Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime

Religions > Atheism > Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 23

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	14 Jul 2005 06:24:53 PM
Object:	Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime

Jesus Denial
I created this blog 11 months ago without writing anything in it until
now. Yesterday I heard from some friends about Larry King's recent
show, "What Happens After We Die?" Larry had invited an evangelical
Protestant, a priest, a Muslim scholar, and a rabbi. He also had
included Marianne Williamson, a wonderful lecturer and teacher of the
Course in Miracles -- a modern spiritual teaching in which Jesus Christ
appears as the central figure, though the teaching relies less on
figures and more on a path of enlightenment similar to that found in
Buddhism. Rounding out his panel was Ellen Johnson, president of
American Atheists, an organization based here in New York. Ellen
apparently argued on the show that Jesus Christ never existed.
So I went to the web yesterday and found a site called
www.jesusneverexisted.com. Its subheading: "Uncompromising exposure of
the counterfeit origins of Christianity and of the evil it has brought
to the world." The site was created by one Kenneth Humphreys in the
autumn of 2002, a few months after I finished a debate with a co-worker
and friend, Ryan, about the existence of God -- a debate in which he
argued that Jesus did not exist, and introduced me to that idea. I
wrote him at least 60 pages in all. Very few subjects have inspired me
more than this one. In fact I wrote Kenneth Humphreys a letter
confronting him with his site's egregious misquotation of the Church
Father Justin Martyr, who is made to say words implying that Jesus'
existence was in doubt in the ancient world. That website is one of the
more bigoted I've ever seen. It means to prove with a vengeance the
concluding statement on its home page: "Christianity is the worst
disaster in history," meaning the most murderous.
For a while I've suspected that this fringe idea about Jesus was, like
Holocaust denial, becoming more popular. When I gave my friend Kate a
copy of the debate I had with Ryan, she said to me that I'd given the
theory of nonexistence too much credit, that is, more attention than it
deserved. She was suggesting something very reasonable, that such ideas
die by themselves if left alone. But the theory kept turning up in all
the wrong places. In May 2004 the Skeptical Inquirer put out a critique
of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" in which Joe Nickell, a
onetime professor of technical writing and stage magician, seemed to be
arguing that Jesus was a figment of imagination; so I wrote to the
magazine just to say that as professional and professed skeptics they
were buying into a conspiracy theory. In his book, The Disinformation
Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths,
Russ Kick affirms the theory as expounded by one of its chief
proponents, who goes by the Indian-sounding moniker Acharya S. (Kick
uses another Christ-myther and former evangelical, Dan Barker -- the
author my friend Ryan used in our debate -- to attack the Resurrection
in his book, Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide to Media
Mirages and Establishment Lies). There are signs that the whitewashing
of Jesus is firmly esconced, in our Republican-dominant times, on the
left, and may be rising in popularity now as part of a passing
arrangement of politics; but I'm not sure.
I've called the movement Jesus-denial, not in the sense that it denies
that Jesus was divine, or indeed that he had any particular attribute
at all, but simply that he breathed and lived. I have found startling
similarities between this denial and that of the Holocaust, though I
consider Holocaust denial more truly bigoted, more prevalent even in
those places where it was thought to be dying, and less rational.
I found another website called Positive Atheism, promoting the theory
that Jesus did not exist. I read the transcript of Larry King's show at
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html, and went to the
American Atheists website, where Ellen Johnson, as president,
introduces the entire worldview -- not entirely in an unappealing
manner. This site was, in that sense, different from the others. I went
to the section on Christianity and found essays by Frank Zindler, a
former professor of biology and geology who claims that Jesus did not
exist. And I began composing a long letter to Ellen, in which I
referred to my few years as an atheist and described at length what was
wrong with the theory that she had promoted on Larry King and was
promoting on her site.
I looked up the phrase "Jesus never existed" on Google. There were
3,770 hits. The first was Kenneth Humphreys' site of that name. A good
number came from ordinary postings on discussion boards. Many of the
rest came from mainstream sites about history or religious history in
which the article entitled "Jesus" would include in its bibliography,
as one of a full variety of viewpoints, the Humphreys site. None of
these latter bibliographies quoted his theory approvingly, but the very
fact that his site was now commonly listed as part of the
bibliographical literature thought to be worth listing struck me. It
meant to me that the theory of non-existence had found a certain level
of respectability. It is no longer fringe. Larry King's show is
certainly a marker of mainstream culture, so Ellen Johnson's on-air
argument against the existence of Jesus represents, to me, a kind of
marker in this movement.
I Googled phrases for other world religions. "Buddha never existed"
turned up 75 hits. None or very few of them, as far as I could tell,
were open arguments to that effect; mostly I seemed to be turning up
casual references to the idea that Buddha never existed, without
affirmations of that idea. In fact the first hit was by a Christian who
wondered if people of other faiths also had to put up with their
religious figures being argued out of existence. It was a page about
Jesus' existence.
"Muhammad never existed" turned up only 36 hits. The first came from a
1996 Daniel Pipes essay at the website of American Atheist, a different
site from Ellen Johnson's organization. I have only read a few brief
pieces by Pipes, but I gather that he is a right-wing author with an
axe to grind against Islam, and that many of his writings support the
idea that Islam is an inherently violent religion. This particular
piece was a review of Why I Am Not A Muslim, a book by an ex-Muslim
named Ibn Warraq. Here is an excerpt from the review:
"Ibn Warraq draws on current Western scholarship to make the
astonishing claim that Muhammad never existed, or if he did, he had
nothing to do with the Koran. Rather, that holy book was fabricated a
century or two later in Palestine, then 'projected back onto an
invented Arabian point of origin.' If the Koran is a fraud, it's not
surprising to learn that the author finds little authentic in other
parts of the Islamic tradition. For example, he dispatches Islamic law
as 'a fantastic creation founded on forgeries and pious fictions.' The
whole of Islam, in short, he portrays as a concoction of lies."
I quote all this at length because the arguments are astonishingly
close to what is said about Christianity when Jesus' existence is
denied.
Some of the other sites quote the Pipes article, as well as a different
and more recent article in which Pipes tells of a retired CIA agent who
relates that the CIA spread the following misinformation around the
Middle East in the 1950s: that the Soviet Union was promoting
scholarship along the lines that Muhammad never existed. As for the
other hits, I could find none that explicitly argued against Muhammad's
existence.
This is important to me because one thing I discovered in debating Ryan
was the degree to which no religion was safe if even one was attacked.
I found the Jesus-as-myth theory, in other words, to build its entire
foundation on the premise that religion is made up of myths, forgeries,
lies, coercions, and no other history worth speaking about. I found
that those who tried to "vaporize" Jesus out of existence also were
saying extremely negative things about other religions, without
consulting the scholars of those religions: and I don't mean Islam
here, I mean the pagan Roman cults that Christianity eclipsed. So I
didn't see Islam or Buddhism attacked per se in these writings; but I
felt that they would be next, so to speak, if Christianity were allowed
to "fall."
And I found that phenomena which had their own discrete meanings in the
non-Christian religions were being distorted and forced into Christian
categories. What I mean is that when someone says that Jesus did not
exist, and that Christ was a pastiche of pagan cults or goddess
religions, which had their own virgin births and resurrections, I found
that all this evidence came from the 19th century, when the West knew
very little indeed about religions other than Christianity.
Archaelogists and ethnographers were Christian in background, so
everything they discovered in the historical record, they interpreted
as a parallel to Christianity. It's as if you're a Christian and you
visit a Native American ceremony, and everything you see you try to
relate to what you know: "This is their version of Mass; this is their
communion; this is their bishop; etc." And no doubt, the world's
religions do have many common elements with different names. But these
elements also often have different and autonomous meanings, not so easy
to discover even after decades of work. Certainly the old European
attitude about it, where religions would be studied like mice under a
microscope, could not penetrate the heart. Many mistakes were made.
People discovered texts or artifacts and said, "That looks to me like a
Last Supper outside of Christianity," or "this must have been a virgin
birth." From there it was a short jump to conclude that Christianity
was nothing original.
But the terrible conclusion, of course, is that those other religions
were not original either. Worse, they were now no more than precursors
to Christianity. One of the greatest mistakes of traditional
Christianity has been to treat the Jewish scriptures as if they were no
more than a precursor to the New Testament; yet here was the same
mistake being made by secular scholars. Every religion, when you argue
such things as the non-existence of Jesus, is made into a pale copy of
Christianity; and Christianity is made into an unoriginal, destructive
bandit. This is no way to affirm religion or to respect people's
beliefs. And I wonder how many people today, when they easily accept
various forms of the theories that Christianity was preceded by many
virgin births or resurrections, really contemplate what they are doing,
and ask themselves whether they are really making that difficult entry
into other worlds and other ways of thinking, or just working out their
own issues concerning the faith of their childhoods.
In my research it was common for me to find statements to the effect
that Krishna was crucified, or that Buddha came to earth to redeem
humanity. All my years practicing yoga and studying Hinduism and
Buddhism paid off here, because I knew these Eastern traditions were
being perverted. How many Indians died resisting British culture,
including Christianity, only to have someone in ignorance state that
the cross was a common feature of Hinduism? How many times do Buddhist
teachers have to tell us that Buddha did not come to redeem humanity
but simply taught us about suffering and ways to overcome it, before we
know enough to call ignorant claims what they truly are?
If it comes to pass that Muhammad is attacked, I want to be there to
help my Muslim brothers and sisters. I have made two Muslim friends in
the past few months, and have visited and prayed at a mosque; I intend
to visit again. I find myself learning from them, though I'm not pulled
away from my own faith. Right now, I do not see that Muhammad or Buddha
(a somewhat more meaningful figure to my beloved wife, Dess) are being
attacked. There is no reason, objectively speaking, why they cannot be
in the future. The evidence for those figures is roughly the same as it
is for Jesus: religious scriptures copied some years after the central
figure's death are the earliest witnesses, along with testimonies by
enemies or co-religionists, followed in due course by witnesses from
"secular" historians not belonging to the religion and its environment;
none of the great figures left behind, as did the Pharoahs or similar
leaders, physical evidence. If Jesus alone is being attacked by secular
forces (not, it should be noted, by other religions), it is probably
because Christianity has had the most contact with such forces.
Here I wish to give a simple summary of why the theory that Jesus did
not exist is both false and pernicious. I have 10 basic reasons.
1) It is a conspiracy theory. It says that a grand fiction has been
hoisted on the world by secretive and powerful Christian organizations.
It argues that all evidence pointing to invention has been suppressed,
and that all evidence pointing to Christ's existence is fabrication --
all of it, from the New Testament to Jewish writings to Greco-Roman
annals. It takes all the evidence from Christian, Jewish, and pagan
writers and dismisses it by arguing that it all amounts to invention by
reactionary power. In that it is not too different from Marxism, which
regarded religion as a reactionary, counter-revolutionary opiate. But
the theory is not Marxist in origin. It is, quite simply, a conspiracy
theory tailored for Western audiences skeptical of religion. If you
take nothing else away from this post, remember this: the theory of
non-existence, like any conspiracy theory, relies on evidence that is
not there (because it is purportedly suppressed), and denies all the
evidence that is there (because it is purportedly fabricated).
2) It leaves all religions open to attacks from those who, like one
Christ-mythologist, regard religion as "mental illness." Many of these
people are harmless on the surface, but Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong
believed the same thing about religion, and destroyed both shrines and
lives by the tens of millions.
3) It represents a monumental step backward in our understanding of
other religions and the relationships Christianity has had with them.
Calling Jesus a myth requires saying where the ideas for the myth came
from. Sometimes it is said that the ideas for such a Savior figure came
from the Old Testament and from Judaism, but since this makes the
historical break between Christianity and Judaism impossible to
explain, the more usual course is to say that Christ came out of pagan
myths -- so the Roman cults, and sometimes Buddhism and Hinduism, are
named as primary influences upon Christianity. These religions are
romanticized, or they are made to seem like Christianity, which is a
mistake in itself, but is particularly pernicious because the type of
Christian religion referred to here is one that is totally destructive
and immoral. Those who say that the cross had antecedents in other
religions, and in the next paragraph denounce Christianity for being a
bloody religion focused from the start on an instrument of torture, do
not realize that they are essentially saying the same thing about the
pre-Christian religions of the past or the non-Christian religions of
today. They don't say so openly, but that is the fullest consequence of
their arguments.
4) It is un-scientific. Any conspiracy theory, of course, fails to
embrace the scientific method, which requires a relaxed, open mind and
the willingness to try to overthrow your own theory, so that it can be
tested thoroughly. There are many further ways in which this point
could be made. You could say quite correctly that the theory of Jesus'
non-existence is overly complex; it creates special explanations,
circumstances, and standards for everything encountered, thus breaking
the rule known as Occam's razor, which states that entities are not to
be multiplied and that all things being equal, the simplest theory is
the best. You could point out that the theory tries to prove a
negative, an extremely difficult thing to do according to the
principles of logic, and a goal that requires extraordinary evidence,
not merely the "absence" of evidence. You could describe another no-no
of scholarship, known as special pleading, which happens when the
theory of non-existence says that things do not appear as common sense
would dictate because of special reasons, such as suppression of
evidence, and forgery. Many good theories, of course, ask you to
suspend your common sense. The earth revolves around the sun, as common
sense would not tell you. But notice, that is said to be a common
mistake made by all people in all historical epochs. What we have with
Jesus-denial is the charge that some people knew then, and know now,
what most people have not known. That is very different, and it
requires historical proofs, none of which are forthcoming. The only
thing offered is suspicion without consummation. No experiments are
run; nothing falsifiable is said; no science is therefore done.
5) It is ignorant. It comes from people who have degrees in English,
German, biology -- anything but graduate degrees in history, antiquity,
religion, ancient languages or Biblical studies. When it does quote
scholars from those fields, it goes back to 19th century work, and
avoids all recent 20th century advances in biblical studies,
archaeology, ethnography, etc. It avoids scholars of non-Christian
religions, too, and quotes only people who study other things, so that
when, for instance, the god Mithra is said to be Christ's precursor,
with a virgin birth and the like, no Mithra scholars are consulted, and
only non-Mithra scholars are quoted. As such, the theory remained on
the fringes until recently, always just outside mainstream work, and
was hard to find without looking for it specifically. I majored in
Religion and attended a year of seminary; in later years I read the
definitive works on the historical Jesus, and consulted those works
even as an atheist; but I had never heard of a fully articulated theory
of non-existence, because when you study history and religion, you
don't come across the proponents of the theory; they always have
training in something else. Yet they push their opinions about one of
history's central questions. I am no linguist, but if you asked me to
overthrow the mainstream theories about the origin of English, and told
me I could not consult any scholars of English except to note where
they can be debunked, you can imagine the quality of what you'll get
from me.
6) It is arrogant. The only way to test ideas is to come into dialogue
with other ideas, chiefly those constructed by people with knowledge of
the subject. Often good theories are complex, and require a lot of
reading and hard work to sift the evidence. But the theory of
non-existence holds mainly that evidence can be judged, not according
to its content, but according to who wrote it. Therefore, the Bible can
be dismissed; Biblical scholarship can be dismissed. In this the theory
betrays its ignorance of Biblical scholarship, which is full of
agnostics and even some atheists. It seems entirely unaware of what
current scholars, secular and biblical, are saying, but it nevertheless
relies heavily on a very dangerous phrase, "Most scholars believe that"
(fill in the blank: Jesus was a myth-figure, he said nothing of what's
in the Gospels, etc.) A true scholar can get away with summarizing his
or her field; but if you're not in the field, forget it. Even so, most
people who rely on common sense know that the vast majority of
scientific work on the ancient world, its scriptures, languages,
archaeology and beliefs, has been done in the 20th century. Biblical
scholarship has incorporated all that work and is now typically based
upon it. The definitive works on Jesus are not apologetics, and they
openly defy religious or church dogma; but skeptics have long since
stopped listening, and they operate on the assumption that the only
options on the table are Biblical literalism or Biblical atheism.
Basically the attitude is, "I do not need to read those who are
trained, because they are biased; I do not need any special training
myself, and I have no relevant biases." Well, Copernicus dared to
believe that everything he'd been taught on a certain subject could be
wrong; but he was a master practitioner in that field. Tell that to
those who think they are following in Copernicus' footsteps: you will
simply be told in reply that you love your subject and therefore cannot
be trusted to know it well.
7) It is extreme. No secular and relevantly credentialed historian
holds the theory, for at least one very simple reason: there was too
little time. Myths are told about people who lived far away, in another
time and place ("a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away"); no one
living in the local area can contradict the myth, and the imagination
can let loose. Christian writings started surfacing only 20 years after
Jesus "purportedly" lived, so the question comes up: why didn't anyone
contradict the claim that Jesus lived and interacted with famous local
figures? Well, they did, according to the theory, but their testimonies
were destroyed by the Church; or in a variation, they didn't speak up,
because the Romans killed them all off in the war 40 years after
Christ's "purported" lifetime. No historian has produced a comparable
example of a myth that overcame all historical objections so quickly.
But Christ is said to be such a myth. And people -- reasonable,
well-educated people (but not well-educated about religion) -- are
finding such arguments reasonable in rising numbers, I fear. Why is
evolution being disbelieved these days in favor of creationism? Because
our schooling in science, our scientific literacy, is abysmal. Why,
then, with our commonly abysmal education about religion, do we not
exert more skepticism toward the things we hear and say about religious
topics?
8) It is radically partisan and self-contradictory. The destruction of
Christianity's root beliefs always takes precedence over consistent and
fairly applied standards. Logic is always sacrificed to the goal. This
one can only be explained at length by diving deeply into the content,
so I will leave it for another post. But see John Meier's multi-volume
work on the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew, which systematically lays
out the logical criteria needed for this kind of work.
9) It is denial, and not history. History describes what happened.
Denial is concerned to say that such-and-such did not happen. It does
not say that things happened in an alternative or under-appreciated
way, only that they did not happen. It is not a positive description;
it offers no positive alternative -- and by positive I don't mean
happy, I mean simply a map of events rather than non-events. The only
events described are writings, or acts of forgery, often by no-names
("Christian scribes") working in the dark. Actual events, other than
writing, go without much description or investigation for their own
sake; they are brought in only for the conspiracy theory. Individuals
contributing anything are said to be mythical beings invented by the
true agency, the collective cult with its need for survival and power.
Individuals are cut out of history entirely, and shorn of their
personal names, except occasionally for individuals who did have a
certain genuis at forgery: those are the only people named, dated, and
described at length. Bodies are taken out of history, and men such as
Christ become disembodied ghosts or ideas -- a terribly unhistorical
project, even an Orwellian one. Any piece of evidence that the theory
does not like goes down the "memory hole." And of course, in this case
what is being denied is not merely neutral, but something that is all
too often denied: suffering. The rejection, torture, and capital
punishment of an innocent individual is pushed out of existence or
otherwise shorn of its meaning. To deny history is always to deny pain
and suffering.
10) It is bigoted. It is committed to destroying or defaming
Christians, of course, and is sometimes especially hostile to Roman
Catholicism. But it is necessarily exploitative of other religions,
even those it nominally champions. Moreover, it always denies the deep
relationship between Judaism and Christianity, and seeks to overturn
mainstream biblical scholarship's deep and healing dialogue with
Judaism, by making Christianity exclusively a pastiche of non-Jewish
religions which the Jewish people, historically, despised -- not least
because paganism oppressed them so cruelly. In many ways, the theory
represents anything but progressive scholarship shedding light on
victims, whether they be Jews or Gentiles; the only oppression it
recognizes is that committed by Christianity. Its conclusions are
welcomed, disturbingly, by anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic bigots.
Meier's volume is the definitive treatise on the historical Jesus,
though it does not spend any time directly tackling the theory of
nonexistence. For that, many links on the web exist, and of course a
good deal of them are from folks who are more conservative about the
Bible than I am. My favorite collection of essays about this theory is
at Bede's Library: see http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm. That page
has one very telling essay on the judgments of secular and atheist
historians on this issue.
This statement by James Hannam on the home page describes my sentiments
very closely, though it does not describe my life: "The aim of Bede's
Library is [to] show how a person from a scientific background came to
Christianity and has had his faith strengthened rather than weakened by
argument and reason." My own story might say something rather about an
intellectual who gave his heart as a child to science and faith, and
has found inexpressible joys as an adult by practicing these things,
often on unexpected paths.
Peace,
Kevin
posted by Kevin Rosero at 8:41 PM
http://roseandrock.blogspot.com/2005/04/jesus-denial.html
.

User: "Michael Hearne"
Title: Re: Bush Denial Is Hate Crime	06 Aug 2005 11:23:07 PM

Terry Cross wrote:

Altared Boy wrote:

You evil swine!!!!

How dare you question the divinity of GWB!!

"I hathe seen Him walketh undereth the waters and maketh the blinde
lame and the lepers sick and the weak weaker even unto the tenth
generation for He lied with an ***** and with a woman who is unclean and
begat Jenna and the Other One who are the Whores of Babylon even until
the last Day of Judgement when the horn shall be hornier and the donkey
shall sleep with the Shadow of Death for GWB art with me and sayeth,
from the Cross, 'Voters, voters, why has't thou forsaken me?' and the
Voters were too busy peeking on the Blessed Virgin who forgot to use a
condom so caughteth rabies from the lamb to the slaughter."
Book of Sandra Day O'Connor (Dissenting Opinion)

I could go on but I think that pretty much settles the matter.

Not at all. If you are going to mock proper English (that is, the use of
the plainess of speech), then at least attempt to do so properly. Your
speech sounds like the "Three Stooges Thanksgiving" episode, and really
has the opposite effect of what you are trying to do. On top of that,
you are mixing Elizabethan and Jameson English, poorly. They are a
century apart.
Study: thee, thou, thy, thine, you, your, our, hence, thence, whence,
hither, thither, yonder; verbs at rest vs. verbs in action.
We can't take you seriously, you are a mocker.

Truly, that is one of the most sensible and logical things Sandra ever
wrote. It is a great tragedy to be losing her from the Bench, just
now. particularly when we need her glowing words going as a torch
before us to guide us through the tunnels in the Rock of Ages.

Who will drive off the Apes of Wrath? Who will stave off the idle and
licentious that toil not, neither do they spin? Even now, the master
spin doctor, Karl Rove, is bloodied and pulled to the earth like a bull
among a pack of hounds.

It is a dark day, friend.

TCross

User: "Martin Edwards"
Title: Re: Bush Denial Is Hate Crime	07 Aug 2005 12:09:31 PM

Michael Hearne wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

Altared Boy wrote:

What exactly is Jameson English. What we talk after a few shots of
Irish whiskey?
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
.

User: "�� /Riain Barton"
Title: Re: Bush Denial Is Hate Crime	07 Aug 2005 08:28:42 PM

*snicker*
"Martin Edwards" <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd5f8a$q58$2@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
: What exactly is Jameson English. What we talk after a few shots of
: Irish whiskey?
:
: --
: You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
.

User: "Ben Goren"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	15 Jul 2005 02:17:36 PM

Malcolm wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:

Since you're so certain that Jesus actually did exist, would
you be so kind as to point me in the direction of just one
piece of (non-Biblical) historical evidence that dates to
sometime in the first three or four decades of the first
century?

If you can't, what's the earliest evidence you /can/ produce?

Which shows that Jesus denial has exactly the same intellectual
status as holocaust denial.

All our real evidence for Jesus is written evidence, virtually
all of it written by folowers, though not all first
century documents mentioning Jesus were accepted as canonical
scriptures. The Christian movement certianly existed in the
first century, and the idea that it could have grown around a
non-existent person is completely absurd.

There are many alleged artefacts connected with Jesus. In the
nature of things, the motivation for fraud is very high and it
is extremely difficult to prove any of them genuine.

Jesus denial, holcoaust denial, creationism, three absurdities
with very similar characteristics. Soon to be joined by 9/11
denial.

Yet I notice that you don't provide any of the evidence. Again, I
ask: what /contemporary/ evidence do you have for the existence of
Jesus?
There's plenty of contemporary evidence for the Shoa, including a
great many tattooed survivors, German records, Allied movies, and
the facilities themselves.
On the other hand, there's /not one shred/ of evidence for an
historical Jesus created by somebody who was alive at the time he
was supposed to have lived. The earliest references, even if
suspect, are at least a generation older than Jesus. The Jesus
myth is self-contradictory and flatly contradicts historical
facts--such as having him born in the town of Nazareth which
didn't even exist until the third or fourth century (and then only
as a tourist trap for Christian pilgrims).
Do yourself a favor. Approach the Jesus myth the same way you'd
approach any of the Greek, Egyptian, or other myths. What evidence
is there for an historical Jesus that's better than the evidence
for an historical Orpheus, Osiris, Hercules, Krishna...? Is it
``denial'' to say that they're all made up?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	15 Jul 2005 02:55:56 PM

"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote

Jesus denial, holcoaust denial, creationism, three absurdities
with very similar characteristics. Soon to be joined by 9/11
denial.

Yet I notice that you don't provide any of the evidence. Again, I
ask: what /contemporary/ evidence do you have for the existence of
Jesus?

This is exactly "where is the repeatable scientific evidence for
evolution?".
The good evidence for Jesus is all written evidence, and unfortunately for
modern scholars it is virtually all by Christians.
Written evidence is evidence, in this case it is conclusive evidence.

There's plenty of contemporary evidence for the Shoa, including a
great many tattooed survivors, German records, Allied movies, and
the facilities themselves.

Sure, and Holocaust denial is on exactly the same intellectual level as
Jesus denial. If we had a neo-Nazi posting he would mess about as you do
asking for written German documents describing the policy, endless talk
about the chemical stability of Zylon B, and other nonsense.

On the other hand, there's /not one shred/ of evidence for an
historical Jesus created by somebody who was alive at the time he
was supposed to have lived.

St Paul was alive at the time of Jesus. So too were the writers of the
synoptic gospels. The writer of John's gospel may also have been alive at
the time, and certianly his lifespan overlapped with living witnesses.
There's also the physical evidence, but by its nature it's not good
evidence. Any old cup could have been the Holy Grail.

The earliest references, even if
suspect, are at least a generation older than Jesus. The Jesus
myth is self-contradictory and flatly contradicts historical
facts--such as having him born in the town of Nazareth which
didn't even exist until the third or fourth century (and then only
as a tourist trap for Christian pilgrims).

No one has found an arachaelogical first century Nazareth. That's not the
same as proof that no such village existed. However "Nazareth" may be a
garbling of "Nazarite", that's a respectable scholarly theory.

Do yourself a favor. Approach the Jesus myth the same way you'd
approach any of the Greek, Egyptian, or other myths. What evidence
is there for an historical Jesus that's better than the evidence
for an historical Orpheus, Osiris, Hercules, Krishna...? Is it
``denial'' to say that they're all made up?

So who was king of the region where Osiris was born? Who was ruler when
Osiris died? Who was his mother? How did he earn his living?
Jesus was a historical person, like Buddah and Mohammed. The others on your
list probably weren't, or at least there is room for some dispute.
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	15 Jul 2005 10:06:57 PM

Malcolm wrote:

"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote

Jesus denial, holcoaust denial, creationism, three absurdities
with very similar characteristics. Soon to be joined by 9/11
denial.

Yet I notice that you don't provide any of the evidence. Again, I
ask: what /contemporary/ evidence do you have for the existence of
Jesus?

This is exactly "where is the repeatable scientific evidence for
evolution?".

Observation of fossils from simple to complex. A colony of white moths
turning black in response to stimuli. And so forth.

The good evidence for Jesus is all written evidence, and unfortunately for
modern scholars it is virtually all by Christians.
Written evidence is evidence, in this case it is conclusive evidence.

So, Zaphod Beeblebrox exists? I have a book written about him. His
name is written evidence of his existence. There is no written evidence
for Jesus until *AFTER* his death.
In Men in Black, Kay mentions that Elvis Presley did not die in 1977;
that Elvis was an extraterrestrial and "just went home." Since Elvis
was written about as doing something after Elvis died, does that mean
that Elvis was, in fact, extraterrestrial in nature?

There's plenty of contemporary evidence for the Shoa, including a
great many tattooed survivors, German records, Allied movies, and
the facilities themselves.

Except, of course, we have contemporary evidence of its happenings, such
as the prisons still standing, the survivors are STILL living, and so
forth. No one from Jesus' time ever mentioned Jesus until 30 years
AFTER his death...if not longer.

On the other hand, there's /not one shred/ of evidence for an
historical Jesus created by somebody who was alive at the time he
was supposed to have lived.

St Paul was alive at the time of Jesus.

Yes, but we only have two sources from St Paul's time on the existence
of St Paul: "Acts of the Apostles" and "Acts of Paul and Thecla."
"Acts of Paul and Thecla" was written in about 160CE and has been found
to be fraudenlent.
"Acts of the Apostles" meanwhile, was written by Luke, according to
Muratorian fragments, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen.
Neither was written by St Paul himself. Therefore, both are
aprocryphal, if trying to find the existence of this St Paul chap.

So too were the writers of the
synoptic gospels.

Nope. The gospels were written in around 200CE.

The writer of John's gospel may also have been alive at
the time, and certianly his lifespan overlapped with living witnesses.

John (nee Mark) was written about by Severus, Bishop of Al-Ushmunain in
the 10th century CE and the "Secret Gospel of Mark" was written in a
letter to Clement of Alexandria (who died around 213CE)
John (nee Mark) was never mentioned during Jesus' time.

There's also the physical evidence, but by its nature it's not good
evidence. Any old cup could have been the Holy Grail.

Yep. However, the Grail would be a nice find, if the Grail itself
existed back then. However, the first mention of the Grail was in the
7th Century, in the account of Arculf.

Nazarite is a Jew, not a place, which is derived from "Nazir," which is
simply a Jew who took an ascetic vow, as described in Numbers 6.
Nazareth, however, derives from "Nester" meaning "shoot" or "sprout."
Or it could've derived from "Notserah" meaning "one guarding or watching
from a hill."

So who was king of the region where Osiris was born? Who was ruler when
Osiris died? Who was his mother? How did he earn his living?

Osiris was first mentioned late in the 5th Dynasty of Egypt, in the tomb
of Unas (died around 2345BCE), which was the last pharaoh of the 5th
Dynasty. We have found the remains of the mummified Unas in his tomb in
the southwest corner of the Step Pyramid of Djoser at Saqqara.

Jesus was a historical person, like Buddah and Mohammed. The others on your
list probably weren't, or at least there is room for some dispute.

Can you cite ANYONE who contemporarily recorded Jesus? We have the body
of Unas. We do not have the body of Jesus.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.

User: "Ash"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 06:33:28 AM

Malcolm wrote:

"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote

Jesus denial, holcoaust denial, creationism, three absurdities
with very similar characteristics. Soon to be joined by 9/11
denial.

Yet I notice that you don't provide any of the evidence. Again, I
ask: what /contemporary/ evidence do you have for the existence of
Jesus?

This is exactly "where is the repeatable scientific evidence for
evolution?".

no it isn't

The good evidence for Jesus is all written evidence, and unfortunately for
modern scholars it is virtually all by Christians.
Written evidence is evidence, in this case it is conclusive evidence.

Sayin so does not make it so. the fact is that there is nothing outside
these sources, writen by unkown people in an unknown location at an
unkown date that corroborates them. If they had kept it small and
claimed Jesus led a small group that expanded after his death, this
would be reasonable, but they had to go for glory, claim he preached to
crowds of thousands, that many believed him the messiah, that the romans
excecuted him for this, that on his death the dead came back to life

There's plenty of contemporary evidence for the Shoa, including a
great many tattooed survivors, German records, Allied movies, and
the facilities themselves.

On the other hand, there's /not one shred/ of evidence for an
historical Jesus created by somebody who was alive at the time he
was supposed to have lived.

So who was king of the region where Osiris was born? Who was ruler when
Osiris died? Who was his mother? How did he earn his living?

Jesus was a historical person, like Buddah and Mohammed. The others on your
list probably weren't, or at least there is room for some dispute.

User: "Ben Goren"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	15 Jul 2005 03:36:59 PM

Malcolm wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:

Jesus denial, holcoaust denial, creationism, three absurdities
with very similar characteristics. Soon to be joined by 9/11
denial.

Yet I notice that you don't provide any of the evidence. Again,
I ask: what /contemporary/ evidence do you have for the
existence of Jesus?

This is exactly "where is the repeatable scientific evidence for
evolution?". The good evidence for Jesus is all written
evidence, and unfortunately for modern scholars it is virtually
all by Christians. Written evidence is evidence, in this case
it is conclusive evidence.

And you still do not produce the evidence. All that Christian
scholarship dates to the second century at the earliest that I'm
aware of--hardly contemporary, certainly not conclusive. You might
as well cite this note as ``conclusive evidence'' that El Salvador
used nuclear weapons against Xanadu in its unsuccessful bid for
independence in 1889.

There's plenty of contemporary evidence for the Shoa, including
a great many tattooed survivors, German records, Allied movies,
and the facilities themselves.

Sure, and Holocaust denial is on exactly the same intellectual
level as Jesus denial. If we had a neo-Nazi posting he would
mess about as you do asking for written German documents
describing the policy, endless talk about the chemical stability
of Zylon B, and other nonsense.

And I'd turn right back around and produce the survivors, the
German records, the Allied movies, the facilities....
You, on the other hand, don't have a bloody thing to produce. You
don't even /try/ to come up with contemporary documentation.
In short, we've got what would be the most amazing and important
event in all of human history, and the first people to even make
mention of it weren't born for another generation or two after the
fact. And you call that ``conclusive evidence''? Please.

On the other hand, there's /not one shred/ of evidence for an
historical Jesus created by somebody who was alive at the time
he was supposed to have lived.

There's also the physical evidence, but by its nature it's not
good evidence. Any old cup could have been the Holy Grail.

*****, at this point I'd be happy if you could even produce
something as simple as the Roman records of a preemptive mass
slaughter of infants at the beginning of the first century. Even
an oblique mention of an earthquake at the end of the fourth
decade would be a start, for that matter. Give me /something,/
anything at all, in the first half of the first century, that
supports a specific and significant claim made in the Bible that's
more obscure than the names of well-known politicians.
If you can't even come up with something that generous as a
starting point...well, if that's not enough to convince you that
the whole thing is *****, nothing is.

The earliest references, even if suspect, are at
least a generation older than Jesus. The Jesus myth
is self-contradictory and flatly contradicts historical
facts--such as having him born in the town of Nazareth which
didn't even exist until the third or fourth century (and then
only as a tourist trap for Christian pilgrims).

No one has found an arachaelogical first century
Nazareth. That's not the same as proof that no such village
existed.

It goes /way/ beyond that. The Old Testament knows nothing of
Nazareth. The Talmud knows nothing of Nazareth. Paul knew nothing
of Nazareth. No historian or geographer even mentions the name
before the fourth century. Josephus himself, who lived for a while
in Japha (just a mile to the southwest of Nazareth), never
mentioned the town.

However "Nazareth" may be a garbling of "Nazarite", that's a
respectable scholarly theory.

Too bad it flatly contradicts the Gospels themselves. And if the
Gospels are so garbled that they could mistake the town where
Jesus was born for somebody who had long hair, why should anybody
take even one word of them seriously?

Do yourself a favor. Approach the Jesus myth the same way you'd
approach any of the Greek, Egyptian, or other myths. What
evidence is there for an historical Jesus that's better than
the evidence for an historical Orpheus, Osiris, Hercules,
Krishna...? Is it ``denial'' to say that they're all made up?

So who was king of the region where Osiris was born? Who was
ruler when Osiris died? Who was his mother? How did he earn his
living?

Jesus was a historical person, like Buddah and Mohammed. The
others on your list probably weren't, or at least there is room
for some dispute.

Jesus never existed. I don't know about Buddha and Mohammed, but I
wouldn't be too terribly surprised to learn that they had been
made out of whole cloth, either. I've never looked into their
historicity, so I wouldn't say one way or the other until after at
least a cursory examination of the evidence. But Jesus was
certainly a fabrication, just as Abraham, Moses, and Noah were,
too.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 07:13:37 AM

"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote

So stupid or ill-informed that he doesn't even know that the great majority
of the New Testament is first century.

In short, we've got what would be the most amazing and important
event in all of human history, and the first people to even make
mention of it weren't born for another generation or two after the
fact. And you call that ``conclusive evidence''? Please.

St Paul was probably born at about the same time as Jesus.

Too bad there's no actual evidence of the Gospels themselves until
long after the fact--and that the earliest copies are themselves
copies of copies. And that there were lots of contemporaneous
Gospels that were downright silly, unquestionably establishing the
fact of a flourishing trade in Gospel Fiction. A practice that
exactly mirrors the Jewish tradition of midrash, no less....

That and, once again, the fact that the Gospels can't even agree
with each other on vital facts, let alone actual evidence. The
Gospels are about the /worst/ evidence for Jesus you could come up
with. If they're the best you've got, then you've all but got
proof right there that there wasn't any Jesus.

*****, at this point I'd be happy if you could even produce
something as simple as the Roman records of a preemptive mass
slaughter of infants at the beginning of the first century. Even
an oblique mention of an earthquake at the end of the fourth
decade would be a start, for that matter. Give me /something,/
anything at all, in the first half of the first century, that
supports a specific and significant claim made in the Bible that's
more obscure than the names of well-known politicians.

The eclipse at Jesus' death is mentioned by a pagan writer. (Suetonius, I
believe). A mass grave contianing many infants has been found.

If you can't even come up with something that generous as a
starting point...well, if that's not enough to convince you that
the whole thing is *****, nothing is.

It goes /way/ beyond that. The Old Testament knows nothing of
Nazareth. The Talmud knows nothing of Nazareth. Paul knew nothing
of Nazareth. No historian or geographer even mentions the name
before the fourth century. Josephus himself, who lived for a while
in Japha (just a mile to the southwest of Nazareth), never
mentioned the town.

If it was a small village, then it's quite likely no-one mentions it.

However "Nazareth" may be a garbling of "Nazarite", that's a
respectable scholarly theory.

"Jesus the Nazarite" becomes garbled to "Jesus the Nazarene". Doesn't mean
that said Jesus never existed. Similarly a lot of people think that Adolf
Hitler was a German. If you trawl German birth records, you will find no-one
listed as A. Hitler. Does that mean such a person didn't exist?

There was a Mohammed, a Budda, and a Jesus. All these people are well
documented and it is absurd to suggest they didn't exist.
Abraham, Moses and Noah are not documented outside of the Torah. Moses
almost certainly existed, because we know the Israelites were in Egypt and
it reasonable to suppose that they had a leader. Noah almost certainly
didn't, because analogues with similar names are found in other mythologies,
besides which the whole story of the Ark is obviously mythological. With
Abraham you take your pick.
Only the stupidest of atheists beleives in Jesus denial. Actually it is good
litmus test to sort out the kooks form the serious thinkers.
.

User: "Mickey"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 09:53:14 AM

"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dbatlf$62m$4@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote

So stupid or ill-informed that he doesn't even know that the great

majority

of the New Testament is first century.

And ***** as well.

St Paul was probably born at about the same time as Jesus.

As you haven't yet proven that Jesus ever existed, this is a textbook
definition of moot.

The eclipse at Jesus' death is mentioned by a pagan writer. (Suetonius, I
believe).

Jesus' death? *****, you haven't yet established his BIRTH.

A mass grave contianing many infants has been found.

Yes, there are THOUSANDS of them worldwide. Epidemics and pandemics did
that, ya know?

If it was a small village, then it's quite likely no-one mentions it.

However "Nazareth" may be a garbling of "Nazarite", that's a
respectable scholarly theory.

"Jesus the Nazarite" becomes garbled to "Jesus the Nazarene". Doesn't mean
that said Jesus never existed.

Also doesn't mean he ever did. Logic, the OTHER white meat

Similarly a lot of people think that Adolf
Hitler was a German. If you trawl German birth records, you will find

no-one

listed as A. Hitler. Does that mean such a person didn't exist?

Nope, as he was Austrian. Looking for my birth records in teh USS will also
turn up zero.

There was a Mohammed, a Budda, and a Jesus.

The first 2, yes, the latter is a fig newton of your imagination.

All these people are well documented

Well, the first 2 anyway.

and it is absurd to suggest they didn't exist.
Abraham, Moses and Noah are not documented outside of the Torah. Moses
almost certainly existed, because we know the Israelites were in Egypt and
it reasonable to suppose that they had a leader. Noah almost certainly
didn't, because analogues with similar names are found in other

mythologies,

besides which the whole story of the Ark is obviously mythological. With
Abraham you take your pick.

Only the stupidest of atheists beleives in Jesus denial. Actually it is

good

litmus test to sort out the kooks form the serious thinkers.

Wrong. I am neither stupid OR an atheist, and I deny him with EVERY fiber of
my being.
You Christians have spent 2000 years looking for concrete proof of his
existence, and as of yet, have found nothing. There is FAR more solid
evidence of the existence of Yeti and the little gray aliens than there is
of Jesus.
Mickey
.

User: "�� /Riain Barton"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 05:24:11 PM

"PROBABLY" doesn't work you idiot!
PROOF?
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dbatlf$62m$4@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
.

User: "Ben Goren"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 10:59:21 AM

Malcolm wrote:

The eclipse at Jesus' death is mentioned by a pagan
writer. (Suetonius, I believe).

Oh, really? First I've heard of it. Care to point me to your best
reference on the matter?

A mass grave contianing many infants has been found.

Lots of mass graves containing many infants have been found
throughout history. Where was this grave, when was it dated, who
were the infants, and what evidence is there linking this to the
event in the Bible?
Oh--and who did the archaeological work on it and when? Because if
it was the Church during the Dark Ages, don't even bother
replying.

If you can't even come up with something that generous as a
starting point...well, if that's not enough to convince you
that the whole thing is *****, nothing is.

It goes /way/ beyond that. The Old Testament knows nothing of
Nazareth. The Talmud knows nothing of Nazareth. Paul knew
nothing of Nazareth. No historian or geographer even mentions
the name before the fourth century. Josephus himself, who lived
for a while in Japha (just a mile to the southwest of
Nazareth), never mentioned the town.

If it was a small village, then it's quite likely no-one
mentions it.

First, the Bible doesn't describe a village /that/ small. Second,
Josephus detailed everything in that area, large /and/ small. He
even gives whole pages to petty thieves....

However "Nazareth" may be a garbling of "Nazarite", that's a
respectable scholarly theory.

Too bad it flatly contradicts the Gospels themselves. And if
the Gospels are so garbled that they could mistake the town
where Jesus was born for somebody who had long hair, why should
anybody take even one word of them seriously?

"Jesus the Nazarite" becomes garbled to "Jesus the
Nazarene". Doesn't mean that said Jesus never existed. Similarly
a lot of people think that Adolf Hitler was a German. If you
trawl German birth records, you will find no-one listed as
A. Hitler. Does that mean such a person didn't exist?

Don't be silly. Like I said, if the Bible is that garbled, it's
worthless.

Jesus never existed. I don't know about Buddha and Mohammed,
but I wouldn't be too terribly surprised to learn that they had
been made out of whole cloth, either. I've never looked into
their historicity, so I wouldn't say one way or the other until
after at least a cursory examination of the evidence. But Jesus
was certainly a fabrication, just as Abraham, Moses, and Noah
were, too.

Actually, we know that the Israelites were /not/ in Egypt at the
time the pyramids were being built. Not only is there /zero/
archaeological evidence of an Israelite presence there, there's
overwhelming evidence that the pyramids were built by the same
sorts of people who build major skyscrapers and public monuments
today--respected, well-paid professionals. It would have made as
much sense for the Egyptians to use Israelite slaves to build a
Pharaoh's tomb as it would today for us to import prisoners from
Mexico to build the WTC memorial.

Noah almost certainly didn't, because analogues with similar
names are found in other mythologies, besides which the whole
story of the Ark is obviously mythological. With Abraham you
take your pick.

Only the stupidest of atheists beleives in Jesus
denial. Actually it is good litmus test to sort out the kooks
form the serious thinkers.

Only the most ignorant, gullible, or dishonest of Christians
believes in an historical Jesus. Actually, it's a rather good test
to sort out the nutjobs from those with a clue.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	18 Jul 2005 10:33:25 PM

Ben Goren wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

The eclipse at Jesus' death is mentioned by a pagan
writer. (Suetonius, I believe).

Oh, really? First I've heard of it. Care to point me to your best
reference on the matter?

A mass grave contianing many infants has been found.

Lots of mass graves containing many infants have been found
throughout history. Where was this grave, when was it dated, who
were the infants, and what evidence is there linking this to the
event in the Bible?

Oh--and who did the archaeological work on it and when? Because if
it was the Church during the Dark Ages, don't even bother
replying.