Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime

Religions > Atheism > Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 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: "Denis Loubet"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	15 Jul 2005 01:42:53 AM

<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote in message
news:1121383493.018815.22990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Jesus Denial

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.

And I call your movement Jesus-denial-denial!
So there!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.

User: "Susan Cohen"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime to Bigots	14 Jul 2005 07:53:48 PM

<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote in message
news:1121383493.018815.22990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Keep your bigotry to yourself
.

User: "solitaire"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	20 Jul 2005 07:18:56 PM

wrote:

Jesus Denial

I created this blog 11 months ago without writing anything in it until
now.

THIS IS NOT A "BLOG", FUCKWIT, THIS IS A USENET NEWSGROUP, NOT YOUR PERSONAL
JOURNAL. POST YOUR CHRISTIAN PROSELYTIZING CRAP SOMEWHERE ELSE.
DO _NOT_ CROSSPOST THIS CRAP TO SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL.
.

User: "Ben Goren"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	14 Jul 2005 06:39:24 PM

wrote:

Jesus Denial

[. . . .]

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?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.

User: "Ike"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	14 Jul 2005 10:46:42 PM

"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121384364.844075.59660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

wordsoftruth114@email.com wrote:

Jesus Denial

[. . . .]

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?

The Holy Grail.
.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	15 Jul 2005 12:27:06 PM

"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> 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.
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	15 Jul 2005 01:44:59 PM

Malcolm wrote:

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.

"Absurd" is an essential component of the human condition.
We believe all sorts of absurdities, and many if not all
religions have been raised on them.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Ash"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 06:26:10 AM

Malcolm wrote:

"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> 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.

Except for numbers - we ahve 4 accoutns of Jesus' life, 2 of which are
clearly based on another one and none of which are knonw to have existed
until at least 40 years after the alledged events. If there were only 4
eye witness reports to the holocause, and no archelogical evidence or
then you might have a point
.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 07:24:21 AM

"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote

The crucifixion happed about AD33, St Paul dies about AD65 in the Neronian
persecution. The letters were obviously written before he died, probably
about AD50.
(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).
There is no tradition that Jesus didn't exist before the nineteenth century.
By contrast holocaust denial started a few years after the alleged events.
An event involving 6 million people sixty years ago is obviously different
from a sigle preacher 2,000 years ago. The type of evidence we have differs.
The intellectual status of the deniers is exactly the same. It is the litmus
test that sorts out the kooks from the serious thinkers.
.

User: "Mickey"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 10:03:03 AM

"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dbau9k$o6d$3@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote

then

you might have a point.

The crucifixion happed about AD33,

According to tales told years after

St Paul dies about AD65 in the Neronian persecution.

According to tales told years later

The letters were obviously written before he died, probably about AD50.

Obvious, if one suspends disbelief.

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

There is no tradition that Jesus didn't exist before the nineteenth

century.
There is also no tradition that he did, except for a handful of people.
Christians have never made up more than a handful of the world's population.
15% at the very best.

By contrast holocaust denial started a few years after the alleged events.

By people who had reasons to do so. The same people who hated Jews enough to
kill them also hated them enough to lie about doing so.

An event involving 6 million people sixty years ago is obviously different
from a sigle preacher 2,000 years ago. The type of evidence we have

differs.

The intellectual status of the deniers is exactly the same. It is the

litmus

test that sorts out the kooks from the serious thinkers.

Yes, and you passed... you're a certifiable kook.
.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 04:15:45 PM

"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.
.

User: "Mickey"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 09:11:28 PM

"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dbbte0$2s0$3@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a

literal

jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

No, I simply have to deny things he said. He had a PERSONAL agenda. He was
creating a religion in order to put HIMSELF in a position of power. Nothing
he says carries ANY value.
.

User: "Ash"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 05:25:17 PM

Malcolm wrote:

"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

What do you mean by St Paul? Someone wrote the epistles, and analysis
suggests around 4-8 of them were written by the smae individual, but
that doesn't tell us anything about him
.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	17 Jul 2005 01:56:54 AM

"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote

What do you mean by St Paul? Someone wrote the epistles, and analysis
suggests around 4-8 of them were written by the smae individual, but that
doesn't tell us anything about him.

You could say that the epistles are complete lies, but with that type of
scepticism you can't tell anything.
Generally religious leaders don't like to admit to internal disputes, so we
can presume that the argument with St Peter mentioned in Galatians actually
happened. That tells us that there was such a person as St Peter, and that
he and St Paul were in the same organisation.
So that's an example of something we can know beyond any reasonable doubt.
.

User: "PMDavis"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 11:44:46 PM

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:25:17 +0100, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

What do you mean by St Paul? Someone wrote the epistles, and analysis
suggests around 4-8 of them were written by the smae individual, but
that doesn't tell us anything about him

Never heard of the discipline of textual criticism, apparently.
.

User: "Ash"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	17 Jul 2005 04:31:51 AM

PMDavis wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:25:17 +0100, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

What do you mean by St Paul? Someone wrote the epistles, and analysis
suggests around 4-8 of them were written by the smae individual, but
that doesn't tell us anything about him

Never heard of the discipline of textual criticism, apparently.

What the hell do you think I meant by "analysis"?
.

User: "PMDavis"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	18 Jul 2005 11:41:39 PM

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:31:51 +0100, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

PMDavis wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:25:17 +0100, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

What do you mean by St Paul? Someone wrote the epistles, and analysis
suggests around 4-8 of them were written by the smae individual, but
that doesn't tell us anything about him

Never heard of the discipline of textual criticism, apparently.

What the hell do you think I meant by "analysis"?

Of all the pounds of speculation and reams of commentaries that have
been written by and about Paul, you can't find anything in them about
him as a person?
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 04:33:29 PM

Malcolm wrote:

"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

I do. Now what?
--
****************************************************
* 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: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 06:50:50 PM

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

I do. Now what?

OK, so do you beleive that there was a Christian movement in the cities of
the Roman Empire in the second half of the first century?
Do you believe that there was such a movement in the second century? What
about the third?
Do you believe there was such a movement in the first century BC? In the
first half of the first century?
Let's see where the common ground starts.
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	17 Jul 2005 02:48:08 PM

Malcolm wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

I do. Now what?

I have never doubted that a Christian movement spread. That is
irrelevant to the man Jesus, though, or the man St Paul.
There is also a rash of UFO sightings starting in the latter half of the
20th Century. Does that mean that UFOs exist and you can cite reputable
evidence of same?
--
****************************************************
* 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: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	17 Jul 2005 07:28:15 PM

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote

Some stories are pure fabrication, but I think we can be reasonably sure
that most reports are of genuine lights in the sky. The reason the stories
started in the 20th century is because that is when aircraft started to
become common.
When a story gives a name of a witness, almost always that witness is a real
person who exists.
A better analogy for your purpose would be "resurrection" sightings of
Elvis. I doubt very much that Elvis either didn't die or was raised from the
dead. However that there was such a person as Elvis Presley I can be
absolutely certain.
.

User: "Mickey"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	18 Jul 2005 09:51:23 AM

"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dbet2u$odm$3@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote

I have never doubted that a Christian movement spread. That is

irrelevant

to the man Jesus, though, or the man St Paul.

There is also a rash of UFO sightings starting in the latter half of the
20th Century. Does that mean that UFOs exist and you can cite reputable
evidence of same?

real

person who exists.

A better analogy for your purpose would be "resurrection" sightings of
Elvis. I doubt very much that Elvis either didn't die or was raised from

the

dead. However that there was such a person as Elvis Presley I can be
absolutely certain.

Yeah, we have him on film. So where are the Jesus Kodaks?
.

User: "PMDavis"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 11:43:26 PM

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:15:45 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

Or Socrates or Homer, for that matter.
.

User: "Doug Weller"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	17 Jul 2005 04:45:09 AM

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 04:43:26 GMT, in soc.history.ancient, PMDavis wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:15:45 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

Or Socrates or Homer, for that matter.

Or Alexander the Great.
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk

.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 04:53:46 PM

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:15:45 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).

I deny Paul, so now what?

So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty soon
have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as well.

There's nothing to deny, liar.
.

User: "�� /Riain Barton"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 08:12:13 PM

Paul existed, so what????
He created a false religion and became a Jewish apostate, if he was even
Jewish at all.
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dbbte0$2s0$3@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
:
: "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
: >> (What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a
literal
: >> jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).
: >
: > I deny Paul, so now what?
: >
: So now were getting somewhere. To deny that Jesus existed you pretty
soon
: have to end up denying that there was such a person as St Paul as
well.
:
:
:
.

User: "Ash"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 09:03:13 AM

Malcolm wrote:

"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote

The crucifixion happed about AD33, St Paul dies about AD65 in the Neronian
persecution. The letters were obviously written before he died, probably
about AD50.

And they do not give a historical setting

(What the Jesus deniers claim is that St Paul didn't believe in a literal
jesus, but in a kind of mythological heavenly figure).
There is no tradition that Jesus didn't exist before the nineteenth century.

Some do, some say he made the whole thing up. The majority just point
out he didn't use the words of Jesus to back up his demands, or mention
anything about when and where he died

By contrast holocaust denial started a few years after the alleged events.
An event involving 6 million people sixty years ago is obviously different
from a sigle preacher 2,000 years ago. The type of evidence we have differs.
The intellectual status of the deniers is exactly the same.

That argument makes no sense
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 05:31:25 PM

"Some do, some say he made the whole thing up. The majority just point
out he didn't use the words of Jesus to back up his demands, or mention
anything about when and where he died"
I think anyone would be hard pressed to say Paul made it all up... to
say he "Hellenized" the Christians and brought in many new things is
not so difficult...
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 07:46:32 AM

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:24:21 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote

What "Jesus deniers", lying Christian?

There is no tradition that Jesus didn't exist before the nineteenth century.

There's no "tradition that Jesus didn't exist" outside your deluded
imagination.
What there _is_, is no reason for people outside your religion to
think he did.
Are you even capable of grasping the difference?
Or the fact that if you sociopaths kept it to yourself nobody would
give a toss?
And I think this latter is what your cognitive dissonance won't let
you come to terms with.
So instead you rationalise why they "really" say they what they do, to
the point of personal lies about them - like "wishful thinking" about
something they wouldn't give a flying ***** about if you kept it to
yourself.
Or the paranoia behind your lie about "Christian-hating sources".

By contrast holocaust denial started a few years after the alleged events.

You are a despicable, hateful, hateful, lying bigot.

An event involving 6 million people sixty years ago is obviously different
from a sigle preacher 2,000 years ago. The type of evidence we have differs.
The intellectual status of the deniers is exactly the same. It is the litmus
test that sorts out the kooks from the serious thinkers.

The dishonest liar equates something in dispute and without evidence,
with a horrific event with plenty of evidence including the diaries of
those who did it, their victims, and the liberators.
Where's the equivalent evidence for your Jesus?
.

User: "PMDavis"
Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime	16 Jul 2005 11:42:05 PM

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:46:32 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:24:21 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote

What "Jesus deniers", lying Christian?

There is no tradition that Jesus didn't exist before the nineteenth century.

There's no "tradition that Jesus didn't exist" outside your deluded
imagination.

What there _is_, is no reason for people outside your religion to
think he did.

Are you even capable of grasping the difference?

Or the fact that if you sociopaths kept it to yourself nobody would
give a toss?

And I think this latter is what your cognitive dissonance won't let
you come to terms with.

So instead you rationalise why they "really" say they what they do, to
the point of personal lies about them - like "wishful thinking" about
something they wouldn't give a flying ***** about if you kept it to
yourself.

Or the paranoia behind your lie about "Christian-hating sources".

By contrast holocaust denial started a few years after the alleged events.

You are a despicable, hateful, hateful, lying bigot.

There are multiple contemporaneous sources claiming that Jesus
existed, and no comtemporaneous sources claiming that he did not.
According the scientific method as regularly applied to historic
documents, that's a sure win for the "Jesus existed" hypothesis.
In the face of your apparent rejection of generally accepted standards
of historic methodology, just what system are you operating on?
.

Page 1 of 23

Post reply

Re: 'Hate-crime' possibility: Baby Jesus kidnapped
Praise Jesus! Another Hate Crime Committed Against Another Gay Man in OR (with Christian Love!)
Re: 'Hate-crime' possibility: Baby Jesus kidnapped
Re: 'Hate-crime' possibility: Baby Jesus kidnapped