roaming around Judea in that historical time, someone who was admired enough that people were inspired to write about his life.

There were a ton, literally a ton, of teachers/philosophers claiming to be the Messiah roaming around Judea at the time. The first gospel, Mark, didn't even start being written at least 40-50 years after Jesus apparently died. It's always suspect when there are no eyewitness accounts.

[quote] Absolutely false. That is not the "universal" position. The dominant scholarly opinion is that Josephus referenced Jesus but the passage was augmented by believers later.

All objective historians believe that the one line in Josephus was added later. It wouldn't make sense to anyone to call someone the "son of God" and only have one line about it. That is the dominant scholarly opinion.

There are devout Christians historians who keep trying to hold on to that Josephus mention but even they understand that it's hard to defend that Josephus actually wrote that.

[quote] It’s necessary to have direct evidence, and not circumstantial, to disprove accounts of Jesus. The default will always be that the accounts are true.

You're mixing up history with faith. No historian would default that Jesus existed without any first hand evidence. People can believe what they want--but to call it history, you cannot just say "It must have occurred because everyone believes it occurred."

This is exactly why there is such obsession for finding evidence about Noah's Ark, Jesus' burial place, and on and on and on

The entire point of Jesus was to teach the world to "love thy neighbor and "judge not." ALL the rest is just filler.

Sadly, the world has completely ignored that message.

And now we're burning ourselves up with global warming as warned.

[quote] It’s necessary to have direct evidence, and not circumstantial, to disprove accounts of Jesus. The default will always be that the accounts are true.

In absolutely no other case do we forgo direct evidence of someone existing. Why does Jesus get a pass?

Even in the case of Socrates, Plato directly mentions him--someone who saw. touched, and learned from him directly.

Let me tell you about the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

[quote] The entire point of Jesus was to teach the world to "love thy neighbor and "judge not."

I thought that was the job of Coke.

The Little Drummer Boy was not named Aaron. He didn’t live with his parents on a farm and didn’t have three farm animals, Samson the Donkey, Baba the Lamb, and Joshua the Camel.

[quote] The Little Drummer Boy was not named Aaron. He didn’t live with his parents on a farm and didn’t have three farm animals, Samson the Donkey, Baba the Lamb, and Joshua the Camel.

Miss Greer Garson as Our Story Teller says different.

Interestingly, the Christian concept of Hell comes from Mithraism, an ancient Persian religion.

Judaism, from which Christianity emerged, doesn't have a Hell as Christianity describes

[quote] Interestingly, the Christian concept of Hell comes from Mithraism, an ancient Persian religion.

Hell doesn't exist.

It's just something invented by Church Leadership, to keep the peasants afraid and in line.

You always have to threaten them with something.

Jesus Fucking Christ people are stupid.

Yea, OP, we know all that. Nothing new there.

So, what's your point? I shouldn't open my Advent Calendar today? I shouldn't put up my tree?

[quote] t's just something invented by Church Leadership, to keep the peasants afraid and in line.

That's the whole point of ALL organized religions--power and money

[quote] I shouldn't open my Advent Calendar today?

I have a piece of chocolate that emerges with each new calendar day. You bet I'm opening that!!

[quote] But DL historians have already shown that there is no evidence of Jesus.

Where? How? How do you prove the non-existence of a person in the 1st century?

[quote] All objective historians believe that the one line in Josephus was added later. It wouldn't make sense to anyone to call someone the "son of God" and only have one line about it. That is the dominant scholarly opinion.

OK, you are mixing up a bunch of different things here. Josephus had a passage on Jesus. Pious Christians tampered with it later. This is what "all objective historians" would agree on. Jospehus surely didn't call Jesus "son of god." But Josephus did certainly have a short reference to Jesus (and John and James).

[quote] "The consensus of most modern scholars is that Daniel is not an historical figure and that the book is a cryptic allusion to the reign of the 2nd century BCE Hellenistic king Antiochus IV Epiphanes."

I'm not sure what you think you are proving. Daniel was written about 200 years before Jesus. So? The priests of Zoroastrianism were called maga before Jesus's day. The birth story was written to show how the priests of another religion recognized the miraculous birth of the messiah. (Which is not to say it is historical.)

[quote] It's always suspect when there are no eyewitness accounts.

Why would there be eyewitness accounts of yet another failed messianic pretender? Why would you expect to find that largely illiterate people who expected the world to end any moment to have written eyewitness accounts?

[quote] In absolutely no other case do we forgo direct evidence of someone existing. Why does Jesus get a pass?

Completely untrue. Scholars believe all sorts of people existed based on ancient historians like Herodotus. You are just making up rules to exclude Jesus' existence.

Don't mess the insane Jesus is Real cocksuckers. They'll post til they drop. Again, and again and again and again...

[quote] The priests of Zoroastrianism were called maga before Jesus's day

So they foretold the coming of Donald Trump?

[quote]What are some Christmas "traditions" that are totally false?

All of them.

The Gospel of John is ostensibly written by a disciple of Jesus. However many Biblical scholars doubt that, partly because there is some other evidence that it wasn't written until 90 AD, which would have been beyond the normal lifespan of someone who had known Jesus in person. It seems more likely that there was already a collection of "lore" about this person, and it is possible that the authors of the Gospel met people who had known people who had a personal experience of Jesus. (2 generations apart from eyewitness accounts). Again, that neither proves nor disproves the existence of Jesus, but the fact that there was already some sort of "cult" of Jesus preexisting the composition of the Gospels and that that cult survived 50 or 60 years beyond the death of the person said to have inspired it is somewhat significant to me. For example, we've had Charles Manson and Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate Marshall Applewhite whose followers made great claims about the founders, but there are no cults still existing that continue to regard them as people worth following. That increases the likelihood in my mind that there was a historical Jesus whose words inspired followers - but one very likely quite different than the person portrayed in the Bible.

Who made the decision to call it Christmas instead of Jesusmas?

Batman is real. Don't try to talk me out of it. Many people have known him, from ancient times to Robert Pattison.

[quote] Who made the decision to call it Christmas instead of Jesusmas?

Christ/krīst/noun the title, also treated as a name, given to Jesus.

Our Savior

[quote]Herod was already dead then.

He's fine! He sends his love!

Those damn Magi didn't bother to get gift receipts.

Magi are evil.

Witches!

[quote]What exactly are you suggesting? That Christians invented Easter as a way of claiming a spring fesitval?

It's a fact. Christmas was the deliberate and historically documented conversion of the Saturnalia, yuletide, Sol Invictus and other pagan, Winter Solstice festivals to a Christian celebration dedicated to Christ.

This wasn't a secret in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. The Christian clerics and Emperors like Augustine and Theodosius wrote extensively about it and passed many laws CONVERTING and REDEDICATING pagan holidays to Christ.

The Catholic Church did this to ALL pagan festivals, which the Romans and Greeks held nearly every two weeks.

Pretty much every pagan culture had a Spring Equinox festival and the Christians converted them all. The Greco-Roman world had the Dionysia, which celebrated the spring and rebirth of the earth that became Easter.

Any source on that r108? I do believe you that Christianity did subsume pagan holidays into itself, but was it really as blunt as: Hear ye, hear ye, henceforth Saturnalia will be known as Christmas! Now get out there, bitches, and get me some presents!

Was it not Josephus who wrote of Jesus' 50 load weekend? Answer me that.

R110 That's not considered canon. It's just ancient gay fanfic! Modern DL'ers would agree: 30 something and unmarried with no gf hanging around 12 male "disciples" one of whom was a jealous backstabbing bitch... GAY DRAMA!

[quote] Don't mess the insane Jesus is Real cocksuckers. They'll post til they drop. Again, and again and again and again...

The anti-Christian people, who have a great vested interest in their belief that Jesus does not exist since it affects their long-term future more than anything, are always the ones who post the most replies.

I know you are but what am I...

Here is a list of gods who were born of a virgin on December 25th. Jesus is just one of many.

HORUS An Ethiopian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.

BUDDHA A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.

KRISHNA An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.

ZARATHUSTRA An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.

HERCULES A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.

MITHRA A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.

DIONYSUS A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.

THAMMUZ A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.

HERMES A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

ADONIS A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.

JESUS CHRIST A Roman God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 300 AD.

I'll take Hercules for 500, Alex.

Also, it's a pretty bad sign when you need a council to decide if Jesus was, in fact, divine. But it helps when you're the Emperor.

[quote] Magi are evil.

Magi is the root word for Magician.

Nuff said.

PAGANS!

Magi can be testy and persnickety, but let's all agree that "evil" is just a little bit severe.

No one is arguing Jesus's birthday is actually December 25. The early Christians certainly picked that day because #1) they had no idea when he was born and #2) they most likely picked December 25 to offer a festival to compete with the Mithras birthday festival.

And r108, Jesus died in the spring. At the time of Passover. Christians didn't steal other religions' spring festival.

[quote] No one is arguing Jesus's birthday is actually December 25

BULL.

Ask anyone when Jesus was born, and they'll tell you December 25th.

They've all been brainwashed.

No one in this thread, r120.

Well shit

[quote] all of their practices and observances are based on pagan rituals from thousands of years ago. It's all tainted by paganism.

You’ve got that backwards. They’re tainting *us*.

[quote]No, there is a lack of good evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. If you think there is, provide links. The Romans kept good records and they had no record of Jesus, for starters.

R30 please post a link to these "good records" kept by the Romans. If you can't post a link they don't exist.

R111 when I lived with a staunchly Catholic, prim and sheltered roommate in College who kept Bibles all over the dorm, I once sent her into fits by saying that I thought the Bible was ‘fanfic’. She threw one of those tomes right at my head in her offended tantrum, it was fantastic.

It should be easy to find an actual record of Jesus, if you find any Roman records about either Pontius Pilate or Governor Herod Antipas.

The trial of Jesus will definitely be in the books.

And his name in Aramaic or Hebrew would be "Yeshua."

The New Testament describes James, Joseph (Joses), Judas (Jude), and Simon as brothers of Jesus (Greek: ἀδελφοί, romanized: adelphoi, lit. 'brothers').[1] Also mentioned, but not named, are sisters of Jesus.

The Catholic, Assyrian, and Orthodox churches believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is however not a dogma to most Protestant churches today, with many Protestants believing that Mary had other children besides Jesus.[2][3][4][5]

Those who uphold the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary reject the claim that Jesus had biological siblings and maintain these brothers and sisters received this designation because of their close association with the nuclear family of Jesus, as either children of Joseph from a previous marriage, or as cousins of Jesus.[6] They also maintain that the literal translation of the words "brother" and "sister" is an objective problem because there are few quotations and because the words have various meanings in the family of Semitic languages,[7] while the Koine Greek in which the New Testament is written likewise uses the words more broadly.[8][9]

[quote] The trial of Jesus will definitely be in the books.

What books? There are no such records.

Mary was a slut.

Allow me to give you some perspective....

1. There is a direct line between the story of Hanukkah, which was last week and the story of Jesus.-- Hanukkah celebrates the victory of the upstart Maccabees over the Seleucid (Greek) empire in 165 BC. Ignoring the oil in the Temple bit, the rebellion and victory is an established historical fact

2. The Hasmonean Dynasty in Israel (Judea) had all sorts of troubles and bad rules and there was a rift between the Hellenized Jews and their more religious old school kin.

3. The Romans invaded about 100 years later (63 BC) to help settle a dynastic dispute and the Romanized/Hellenized vs Old School (Sadducce/Pharissee) conflict continued among the Jews.

4. Y'shua Ben Yosef was born into this country in conflict. For reference, the Maccabee revolt happened about as long before his birth as the Civil War happened for a kid born today. So not really ancient history and on top of that there were the Romans, no one was happy about them, and the Jews were fighting among themselves, the upper class Romanized Sadduccees were all about the Temple while the lower class Pharisees were all about the Torah (first five books of the Bible) and did not think the Temple was necessary.

5. Hence Jesus railing about what was going on at the Temple (the same Temple where the Hanukkah lamp miraculously burned for 8 nights not all that long before) was very much in keeping with Pharisee philosophy.

6. All the stuff some of you are like OP are writing about the Magi and the prophesy about his birth and the Census is complete bullshit. It's part of a fairy tale that got made up decades later to create a myth around Y'shua who was really just sort of a populist almost hippie rabbi with a following who was not happy with the upper class Sadduccees.

7. Remember that all the early Christians were Jews and observed Jewish holidays. It wasn't "Jesus was the Messiah! Fuck Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur! We got Christmas and toys!" -- the transition took a few hundred years

8. Prevailing theory is that Paul saw that the conversion of the Gentiles thing was not going well given all the rough dietary laws and circumcision thing that the Jews had to do, and thus had a "dream" where his boy Y'shua came back and told him all that wasn't really necessary, that you could still eat pork and be uncut and be a Christian. Enrollment increased dramatically.

9. Capitalizing on what Paul learned, later Christians adopted pagan customs to Christianity to make it easier for the Germans and other Barbarians to convert. So the winter tree god festival became a Christmas tree and the spring fertility thing became Easter bunnies and baskets.

[quote] All the stuff some of you are like OP are writing about the Magi and the prophesy about his birth and the Census is complete bullshit

So the Torah is all truth, but the Bible is made up?

Give me a fucking break.

It's classic "I'm right, you're wrong" BS.

Chillax R31

Where did I say the Torah and any of the stories in it are true?

You hate Jews, don't you?

Also, it's not like there was a Judea College of Rabinnic Studies

Anyone who was fluent in Torah and could get a following together could call himself a rabbi and set up a congregation, which is what Y;shua did, given the tensions and uncertainty in Judea at that time it is very much within the realm of possible that he had a considerable following for his message, which was in many respects keeping with Pharisse teachings of the time

I am fluent in Torah, and Jive.

Josephus references Jesus twice. No one believes either is a real reference by the author.

It’s weird when people try to argue both sides of this issue: “Of course Josephus’ reference is real!” and “Why would any historian mention a simple man who had a small group of followers?”

Jesus seems pretty gay, actually

Yeah the tree, the lights, the yule log - all pagan that was co-opted by the Catholic church. The lights in particularly as we all know this is when the daylight gets shorter and then gradually starts lengthening again. The lights likely candles were to welcome back the light.

People once believed Zeus existed too

Stealing from pagans is a fine and noble tradition. It's really one of the better aspects of Christianity. The Puritan impulse to cleanse and return to some stupid original is tedious beyond all bearing. And really, what tradition would we prefer? Slaughtering some 2-year-olds to remember that whole mess with Herod? Yeah, maybe yule logs are a better idea.

"Christians didn't steal other religions' spring festival."

They most certainly did. Ostara is a wiccan holiday and one of their eight Sabbats. Ostara celebrates the spring equinox. The word Ostara comes from the Anglo-Saxon goddess name, Eostre. Eostre represented spring and new beginnings. In Celtic tradition, the hare is sacred to the Goddess and is the totem animal of lunar goddesses such as Hecate, Freyja and Holda - the hare is a symbol for the moon. The Goddess most closely associated with the Hare is Eostre, or Ostara. The date of the Christian Easter is determined by the phase of the moon. The nocturnal hare, so closely associated with the moon which dies every morning and is resurrected every evening, also represents the rebirth of nature in Spring. Both the moon and the hare were believed to die daily in order to be reborn - thus the Hare is a symbol of immortality. It is also a major symbol for fertility and abundance as the hare can conceive while pregnant. Over the centuries the symbol of the Hare at Ostara has become the Easter Bunny who brings eggs to children on Easter morning, the Christian day of rebirth and resurrection. Hare hunting was taboo but because the date of Easter is determined by the Moon together with the Hare's strong lunar associations, hare-hunting was a common Easter activity in England (and also at Beltane).

well, yes there was obviously paganism r140, but of course there was nothing called wiccan at the time Christianity was getting off the ground. That's an early 20th century attempt to capture ancient pagan traditions that only survived in vague and confused ways, or were basically invented by poets and occultists. It's as fake as Christmas, which doesn't mean people can't get anything out of it. Myths are like that. They don't work because they are truly capturing some ancient tradition carried on through all the ages. They work on their own terms or not at all, sometimes with a smattering of actual history.

This entire thread is one anti-Christian loon talking to itself over and over. So the fuck WHAT if Christmas traditions hve roots in Pagan rituals. If Christian stuff threatens you so, stay the fuck away from it. Don’t got to their churches. But leave people alone if they want to have Christmas trees and embrace the traditional story of the birth of Christ. It’s no skin off your angry nose. What is it with some of you working so hard to shit on peoples’ religious celebrations? Why do you get off on it so much?

Hilarious, r142. Grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.

You're all over the place r142. Calm down. It's okay. Worship the myths you want to worship. It's fine. Maybe even useful. Nobody is going to make you stop. And honestly, I think we all know that if anything is killing Christmas it's the idea that buying a ton of shit made in China is "celebrating."

-Sitting this one out, munching popcorn.

[quote] Stealing from pagans is a fine and noble tradition.

It’s really not fine. Many of those traditions are closed to those outside the culture or faith, for good reason.

[quote] It's really one of the better aspects of Christianity.

That’s a sliding curve, eh?

It appears that R142 is so defensive because, deep inside your amygdala, you know that it is all a myth, all made up. You and I will turn to ash and that is that. You will never be reunited with your body. But it is a comforting myth and I am glad that it helps you get through the day. And please do not use your myths to police how other people live and love and then deal with the aftermath of unprotected sex.

[quote] -Sitting this one out, munching popcorn.

lol, me too, PoisonedDragon!

[quote] Josephus references Jesus twice. No one believes either is a real reference by the author.

Again, that's wrong. The vast majority of scholars believe Josephus referenced Jesus but that the passages have been altered by Christians later.

[quote] It’s weird when people try to argue both sides of this issue: “Of course Josephus’ reference is real!” and “Why would any historian mention a simple man who had a small group of followers?”

You are confusing things. Josephus had references to Jesus. But they weren't written contemporaneously. They were written decades later. So both things are true: Josephus wrote about Jesus AND no one wrote about Jesus in his lifetime.

Imagine...being so divorced from one’s own ancestral culture...one takes identity...from imported death-cults....that have long been coopted to serve nefarious political interests of tyrants....so sad...

[quote] please post a link to these "good records" kept by the Romans. If you can't post a link they don't exist.

What are you on about, R124? Do you think they uploaded them to the internet? What is it you expect a link for?

The Romans were superb record keepers - we know this because the historians of the day (and other sources) tell us that. The records themselves (military, legal, births, deaths, marriages etc) are largely lost, with only fragments remaining but we have the writings of people who consulted those records.

I’m afraid ancient history comes to us as puzzle pieces that have to be fitted together, not neat tomes of documents we can leaf through. “Show me a link to the records” is so fucking stupid, it’s embarrassing.

What’s also embarrasing is the complete and utter absence of any record - or any mention of a record - about this man Jesus, or any member of his family.

OK, it’s unreasonable to expect to see his birth or death certificate - if they ever existed (doubtful) they’d be lost by now anyway - but this is one of the best attested eras in the ancient world due to the rich source material…and Jesus is nowhere.

None of the historians write about him - or even relate rumours about him. He’s mentioned in no letters or diaries, he’s not depicted in any art, poems or plays, he’s not inscribed on any tablets or tombstones, no busts were created (even by his followers)) - there is nothing.

After his “death” a big cult supposedly formed itself, and yet there’s no evidence of any pilgrimage to the places of his birth or death, no sudden celebrity status for his parents and siblings - even the tomb that he was at least rumoured to have walked out of three days after his death never became a place of interest. We have no idea where it even was. It took archaeologists years to even discover whether Nazareth actually existed at all.

Any historian who says that we have as much evidence of Jesus as we’d expect to have is being disingenuous, probably out of politeness to Christians.

We have as much evidence as we’d expect to have of the average Palestinian man born around that time…which is precisely zero.

None of this proves that Jesus didn’t exist, but it certainly doesn’t suggest that he did. What it does prove is that there almost certainly wasn’t a man causing the kind of splash Christians fondly imagine Jesus making. The only honest position to take on this is agnosticism - given the current lack of data, it’s impossible to know one way or the other.

[quote]3. Jesus was probably born in the Fall, not in December. In the cold months in Israel, shepherds usually don't let their sheep out to pasture, nor would Mary have given birth outdoors in the cold manger.

no, he wasn't, shepherds were abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night = springtime

[quote] You are confusing things. Josephus had references to Jesus. But they weren't written contemporaneously. They were written decades later. So both things are true: Josephus wrote about Jesus AND no one wrote about Jesus in his lifetime.

Josephus did not write about Jesus. The only people who insist the one passage and later brief reference are not forgeries are Christian apologists.

They are both clear and obvious interpolations.

[quote] Josephus did not write about Jesus. The only people who insist the one passage and later brief reference are not forgeries are Christian apologists.

This isn't true. It is a ready excuse, but it isn't true. Historians who are not "Christian apologists" agree Josephus did.

[quote] What are you on about, [R124]? Do you think they uploaded them to the internet? What is it you expect a link for?

What's embarassing is the canard that someone would have recorded something about Jesus during his lifetime and that we would have it available to us, so Jesus didn't exist. The rebuttal is to the claim that "Jesus would certainly have been recorded in Roman records because Roman kept such detailed, complete records." They didn't. And most of what they did record is lost. So arguing "Jesus didn't exist" on the absence of Roman records of his life is completely nonsensical.

That Jesus existed is the most-likely conclusion based on the evidence we do have and based on the traditional methods of non-apologetic historians.

R154 Yes some entreupenerial carpenter running a cult in Judea. He got plenty of free food and such for his services. There were many like him!

But it is nonsense to believe that this simpleton raised people from the dead...

Believe in your carpenter cult, don't impose the carpenter's views on the rest of us.

Of of the stories surrounding Jesus were attributed to many other people before Jesus was born, miracle at wedding, making the blind see, walking on water, the virgin birth on December 25th as mentioned above. There were many people who claimed to be the Messiah before Jesus as mentioned above. I would imagine he probably existed and was just one of the more popular cult leaders at the time. But all of these stories that surround a possible Messiah were attributed to him to elevate his importance. I would imagine if his death isn't recorded in Roman history, that his crucifixion was a fable as well. He was probably just killed by one of his followers, and that was that.

And doesn't Christianity only still exist to this day because of the Roman Empire's appropriation of it and use of it as a means of control over their every expanding empire? Romans first took the Greek religion with their plethora of gods, Zeus to Jupiter. But the appeal of Christianity is that there was only ONE god making it that much easier to control people with, unify them under one message. And it's all because of that that in 2021 my mom still thinks I'm going to hell because I am gay.

Funny enough, I live about a seven minute walk from the Roman and Imperial Forum. I walk past it every day on my way to the gym. It's cool to know the holiday season we are now in dates back to the Temple of Saturn located there.

Oddly enough, I used to live in Chelsea, NYC, the birthplace of the Night Before Christmas, the story of Santa Clause as we know it now.

The basis of the Bible are taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have been authenticated.

So believe it or not, they are based on historical fact.

These are the actual Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with Jesus and don't "authenticate" anything other than what the Hebrew Scriptures looked like in Jesus's day.

[Quote] The vast majority of scholars believe Josephus referenced Jesus but that the passages have been altered by Christians later.

Nonsense.

Why would Josephus, a historian, write about Jesus? Did he believe Jesus was an important figure? Even 50 years after his death, Jesus didn’t have that many followers.

Both references were forgeries desperate to lift Jesus’ significance. Josephus certainly wasn’t a Christian so why would he think Jesus warranted any mention.

[Quote] The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with Jesus and don't "authenticate" anything other than what the Hebrew Scriptures looked like in Jesus's day.

What the Dead Sea Scrolls show is that what Jesus preached wasn’t all that novel. The sect that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls were already discussing the same views of Judaism

[Quote] That Jesus existed is the most-likely conclusion based on the evidence we do have and based on the traditional methods of non-apologetic historians.

What evidence do we have exactly? Is there another such figure in history that we believe just must have existed even though there is little contemporary evidence of them?

Please stop pushing that the Jesus references in Josephus are real.

You’re embarrassing yourself.

Jesus was NOT born in winter

Shortly before Jesus was born, Caesar Augustus issued a decree ordering “all the inhabited earth to be registered.” Everyone had to register in “his own city,” which might have required a journey of a week or more. That order—probably made to support taxation and military conscription—would have been unpopular at any time of year, but it is unlikely that Augustus would have provoked his subjects further by forcing many of them to make long trips during the cold winter.

The sheep. Shepherds were “living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks.” Flocks lived in the open air from “the week before the Passover [late March]” through mid-November. They passed the winter under cover; and from this alone it may be seen that the traditional date for Christmas, in the winter, is unlikely to be right, since the Gospel says that the shepherds were in the fields.

We can estimate when Jesus was born by counting backward from his death on Passover, in the spring of the year 33 C.E. Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his three-and-a-half-year ministry, so he was born in the early fall of 2 B.C.E.

Since there is no evidence that the birth of Jesus Christ occurred on December 25, why is Christmas celebrated on this date? The Encyclopædia Britannica says that church leaders probably chose it “to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the ‘birthday of the unconquered sun,’” at the time of the winter solstice. According to The Encyclopedia Americana, many scholars believe that this was done “in order to make Christianity more meaningful to pagan converts.”

[quote] Nonsense. Why would Josephus, a historian, write about Jesus? Did he believe Jesus was an important figure? Even 50 years after his death, Jesus didn’t have that many followers. Both references were forgeries desperate to lift Jesus’ significance. Josephus certainly wasn’t a Christian so why would he think Jesus warranted any mention.

[quote] Please stop pushing that the Jesus references in Josephus are real. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Read the literature by the actual scholars. Scholars believe Josephus wrote about Jesus. Take it up with them.

[quote] What evidence do we have exactly? Is there another such figure in history that we believe just must have existed even though there is little contemporary evidence of them?

Yes, in fact. Herodotus wrote about plenty of much less influential people who lived much longer before he did and scholars believe those people existed. The demand that Jesus must have been acknowledged by his contemporaries in writings that have come down to us is special pleading. There is no reason to expect contemporaneous writings about a failed Jewish prophet from Gallilee.

[Quote] Read the literature by the actual scholars. Scholars believe Josephus wrote about Jesus. Take it up with them.

Please direct me to one such scholar please

[Quote] Yes, in fact. Herodotus wrote about plenty of much less influential people who lived much longer before he did and scholars believe those people existed. The demand that Jesus must have been acknowledged by his contemporaries in writings that have come down to us is special pleading. There is no reason to expect contemporaneous writings about a failed Jewish prophet from Gallilee.

You’re contradicting yourself. Jesus apparently wasn’t important enough for any historian to notice during his lifetime but somehow just 50-100 years later, when his doesn’t have many supporters, he’s important enough for Josephus to mention? In fact, Jesus is inserted in passing as if he’s a minor person. So somehow in those 50 years, Josephus learned about this minor person and made note of him.

Makes no sense

Believing someone existed without any contemporaneous references is called faith, not history

You don't really think that silly census actually happened, do you r165? There may have been a census, a purely local census after the Romans kicked out Herod Archeleus and started running the province themselves. But nobody had to go to the city of their fathers or any stupid nonsense like that. They would want to know who owned what, where, and where the young men were in case of conscription. Not some idiocy about where you forefathers were born.

[quote] You’re contradicting yourself. Jesus apparently wasn’t important enough for any historian to notice during his lifetime but somehow just 50-100 years later, when his doesn’t have many supporters

Of course there were Christians 50-100 years. To believe there were or that they were not siginficiant you have to wish away plenty of evidence beyond the New Testament texts, for example, the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan.

[quote] Please direct me to one such scholar please

Just look at the wikipedia article to find some scholars. Plenty there.

[quote] Believing someone existed without any contemporaneous references is called faith, not history

That is a ridiculously high standard. Millions of people who existed were never mentioned in contemporaneous references. The ancient world was not a documentary culture. The number of people whose existence we can confirm by documentary evidence before the advent of print is miniscule.

No question there were Christians by the time Josephus was writing. But if the text was tampered with, it does create big huge problems. What exactly would he have written? Was it so horribly insulting that some later monk just had to change it all? Was it so trivial, some asshole caused a few headaches in Galilee then got killed, that it had to be covered up? Who knows? not sure how anyone recaptures some original text.

Why would Roman Emperor Constantine have completely abandoned the Roman Religion, and replaced it with this completely foreign religion of Christianity, if it was so "insignificant?"

That makes no sense.

Scholars are in pretty much agreement as to what the original was and what was added.

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ;] and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, [for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;] and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.”

I have bracketed off the additions. The rest makes complete sense and makes no extraordinary claims.

R173 It makes no sense since it brought down the empire and started a thousand year long Dark Age. What a great religion!

[quote] Why would Roman Emperor Constantine have completely abandoned the Roman Religion, and replaced it with this completely foreign religion of Christianity, if it was so "insignificant?" That makes no sense.

By the time of Constantine, centuries after Jesus, Christianity was not so insignificant. It was a minority religion, but hardly insignificant. (Maybe 10% of the empire.)

It wasn't so insignificant by the time of Constantine r173. There are many interesting possibilities. One is that the whole conversion was fake, that he'd been raised Christian and just needed an excuse to make it official. But I admit that certainly does not have to be true. It may have been a sincere conversion. But it may have been a political decision basically looking for support from a very highly organized minority that showed it could be a valuable ally in a crisis. Or some combination of those two.

[quote] He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross

Another myth/lie.

The so-called "cross" was actually just a simple stake.

[quote] Most Christian denominations present the Christian cross in this form, and the tradition of the T-shape can be traced to early Christianity and the Church fathers. Nonetheless, some late-19th century scholars maintained that it was a simple stake (crux simplex).

I have to wonder about a lot of that r174. Wise man? Not sure. Josephus sort of hated all those prophets and preachers that ultimately led to the Jewish Revolt. Drew over many Jews and Gentiles? Really? Even in his lifetime? Even conventional Christian history would show that the whole gentile thing wasn't happening until after his death and probably a lot of it through Paul. And did Pilate really do this "at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us", or did he act like a normal Roman Governor and kill some annoying upstart preaching some weird bullshit that could lead to trouble?

Honestly the whole thing reads like Christian propaganda to me, from a very later date.

[quote] I have to wonder about a lot of that [R174]. Wise man? Not sure.

Jesus was never referred to in the Bible as a "wise man."

His followers almost always referred to him as "teacher."

R93 R95

These ridiculous arguments over fictional characters are hilarious. It's like who can shit the biggest turd in the Christmas punchbowl. What a tragic display of mental illness and hysterical brainwashing. I can't image wasting my life cherry picking ancient bedtime stories written by fools with less knowledge of science and the real world than your average 3rd grader. Have fun playing with your own feces.

Bingo R162

Railing on the upper class Sadduccees who controlled the Temple was big with both the Essenes, who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pharisees, who were more working class.

What Jesus is credited with preaching was very much in line with the general sentiment in Judea at the time.

And don't ever forget, Xtianity is a DOOMSDAY cult. Xtians will bring the Earth or at least human existence to an end just out of spite (which they falsely call "faith")!

About those Pharisees, it's nice to get to know Hillel. It's also useful to understand there were two very different schools of Pharisee thought around the time of Jesus (if there was a Jesus, for any lurking mythicists).

Around the 3 minute mark:

[quote] Jesus was never referred to in the Bible as a "wise man." His followers almost always referred to him as "teacher."

Allow me to point out R180, that his followers did not speak English.

They spoke Aramaic, a later dialect of ancient Hebrew.

So you are relying on the modern English translation of a Greek translation of Aramaic and what a word like "teacher" might mean in that society at that time.

Out of curiosity, how do we know Hillel existed? Is there any contemporaneous documentary evidence of Hillel?

So many experts here on the exegesis of biblical and other ancient texts. We are truly blessed and grateful to be among you.

A quibble r186, but Aramaic was not a a later dialect of ancient Hebrew. It was the language of the Arameans, who wound up spread all over the Middle East and whose language became a common language in the region. It was related to Hebrew, though.

Aramaic does have two separate word for teacher and wise man, as does ancient Greek, so Im not sure whether r180's point has been invalidated by pointing out the existence of translation.

That's actually a good question r187, but I would say there are just less reasons to be suspicious of Hillel's existence than Jesus. He seems "normal." There may be some legends about him, not sure he lay in the snow until Rabbis found him and took him in. But the fact that there was some Rabbi teaching some things in Jerusalem about how best to interpret the Torah in the time of Herod doesn't seem that weird or difficult to believe. And fighting with Herod about this or that seems to fit into a long saga of Kings and Prophets in Jewish history.

Jesus may well have existed, but his story is a little more difficult, and really, really hard to pin down. Did he preach war or pacifism? Did he preach to the Gentiles, or just to the "lost sheep of Israel"? Did he go into hysterics at every mention of his true nature (as in "Mark") or could he not shut up about being the Son of God (as in "John")? I don't know.

Right, but it's not so much Jesus's story, whatever it was, that I'm concerned about as his existence. And the case for Hillel's existence is just as weak or weaker than the case for Jesus if we play by the same rules. But no one objects to the posts about Hillel.

[Quote] Millions of people who existed were never mentioned in contemporaneous references.

But this one person, with not contemporaneous reference, has been named the Son of God and founder of one of the largest religions in the world.

We’re just supposed to believe he exited because those benefiting from his apparent existence are telling us so? Utter nonsense.

[Quote] But no one objects to the posts about Hillel.

No one cares about Hillel

[Quote] Why would Roman Emperor Constantine have completely abandoned the Roman Religion, and replaced it with this completely foreign religion of Christianity, if it was so "insignificant?"

Because he didn’t actually

R174, all of it was an addition. Why would Josephus mention such an insignificant man in the first place?

If Jesus was barely a character that anyone would even take notice of him when he was alive, why would Josephus, a historian who usually recorded history as he saw it, mention Jesus 50 years later.

All of it was placed there by followers of Jesus to justify that he actually existed.

Without the Josephus mention, the Jesus cult has nothing as evidence that Jesus existing. They keep pointing to Josephus as an objective viewer. This is why they keep pushing, despite all evidence, that Josephus in fact wrote it.

But by claiming that only the parts calling Jesus was Christ were added later, it actually removes why a historian would have mentioned Jesus at all.

It was all added after the fact.

[Quote] I have bracketed off the additions. The rest makes complete sense and makes no extraordinary claims.

How convenient

I thought the conventional wisdom was that Y'shua ben Yosef existed and was a somewhat popular (say B-list) teacher/speaker in Galilee at the time who was killed by the Romans because that;s what they did with somewhat popular teachers.

And that some of his followers then created a whole religion around him which had little to nothing to do with the actual Yshua and wrote "Gospels" that were mostly fiction, the truth being limited to some basic facts (he lived in Nazareth) and came up with all of his "teachings" over the course of decades.

And that they were, as noted earlier, helped tremendously in their mission when Paul decided that Gentiles could be Christians and that Christians no longer had to follow any of the more restrictive Jewish laws like kashruth and circumcision

R151, link please? If no link, no proof. Aren't you the poster that demanded a link from another poster as "proof" of something? You are not yourself subject to that same standard? Link to your source or it doesn't exist and you entire argument is moot.

R30 posted this:

[quote] No, there is a lack of good evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. If you think there is, provide links. The Romans kept good records and they had no record of Jesus, for starters.

I responded asking for him to provide proof of these "good records" kept by the Romans by asking for a link to these supposed records. I simply wanted links, the same as he requested.

In reply as R151, he posted this:

[quote] What are you on about, [R124]? Do you think they uploaded them to the internet? What is it you expect a link for?..... I’m afraid ancient history comes to us as puzzle pieces that have to be fitted together, not neat tomes of documents we can leaf through. “Show me a link to the records” is so fucking stupid, it’s embarrassing.

So basically R151 has called himself fucking stupid and is embarrassed about his own stupidity.

HILARIOUS. Some people can't argue themselves out of a paper bag.

LMFAO. R151 demands others post "links" to prove their points. His points, however, should be accepted as truth and anyone who asks for links is stupid because his posts are so profound they simply can't be proven by links. Wow, what narcissistic arrogance.

There is no contemporary evidence for the Buddha, or for Jesus, or Muhammad, or Moses, or Zoroaster or Confucius. This does not mean that these people did not exist, it just means that there is no confirmation of their existence in contemporary sources. Clearly billions of people on the planet pay homage in one way or another to these figures. Are all those billions deluded? Are there important truths about human nature and interpersonal relationships in the words ascribed to these famous figures? Are those truths, if truths they are, just collective wisdom given a more concrete form by attaching them to a person and a name?

I think Jesus may have existed but I don't believe he was the son of God or any of that other nonsense. If he did exist, I think he would have been a hippy type of socialist. He was probably okay, it's the church and many Christians that are awful. If he was real, I'm pretty sure he'd be pretty pissed about what people are doing in his name. If I'm wrong and he is the son of God and actually does come back (I know, I know, but hear me out) then I hope the first thing he does is set fire to all those Evangelical mega-churches. Those evangelicals and fundies would probably kill him though.

Jesus was a gay socialist, the very opposite of what the Church stands for today.

Look at Jesus and look at the bedazzled Popes. Lots got lost in translation.

[Quote] I don't believe he was the son of God or any of that other nonsense.

You don’t say! What does son of God mean anyway?

A whole bunch of gobbledygook

"These ridiculous arguments over fictional characters are hilarious. What a tragic display of mental illness and hysterical brainwashing. I can't image wasting my life cherry picking ancient bedtime stories written by fools with less knowledge of science and the real world than your average 3rd grader."

Finally, some truth to all of this ridiculous stuff being posted here.

I don't believe Jesus was the Messiah or anything else but a cult leader. But the fact that the cult expanded greatly right after his death goes to the fact he did exist. Nero was already persecuting Christians in 54 CE. He blamed them for the burning of Rome. It doesn't make sense that all these people became followers of someone who didn't exist whose purported death was a mere 20 years before.

People insisting he didn't exist hurt their argument against religion or supreme beings by thinking if they eliminate Christ from history, they eliminate Christianity.

[quote]If Jesus was barely a character that anyone would even take notice of him when he was alive, why would Josephus, a historian who usually recorded history as he saw it, mention Jesus 50 years later.

Because the Romans were already persecuting Christians who were already a sizable cult.

Has nothing to do with the barefoot Jew from Galilee.

Praise Krampus!

First the Preppy Handbook!

Now Christmas!!!

Is nothing sacred???

Let us have our fantasies!!

Now, now, calm down. Just remember that GOD raped Mary, a married virgin, and forced her to give birth in a filthy stable filled with manure. Then he watched dispassionately as his only son was slowly tortured and killed. Now shut up and spread'um. Oh, and give us your life savings tax free, bitches.

I still kiss bread before I throw it away. Body of Christ, ya know.

His followers were so distraught by his death, they ate his body and drank his blood to feel "close" to him. So, he would become "a part of them". Like Jeffrey Dahmer. What a lovely tradition.

[Quote] But the fact that the cult expanded greatly right after his death goes to the fact he did exist

The Isis cult lasted 4,000 years in various fashions. Did Isis exist too?

R215, and yes, true believers when taking the Eucharist are literally eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood. Literally.

It’s a cannibalistic religion.

'Tis the season-ing.

Religion is bullshit. To accept any of the historic stuff actually happened is idiotic.

any of it? All of it? Really r219. Nothing happened in Israel between 800 BC and 70 AD?

Honestly, I get the sentiment. But people should stop being so overwhelmed by their hatred of this or that religion that they lose all touch with reality.

"Lose all touch with reality"...well put.

Yes, lots happened in Israel during that time, but there was no man named Jesus sent by God, born from a virgin, to do tons of miracles and then get sacrificed on a cross to save the world from original sin.

That’s the biggest bunch bull crap anyone has ever heard.

R220 And everything that happened after Xtianity rose into power should inform any objective persion it's evil.

OP and some others on here are part of the War on Christmas. Get over it OP.

Can't we all just fuck children and get along?

R224 is part of the War on Common Sense

'In the cold months in Israel, shepherds usually don't let their sheep out to pasture, nor would Mary have given birth outdoors in the cold manger.'

Have you actually been to Israel in 'the cold months'? I've been there at Christmas and temps were in the 70s. I was swimming in the sea. Sheep and camels are in the fields year round. There is no fall or winter as east coasters or Brits understand it.

Well, I am booking my flight to that God forsaken dustbowl right now! I hear the shrapnel is lovely this time of year.

The coastal resorts are nicer than anything in your gross country with its shark infested seas, R228. Great diving and snorkelling off the Red Sea coast, with sea temps usually in the mid-high 80s.

Be sure to wear your good luck ham while taking a dip.

Yes, God chose a complete backwater in the middle of a desert to have his “son” be born there to save the world…

There was ONE fatal shark attack 11 years ago and nothing before or since, and that was in Egypt not Israel. Your precious coastlines have regular fatalities. Woe betide anyone going to Florida for the warm sea temperatures and why anyone bothers with the freezing Pacific off California, I have no clue.

Good for YOU. Bravo. I've become a Christian with just your wise words. Now where are the kiddies? They hang around the beach, right?

R227 You have not been in the West Bank in December. It is in the 50s in the day and 40s at night. Too cold for an infant to survive being outdoors.

R284, the weather forecast for Jerusalem is online. It's in the 70s for the whole of next week. Check if you don't believe me.

For Xmas, I hope that some of you bitches receive some nice new panties that don't bunch up so tightly.

Why were you vacationing in Apartheid Israel R227? Have you heard of a little thing called boycott.

Not bothered, R257. I go where the great diving is and the Red Sea is one of the few places where the coral is unaffected by rising sea temperatures as the sea never gets above 30c. It needs to be 33c for bleaching to occur.

[quote]For Xmas, I hope that some of you bitches receive some nice new panties that don't bunch up so tightly.

And maybe some new pearls that haven't been ground to dust from all the clutching.

[quote] Have you actually been to Israel in 'the cold months'? I've been there at Christmas and temps were in the 70s. I was swimming in the sea. Sheep and camels are in the fields year round. There is no fall or winter as east coasters or Brits understand it.

Bethlehem is in the mountains, dipshit.

It is at 2500 feet elevation, and occasionally even snows in the Winter!

You're just being a contrarian cunt.

R240, stop being a dick when the weather for these places is on the BBC website. It's forecast to be 77f in Bethehem on Christmas Day.

The early Christians took (appropriated) pagan holidays and plugged them into Christian “events.” That way the pagan countries they converted could keep celebrating their holidays

And really Charles Dickens, the Night Before Christmas, and Dr. Seuss have as much to do with Christmas these days as Jesus, the Christians, the Vikings, the Celts, and the Temple of Saturn.

It's a mix.

The people who can't separate the Jesus existed arguments from the Jesus was God business are so frustrating.

They need to be separated, r244, it's true. They are two very different questions. But people who think it's all about fighting Christianity are wrong too. It's an interesting question in and of itself. And if Jesus never existed at all, Christianity actually becomes weirdly more fascinating. How did it start? I'm on the fence about the whole question, but the mythicists do raise very interesting questions about how we know anything at all about any "real" Jesus, assuming there is one.

The Gospel of Matthew does not number nor name the Magi. "Three" was arrived at by the assumption each Magus presented one type of gift.

The single biblical account in Matthew simply presents an event at an unspecified point after Christ's birth in which an unnumbered party of unnamed "wise men" (μάγοι, mágoi) visits him in a house (οἰκίαν, oikian), not a stable, with only "his mother" mentioned as present

Who the hell brought myrrh?

R247 - good question; have any of you ever encountered myrrh in your daily life?

r114

Zeus famously took the form of Herc's mom when he seduced her and then her husband came home from campaign the next day and that's how she became pregnant with twins, one the son of Zeus and one of Amphitryon... she was NO virgin

Hold on there r249? Herc's MOM?

ha!

I did mean Herc's DAD... I mean it wasn't like when Zeus transformed into Artemis to seduce Calisto

r248 I have myrrh at home. I lit a stick two days ago.

Sorry, r 251, couldn't resist the cheap shot. It's DL.

Also, I think that's how King Arthur was born. All the cool kids have somebody transform into their Dads!

r253

I deserved it! It is the DL like you said

Maybe they were trying to turn Mary into a Myrrh-maid

Atheist here. I believe a man named Jesus existed, but he was just a man. There is just too much evidence to show that his followers simply took other myths and melded them into their own. It's indisputable. I would really like if the people who are uneducated on these facts would open their pea brains and see that it's all been a lie. I mean, if your religious beliefs can be influenced by your parents, the country in which you were born, or some ancient texts then it's far more likely those beliefs are simply brainwashing. That some of you cannot admit that possibility speaks to your own ability to be honest with yourselves and others.

Well, you are probably right to be an atheist r256. It is probably true there is no God. But I wish people would avoid phrases like "it's indisputable." Pretty much everything about the Bible is highly disputable. Was there a Jesus? Oh Maybe. Probably. The historicists are being reasonable, even if they may be wrong. Did he teach a doctrine of ...? Well, that's where it gets weird. Pacifism? Maybe, or maybe violent revolution and disciples wandering around with swords. Did he fight the Pharisees, or was he actually one? There was one school of Pharisees that were trying to get everyone to stop being stupid about rules that may have outlived their usefulness. The students of Hillel were trying to get people to look at the spirit of the laws, and not just the letter. Was he one of those? Did he die for opposing Rome? That would actually make sense, if the crucifixion actually happened. Or maybe it was some other weird thing where his Kingdom was not of this world, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

And I am all for questioning your parents' religious beliefs. But don't stop there. Question their political and every other belief as well. That is of course what growing up is about.

Now that we know all about THE FUCKING WEATHER in the Disneyland for adult cretins, we'll stay right here, thanks. Thanks so much.

umm, ladies ... you are welcome to stay, but we have you at a 10, we need you at a 6.

Christians always avoid details of the virgin birth. I mean, man was made in God's image, right, so God has a (uncut) penis? I always think of God as being a huge man. Did his penis fit into Mary's vagina? Did God and Mary both therefore have adulturous sex? Or did he just sort of wave his wand over her and she became pregnant while she was sleeping? Why doesn't the Bible go into all this?

Logic would dictate that there was an actual lay preacher named Y'shua Ben Yosef who lived in Judea in that era, whose followers created a post-mortem narrative about him that eventually morphed into Christianity.

If nothing else it would be much easier to invent a myth around someone people were somewhat aware of than to invent it from whole cloth. Plus you'd have more motivation--claiming someone was the Messiah was a thing among the Jews of that era--the Old Testament talks about the Messiah--and so easier to spin your story of an existing person than just making one up.

Sort of how fictional characters are often based, albeit loosely, on real people the author has known.

It was a whole Ear thing r260. Don't make me go through that again!

Yule has always been celebrated in December and many of the traditions surrounding Christmas came out of Europe. You must be American or PoC because they never check their facts either..

Okay, so here is a great quote from Mark Twain: what gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.

Was there some big crying out for Messiah's in the early first century? Not really, probably not. Were a lot of people wandering around calling themselves Messiah? Again, probably not. Does the Old Testament talk about the Messiah? Sort of, sometimes. One Messiah was Cyrus the Great, the Persian Emperor who destroyed the Babylonian Empire and let the Jews return and rebuild their temple. Obviously nothing to do with some Jewish freedom or House of David or any of that stuff. In other words, nothing to do with anything that is supposedly what "messiahs" are all about.

And Oh Dear, and misplaced apostrophe.

There are so many sharks in Israel's waters that they're protected by Israeli law.

Plus in the Red Sea off Eilat there are 7 species of shark so I don't know what DL's Kween Diver is talking about. In Eilat there's even an Observatory so one can climb down into the sea to observe them

JPost is a right wing, colonialist rag. Don't post their shit here R266.

Who gives a shit when they're talking about sharks?

That we enjoy the presents that we get from our family members?

I wonder if R267 has similar reactions about Chinese media

[Quote] The people who can't separate the Jesus existed arguments from the Jesus was God business are so frustrating.

Not a shred of evidence for either.

[quote] Not a shred of evidence for either.

What do you consider evidence?

Do you deny the existence of subatomic particles because you cant directly observe them?

[Quote] There is just too much evidence to show that his followers simply took other myths and melded them into their own. It's indisputable.

Indisputable? What evidence?

ALL of it is based on belief and faith—like Santa Claus. No one has seen him; people have written lots of about him—Santa must have existed and he flies around giving gifts to children!

People are still arguing about whether Jesus was actually born on the exact day every other culture around the world has a significant event?

What a giant coincidence!

Nothing from the Roman history books about a census being held anytime around that year. But, hey, who cares about history when I can just believe whatever I’m told, right?

"... they ate his body and drank his blood to feel "close" to him."

I totally get that..

R272 Wrong. You are comparing subatomic particles, a known phenomena established via experimental physics, to a creature of myth.

Oy, Einstein is turning in his grave.

R276, I'm not sure what mythical point you thought I was trying to make. My actual point was that sometimes the existence of something or someone is demonstrated by or is the best explanation for the observable effects.

That Jesus existed (not that he was divine or any of that) is the best explanation for early Christianity and its literature, Greco-Roman and rabbinic information about Jesus, etc.

Yes R277 and the best explanation for the ancient Greek religion and its literature is that Zeus existed.

Ditto for Shiva and Krishna. Ditto for Buddha.

See how that works?

What am I chopped liver?

I have been around for thousands of years. I must exist as there is ample written about me in the literature and religious texts of ancient India.

Is that an attempt at being clever, r278? Because scholars believe Buddha did exist, which pretty much means you shot yourself in the head there.

Yes, I should have left Buddha out of it. He did not do supernatural acts and was a living person.

Unlike the mythical creature Jesus of Nazareth, of which there is zero evidence that this creature was anything but a myth.

[quote] Yes, I should have left Buddha out of it. He did not do supernatural acts and was a living person.

Oh really?

You people left out the truly great character of our time. I urge you to study Exit Stage Left: The Snagglepuss Chronicles. Finally, some text that has the virtue so needed today.

Rofl this thread got totally grayed out by the fraus and fundies who frequent this site.