Jesus Neither God Nor Man

[Robert Tulip]

It might be hard to keep in mind, Robert, that I'm not arguing for a historical Jesus. I don't see much point in that. A given for me is that the Jesus who performed the miracles, attracted huge crowds, and was resurrected, wasn't historical. So was there some germ of a man that got the whole ball rolling while fevered imaginations did the rest? Likely, I think, but again not essential.

This idea that we can reconcile the idea that the Gospel Jesus is a myth with the claim that "there some germ of a man that got the whole ball rolling" does not cohere with the historical record of the production of the documents. Doherty proves this through a remorseless analysis of the texts.

In the mid first century, the Letters of Paul give us the first account of Jesus Christ. However, there is no founder whose teachings or life inspire Paul, no mention of Bethlehem, Galilee, Nazareth or Jerusalem, or indeed of any sayings attributed to the founder. What gets Paul's holies rolling is the eternal idea of the Son, manifest only in proclamation, not incarnation.

Paul has an intermediary theology, between Philo's earlier Greco-Judaic Logos wisdom (c. 40AD) and Mark's later introduction (c.90AD) of the personal details. There is a clear evolution of the ideas, steadily bringing them from the spiritual to the material, to present a message that ordinary people can understand and believe without the need for abstract philosophy. Paul sits in an uneasy halfway house, presenting Christ as a necessary being for the atonement of the world.

So, for example when Paul says at Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith" we have to take this 'reception by faith' as what he really means - and not read in to it the Gospel idea that we receive Christ by acceptance of literal tradition handed down from Jesus. That idea only came later, as Christians found the abstract Son described by Paul did not butter their parsnips, and Jesus had to be historized to make the message popularly accessible.

My argument is all about the intent of the Gospels and other NT writings. My unsurprising conclusion is that the NT is trying to say just what people have taken it to say over the centuries, which is that here we have events in history that prove we have been given the ultimate revelation. Whether we doubt that people could really believe this, and whether we see scant evidence of a Jesus founder, seems to me beside the point when all we need to do is read the books and have their intent come across loud and clear.

But even the Gospels continually warn that they do not just say what they mean. Matthew and Luke both tell us that Jesus speaks in parables which conceal the secret meaning of the Gospel. For example at Luke 8:10 we find Jesus quoting Isaiah 6 to say "“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, “‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’" My reading of this, following Pagels, is that the early writers consciously and deliberately spoke at two levels, a popular story for the masses and a secret doctrine of the kingdom of God reserved for the elect. My view is that the secret doctrine is a lost astrotheological vision of the atonement between the earth and the cosmos, that can be pieced back together using precession of the equinox as a structural organising principle. Here we find a simple and exact correspondence with the 'on earth as in heaven' idea of Christ as a cosmic Logos.

[DWill]

This idea that we can reconcile the idea that the Gospel Jesus is a myth with the claim that "there some germ of a man that got the whole ball rolling" does not cohere with the historical record of the production of the documents. Doherty proves this through a remorseless analysis of the texts.

Best to just forget about the question of whether Jesus had any historical basis. Proving there wasn't any by an absence of evidence doesn't give an open-and-shut case. We just don't know, but it's really not a problem we need to confront except when arguing with fundamentalists. What we do know, or at least what has always been accepted until recently, is that the Gospels seek to prove to the world that Jesus was very real and that he founded a religion. You seem to be saying that since we know (with certainty) that there was never anyone alive who might have presented a model for the myth of Jesus, the Gospels couldn't be saying that he did exist, that they must be denying this, in fact, while having something else as their real message. But we still need to heed what the books are saying despite our belief that it's just incredible that they could really think Jesus existed, much less did all the things attributed to him.

So, for example when Paul says at Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith" we have to take this 'reception by faith' as what he really means - and not read in to it the Gospel idea that we receive Christ by acceptance of literal tradition handed down from Jesus.

Just what does Paul mean by "God presented Christ"? What could Paul be thinking about how we know in fact that God did this? Did God present a myth to Paul, or did he believe that something had happened, which made him subscribe to or conceive this theology?

But even the Gospels continually warn that they do not just say what they mean. Matthew and Luke both tell us that Jesus speaks in parables which conceal the secret meaning of the Gospel. For example at Luke 8:10 we find Jesus quoting Isaiah 6 to say "“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, “‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’" My reading of this, following Pagels, is that the early writers consciously and deliberately spoke at two levels, a popular story for the masses and a secret doctrine of the kingdom of God reserved for the elect. My view is that the secret doctrine is a lost astrotheological vision of the atonement between the earth and the cosmos, that can be pieced back together using precession of the equinox as a structural organising principle. Here we find a simple and exact correspondence with the 'on earth as in heaven' idea of Christ as a cosmic Logos.

The important point related to this, for me, is that levels of meaning do not usually constitute negation of any other level of meaning, and I see no reason why the Bible can't be insistent on the reality of Jesus while incorporating teachings--also originating from a tradition--of a more esoteric nature. Jesus telling his disciples that he gives them meanings the masses can't understand (and neither do the disciples understand, it seems), isn't the same as the authorial voice saying that the narrative is unreliable.

Your quotation from Luke makes it seem, by the use of the word "may," that Jesus is withholding information or even deceiving the masses. The passage is often translated with "do" instead: "though seeing, they do not understand." The word makes a significant difference.

You may be placing too much emphasis on choices made by the Gospel writers, when it seems clear that they were gathering most of their material from previous writings (such as Q) and the oral tradition. I simply don't find it persuasive that "Mark," presumably, came up with the strategy you describe and that the other Gospel authors each felt compelled to reinforce it.

[tat tvam asi]

From: http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... =26&t=3900

Here's a very good website with loads of information about early Christian history, from a mythicist perspective! It looks like some mainstream scholars and researchers are catching on.

Interestingly, I did bring up the Chrestos angle in my book The Christ Conspiracy, but in the late 90s when I wrote it I didn't have access to the various codices and so much more that's come out since then.

This material constitutes one of the pieces of the puzzle that needed fleshing out. Here's the gist: The "Christians" of the first century AD/CE were in reality "CHRESTIANS," from a cult that had sprung up beginning at least a couple of centuries prior to the common era. There was no "historical" founder of this cult who tromped around Palestine during the first century, doing miracles.

During the second century, this Chrestian cult was co-opted, Judaized and historicized, with the appearance of the canonical gospels as we have them at the end of the second century. It's all pretty much in my book "The Christ Conspiracy," which I'm currently revising and which will include goodies from this History Hunters site (cited properly, of course).

Chrest Magus

We also know – as we discussed in Archaeology of the earliest canonical gospels – that Jesus Christ does not appear until the 2nd century of this era.

Some of the writing is a bit scattered and difficult to follow, but they also include many interesting and fascinating images, such as this bowl - some may recall this news from a year or two ago - which refers to "Chrestos" (not "Christos"), a popular name/epithet prior to and into the common era.



Here's another article, "Archaeology in the earliest canonical gospels," in which this same author, John Bartram, writes:

Though Jesus Christ is a fabrication...

Bartram makes repeated statements like these throughout his many articles. In fact, after he realized there were those questioning the existence of Christ, he began taking that position as the perspective in which his articles are framed. In other words, he's now essentially using archaeology and textual examination to prove that Christ is a mythical figure.

How refreshing after doing this work online since 1995, after I began writing about it in 1993. We've come a long way, baby!

Here's another nice juicy quote from this site:

"We do not yet have first-century papyri discussing Jesus of Nazareth….

"For the balance of the first century and the first third of the second, not a single archaeological artifact attests to the existence of the Jesus-centered Christianity in the whole of the empire. During this same period no evidence for any of the higher religious offices dedicated specifically to the Christian church are to be found in either the archaeological or historical record. We are therefore justified on the basis of these conclusions to dispense for the moment with both an historical first-century Jesus and his church."

--David, History Hunters International, "Acts of the Chresmologoi: the Role of Oracles and Chronicles in the Creation of Divine"

If anyone can figure out what David's last name is, please let me know!

Here's a quote from another very interesting article on that site, by John Bartram, who basically proves major contentions I made in Christ Con so long ago:

"Not a single artefact of any medium—including textual—and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian….

"There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term 'Christian.'

"The earliest fragments and codex of the New Testament pre-date the fourth century, though nowhere in them have we found the key word Christ. Many biblical scholars claim that they do, but our visual inspection of them fails to find a single such usage of this term. We have been unable to find a single text transliterated correctly in this regard….

"As there are gospels and other texts of a religious character, so there is archaeology for places of worship and many artefacts: none spell Christian. Claims that any are Christian are, in fact, a matter of opinion only and we disagree with all such opinions."

--John Bartram, "The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity"

For making the same basic statement, over the past 15 years online I've been attacked, ridiculed, libeled, slandered, insulted, ignored, ostracized, bullied, threatened, harassed, stalked and subjected to all kinds of calumny and sociopathic behavior. If you scroll down to the bottom of the above article, you will see he's been receiving the same treatment.

Some of the comments coming from the misanthropes over at TWeb include calling him a "moron" and saying that the "IIDB regulars think he's off his rocker." (Many of us here think the IIDB regulars are off THEIR rockers.)

Of course, calumny is about the best they can do, since they still haven't provided him with the evidence.

Here's another quote from HHI:

"For myself, the history of Judea in the first half of the first century does not allow a Jesus Christ."

--John Bartram, "Archaeology of the earliest canonical gospels"

And another:

"The question becomes: what was this first-century form and how did it transition in the second and third centuries CE into what later periods recognize as Christianity? The heart of this explanation, given the current state of the archaeological evidence, must explain plausibly why second-century Christianity was compelled to invent or develop a first-century prophet or Son of God."

--David, "Acts of the Chresmologoi: the Role of Oracles and Chronicles in the Creation of Divine Men"

"We have been in error, accepting the view of biblical scholarship and Christian tradition which dates the canonical gospels to the early period of the Roman empire."

--John Bartram, "Mani and Authorship of the Canonical Gospels"

"The non-canonical Gospel of Judas has been radiocarbon dated to 280 CE +/- 60 years and I now declare that the canonical gospels in their near-final form likely belong to this period.

"Here is how I reached this position:

"In The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity, I presented our findings from surveying the archaeology of this period: there is no clear, unambiguous use of the term ‘Christ’ (including ‘Christian’ and ‘Christianity’) in any medium, before the fourth century. One must note that Christ is translated as Messiah, the annointed.

"In Archaeology of ‘Chrest’ I presented various artefacts that mention ‘Chrest’, ‘Isu Chrest’ and ‘Jesus Chrest’. One must note that Chrest is translated as Good.

"With no archaeology – and this includes texts – for Christ or Christianity before the fourth century, there is no Christian Church: no offices and officers, including Popes; no churches; no iconography of Jesus Christ. The Good Shepherd motif is Panhellenistic, specifically of Hermes Kriophoros.

"The warning for this Christian vacuity comes from Josephus, whose chronicles fail to describe even a nascent Christianity. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius’ census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II. Regardless of the disputed reference to “Jesus, who was called Christ”, Josephus is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity, yet says nothing of it: this is so unlikely as to be almost impossible.

"When Hadrian invented the cult of his Antinous, he created masses of good archaeology for us to find: an entire city, temples, very many statues and even the obelisk describing how Antinous was made a god. Though Christianity claims to be empire-wide and with many adherents belonging to the Greco-Roman elite, it has nothing. That is another impossible position. We can prove that the first-century miracle worker Apollonius of Tyana existed, but not that anyone was Christian until the fourth century."

--John Bartram, "Mani and Authorship of the Canonical Gospels"

"As well as the danger of relying on texts which do not exist, there is the massive problem of known texts which have been 'lost' (such as the declarations of loyalty to Diocletian from every town and city in the empire) and the enormous quantity of texts which Christian scholars and the Christian Church admit to being forgeries. Between the destruction of important texts and inscriptions, and the admitted dishonesty for Christian texts, a scholar is faced with the unedifying task of investigating a religion which, down to its roots, is riddled with lies and fakery."

--John Bartram, "Mani and Authorship of the Canonical Gospels"

[anisha_astrologer]

as far as i know jesus himself was born a jew and the father he always mentioned was the father or the god of jews. it was much later after his death that his followers began to call themselves christians. jesus came on earth to relieve human kind from all their sins and not to propagate some religion.

[Robert Tulip]

as far as i know jesus himself was born a jew and the father he always mentioned was the father or the god of jews. it was much later after his death that his followers began to call themselves christians. jesus came on earth to relieve human kind from all their sins and not to propagate some religion.

Hi Anisha, thanks, and welcome to Booktalk.

When you say that Jesus Christ had a father who was a god, you seem to imply that you think of him as a myth, and do not really think he was a human being, given that all human beings have human fathers. So if Jesus was a myth in this sense, it does not really make sense to say he was born a jew. That looks like a contradiction.

I don't get your distinction between 'relieving of sin' and 'propagating some religion'. Surely anyone who can miraculously redeem all human kind of the burden of sin deserves to be understood as a religious figure?

When you say 'as far as I know', are you just suggesting what is comforting for you to believe, or are you asserting there is actual evidence for this belief?

[soniat2]

I've got to finish reading the first edition now. I started it, then got distracted by other books.

[Robert Tulip]

In discussion with some conservative Christians, I pointed out Earl Doherty's comment in Jesus Neither God Nor Man that it is simply unbelievable that Origen of Alexandria in the early third century discussed in detail the very chapter of the Antiquities of the Jews in which the Testimonium Flavianum is located but apparently did not notice it.
The text from Origen's Contra Celsus, Chapter 47, is at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en161.html

Origen writes: "in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John … [and says] disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ), …. Paul … regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not … by blood … as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, [Josephus] says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ."

If “Josephus bears witness to John", it is hardly credible that Origen, whose apologetic purpose in this book was to critique pagan attacks on Christianity, and defend the argument that there exists solid evidence and proof for Christ, would have failed to mention, in text laden with devotion, that Josephus also bears witness to Christ, if Josephus had in fact done so within this very same Chapter of AJ.

Instead, Origen emphasizes that Josephus says the calamity of the Jews was due to the death of James the Just, whom Origen says was a brother of Christ in ‘virtue and doctrine’, not in blood. Origen does not make clear if this sibling relation was alleged by Josephus, but he does make clear that Paul did not regard this James as a physical brother of Jesus Christ, cutting out another major pillar of Christ literalism. And then Origen expands on how the story of Jesus is in ‘accordance with reason’, without, despite all his comments about evidence and proof for Jesus, taking this prime opportunity to note that an early historian, living close to the time of Christ, had actually mentioned Christ in the same passage that he is discussing. The supposed "evidence" for Jesus evaporates before your eyes.

It seems to me quite plausible that Eusebius’ interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum owed not a little to the need to explain this strange passage in Origen. Origen, despite later excluded as a heretic, was one of the greatest of early Church fathers, precisely because of his deep knowledge of and faith in the Gospels. Living two centuries after the purported events, Origen accepts the Gospels on face value. In Contra Celsum, we see that Origen makes use of Celsus as a pagan who also had passing knowledge of the Gospels, which are taken as the primary source of evidence.

Of course the Gospels are not primary evidence, and Origen sees that external commentary from Josephus gives weight to the ‘witness to John’. Yet he does not notice that Josephus also gives witness to Christ in the same chapter. This yawning gap in the Contra Celsum must have been a source of great embarrassment to Christians. Pagan readers of Origen could well have asked – If Josephus bears witness to John, why does he not bear witness to Jesus? The easiest way to deal with this devastating question was to alter Josephus by adding in the mention of Jesus at the appropriate point, where Josephus speaks of bearing witness to John.

Origen goes on to criticise Greeks who wish us “to believe them without any reasonable grounds, and to discredit the Gospel accounts even after the clearest evidence. For we assert that the whole habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus”. He says if a critic “demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.” Here again is perfect opportunity passed up to say that Josephus gives evidence for Christ.

Key questions raised by Celsus are quoted by Origen as including “What credible witness beheld this appearance? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?" In response, Origen says Josephus bore witness to John, but omits to say Josephus bore witness to Jesus, which would be a far more pertinent and logical rejoinder if it were true. Origen speaks of “a manifest proof that these things are done by His power”, ignoring the supposedly manifest evidence that a credible independent historian mentioned Him.

[tat tvam asi]

Pretty telling. And this bit about James addresses Bart Ehrman's apology about the witness of Paul. So much for that.

[tat tvam asi]

Key questions raised by Celsus are quoted by Origen as including “What credible witness beheld this appearance? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?" In response, Origen says Josephus bore witness to John, but omits to say Josephus bore witness to Jesus, which would be a far more pertinent and logical rejoinder if it were true. Origen speaks of “a manifest proof that these things are done by His power”, ignoring the supposedly manifest evidence that a credible independent historian mentioned Him.

Hey Robert, I want to add the recent debate shared with us by Apostate Abe where he is arguing for he and Bart Ehrman's theory of Jesus as one particular historical failed doomsday prophet. The outcome of the debate is interesting enough to grain into this thread of discussion, especially as concerns the issue of John the Baptist:
http://www.debate.org/debates/The-histo ... -leader/2/

Thanks for the debate, ApostateAbe.

== John the Baptist was the ascetic apocalyptic, not Jesus ==

I said I would remind my opponent of all the arguments he dropped in the last round. Here we go.

Dropped:

1) John's beliefs are the EXACT same as a real tribe, the Essenes, whose beliefs are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes believed in BAPTISM to wipe away sin, asceticism (fasting), AND that the world would soon come to an end. If John the Baptist and Jesus are based on real people, it seems obvious that John must have gotten his beliefs about baptism and fasting from somewhere. Obviously, the Essenes are the perfect candidates. So if John completely mimicked their first two beliefs, why wouldn't he mimic their apocalyptic beliefs as well. Thus, why should we not believe that John was the apocalyptic and not Jesus? It fits with his other beliefs.

2) Jesus' followers completely differed from those of John. In Mark 2:18, John's followers are fasting and Jesus' are not. We can clearly see whose followers were following in the footsteps of the Essenes.

3) According to one of the Gnostic gospels, the Gospel of Philip, Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers. Since Jesus did not deny himself the pleasures of the flesh, he clearly differed in beliefs from John and his ascetic apocalyptic followers.

4) People often confused Jesus with John according to Mark 8:27-28. "On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist."" When the gospel authors took random quotes from quote books (like "Q"), they obviously made the same mistake. Or else the gospel authors borrowed from oral tradition, which would also be corrupted by people confusing Jesus with John. The concession of this point is HUGE. The gospels themselves prove that people confused Jesus with John.

5) Robert W. Funk and most Biblical scholars (two thirds of them) believe that Jesus was not predicting apocalypse when he predicted the coming of the "Kingdom of God." Instead, they believe he meant this in the Gnostic sense: that people would achieve paradise here on Earth through salvation of the soul by righteous practices. Two thirds of Jesus scholars believe that: the historical Jesus was merely a holy man and John the Baptist was the apocalyptic.

This takes out all but one of my opponent's quotes.

6) The concession of #5 only leaves my opponent one apocalyptic passage in Mark 8:34. I showed that in this passage, Jesus refers to himself and the Messiah as different people (so the true speaker probably wasn't Jesus, but John). My opponent answers this with a "Jesus scholar" who claims that Jesus did not consider himself the Messiah. We only have to go back 4 lines to see this isn't true: "Peter answered, "You are the Messiah."Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him."" Lastly, Mark 8:34 begins with an exhortation to the audience to "deny themselves." This is yet more evidence that the doomsday predictions in the New Testament are false attributions of quotes from John the Baptist (or another ascetic apocalyptic preacher), since we saw that Jesus did not ask his followers to fast or deny themselves (Mark 2:18).

ALL of the above arguments were dropped.

[pro] thus doesn't defend his original apocalyptic claims from the New Testament. As such, [pro] HAS NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE LEFT AT THE END OF THE ROUND PROVING A DIRECT QUOTE FROM JESUS THAT WAS APOCALYTPIC. He thus clearly fails to meet the burden of proof, especially with all his complaining that everything has to be proven by primary sources.

== Jesus as another Sun God ==

Ultimately, my opponent seems to be defending here the historical accuracy of the virgin birth and the resurrection, which is indefensible. He never answers the analysis that if the gospel authors are willing to lie (about the genealogies) and borrow heavily from pagan mythology, how are we to trust ANYTHING they say?

Okay, back into the Horus claim. Honestly, my opponent should lose the conduct vote for this. It's ridiculous that he DEMAND that I read three ancient books, in full, to prove my claims. He's clearly just trying to waste my time. This site sources all of the claims I have made, using the ancient texts. [4] The crucifixion of Horis is depicted in a drawing in the Pyramid Texts, provided here. [4] Horus had 12 apostles (The Book of Gates: Chapter 3); Horus began to teach (preach) at age 12, same as Jesus (The Second Story of Khamuas); Horus' death and resurrection after 3 days is found in Pyramid Texts Utterance 667. [4]

In fairness, my opponent said "Win this challenge, and win the debate." I guess he wants you all to vote for me right now.

Again, my opponent just nitpicks one of my claims, but doesn't answer all the similarities to other pagan Sun god religions. I proved that Bethlehem is not a real place, but is an ancient reference to the constellation Virgo (The Virgin), from whence the Sun is "born" on Dec 25th. This makes sense, since no scholar has been able to locate Bethlehem (or even find mention of it anywhere else). Horus also raised Lazarus from the dead and walked on water (referred to in the Pyramid Texts as "Lake Strider"). [4]

Lastly, here's the most important (dropped) argument: major events of the New Testament, such as King Herod killing all the babies in Bethlehem to try to find Jesus, are not recorded in any early historical texts, even though they would have been MAJOR events. My opponent agreed in round 1 that if I prove that the New Testament is a fabrication, then I win. Guess I win, since my opponent doesn't really contest anything except the claim that Horus was crucified.

== Jesus as an amalgamation ==

This argument has been dropped the entire round. Many Talmudic scholars, like Hayyim ben Yehoshua, believe Jesus was based on a number of false messiahs who were all crucified, such as Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin. Christians have many responses to this argument (and deny that any of these people were Jesus), but my opponent never ventures any. Yeishu ben Pandeira, who was branded a sorcerer by the Jews, according to Talmudic writings, had two of Jesus's disciples: Matthew and Thaddeus. If you add in enough other false messiahs, you can get all 12 disciples' names.

== Historical silence ==

The first problem with the Tacitus passage is that he specifically calls the Christian belief that the Romans killed their Messiah "a most mischievous superstition." The syntax of the sentence is strange – because it's a translation – but Tacitus has clear contempt for the Christians, based on the passage. He is merely mentioning what the Christians believe and then says he believes it to be a "superstition." The second problem is that "Christus" just means "the anointed one" or "messiah," but as I mentioned above, the Romans crucified MANY false messiahs (who are mentioned in ancient Jewish texts). [This raises another question: if the Jews hated Jesus so much that (according to the New Testament), a crowd of them forced Pontius to crucify him, why don't they joyfully record this "false" messiah's death, along with the many others that *are* recorded?] Regardless, if Tacitus wanted Jesus' identity recorded for antiquity, he would have referred to him as "Jesus of Nazareth" not "the Christian messiah" (Christus). The fact he didn't use Jesus' proper name is further proof that Tacitus didn't believe the claim to be true. You know, besides him calling it a "mischievous superstition."

== Gnostics ==

My opponent never contests that the true followers of Jesus were Gnostics, not doomsdayers. The most prolific writings about Jesus appear in the NUMEROUS Gnostic gospels.

== Conclusion ==

I have proven in this debate that the gospel authors were willing to lie, borrow, and cheat to gain followers for Christianity. My opponent never disproves the Jewish claims about Jesus being a combination of false messiahs. Even if you believe the gospels, I have provided copious textual evidence that John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the apocalyptic ascetic (and two-thirds of Jesus scholars agree with my interpretation). And during this time period, asceticism and apocalypticism were completely intertwined (as seen by the Essenes). If Jesus was not an ascetic, he was not apocalyptic, and I've clearly won that he was not ascetic. For all these reasons, I urge a Con vote.

[1] http://bible.cc...
[2] http://bible.cc...
[3] http://www.sonofman.org...
[4] http://forum.davidicke.com...

Jesus as an amalgamation of several contradictory prophet type blue prints (some apocalyptic and some cleary not) and a lot of mythology just goes to show that the Jesus myth is multi-layered onion with no fixed core. And deeper into it there's even more interesting correspondences to John the Baptist that people ought to be aware of. Jesus as an historical failed doomsday prophet is currently the loosing position of the debate due to the lack of ability to make a plausible case.

Then there's the issue of John the Baptist and the Gospel According to John which follows:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4D2805449C4A0B34

Rough timeline I'm working with is.

Ur-John 96CE
G-Marcion 120-130CE
G-Mark 132-140CE
Ur-Matthew 132-140CE
G-Matthew 170CE+/-
G-Luke 170CE +/-
G-John 170CE +/-

Ur-John 96CE... G-John 170CE +/-

Interesting, so you have John as the earliest, with a later revision. This reminds me, have you read Jordan Day/ReligionFreeDeist's hypothesis on John? Here's the link for those who haven't- facebook.com/note.php?note_id=101503944 ... 4401416107

αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου,
ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι
ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευίτας ἵνα
ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτὸν· σὺ τίς εἶ; καὶ
ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, καὶ
ὡμολόγησεν ὅτι ἐγὼ ούκ εἰμὶ ὁ χριστός.

"This is the testimony of John..."

Unless we are already very familiar with the story it is not until we read all the way down to verses 25 and 26 that it becomes clear that this "John" is actually "John the Baptist". I am suggesting that this inquiring individual read no further than the first few lines before his initial question "What is this?" was answered..."this is the testimony of John". He likely believed this first line was a title and summarized the entire work. His brief mission was accomplished and he briskly rolled up the scroll and slapped a tag on it which read "Η ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ". Over time the titles of the gospels were assimilated and "Η ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ" was replaced with "TO ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ" and the genitive was replaced with KATA + the accusative. It was only later that the "John" in the title was assumed to be both the author and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and later came to be understood as John Zebedee...a character that is a complete alien to the gospel.

I can see how some scribe or priest could get the idea that the gospel is from John the Baptist and labeled an anonymous gospel "John" based on that. That's funny because it grains into all of the strange situations that appear in Mark where Jesus quotes seemed confused with something like John the Baptists or some other ascetic / apocalyptic would be saying in the narrative. There's also a good amount of information about the Gospel of John in WWJ:

WWJ / The Gospel According to John

If this all fed into Mark, Matthew, Luke, and a revised John then the question of what these authors believed about Jesus' historicity comes into closer examination. The link to follow here is Marcion and how these writers would have received Marcion filtering Ur-John. For Mark to have been so amalgamated with presenting the one character of Jesus contradicting himself and referring to the "Son of Man" as other, you would think that the author of Mark knew good and well that he was grafting together a patch work of contradictory material and was doing it intentionally because it was a mysery school type presentation where the knowledgeable wouldn't be hung up on historical accuracy anyways because it's largely a symbolic presentation.