Jesus Christ of the Gospels Never Existed. He's a Myth and I Can Prove It (Part 1). (techniques, preach)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course the Jews had a motive for inventing a crucified Messiah--one whose sacrifice would stretch for all time, not just annually as had been the tradition.
Picture an event that would have taken away their ability to make annual Passover lamb sacrifices for the country's sins--like...oh, say...the destruction of their temple, which coincidentally happened in 70 CE when the Romans came in and razed the temple to the ground.
Now the Jewish priests are without a Holy of Holies to make their annual sacrifices. What to do? Well, an idea occurs to them.What about instead of a yearly sacrifice, we institute a one-time sacrifice that lasts forever. That way, because we have no more temple and we can't build another one, we won't need a temple to make sacrifices anymore. But we can't use a lamb anymore, an animal is too temporary. What we need is a man, preferably a son of God who is divine who would be the Lamb of God, slain for our sins for all time.
Well, you can see how this kernel of an idea would get into Paul's hands, who took it and applied it to Gentiles and suddenly this man gets a name, Jesus of Nazareth whose death wipes away all sins ever committed by a person. So now the temple is no longer needed.
This is not some maverick theory I just invented. I read this some time ago and wrote of it here before. Jewish scholars who have studied the tumultuous period have postulated this theory as a major reason for the evolution of the idea of a savior for all mankind via a one-time sacrifice of the son of God.
"This post advances another reason to think that the author of the Gospel of Mark depicted the final days of Jesus as a metaphor for the fall of Jerusalem. If so, it follows that the resurrection of Jesus symbolized the emergence of a new “body of Christ” and “Temple of God” in the “ekklesia” or assemblies of Christians (what we think of as the “church”)."
"The destruction of the temple was traumatic for Jews and Christians alike. In the New Testament writings, Christians would idealize a new heaven, a new Jerusalem, and a new temple. The death of Jesus on the cross would, in some ways, be justified as a fundamental part of Judaism by the end of the age of sacrifice, the end of the temple rituals. In Christianity, the essence of sacrifice would live on eternally through the death of Jesus."
One can find much more scholarly literature on this theory if they just google "destruction of the temple led to idea of jesus christ -foretold"
Christianity began long before the Temple was destroyed in AD 70 and so were Paul's writings before the destruction of the Temple. Your theory is invalid.
Last edited by Michael Way; 10-28-2022 at 12:02 PM..
Christianity began long before the Temple was destroyed in AD 70 and so were Paul's writings before the destruction of the Temple. Your theory is invalid.
You weren't there and you have no writings to source outside of writings by Paul, and we have no definitive way of knowing when those writings actually came about or how badly they were tampered with by the Church to fit their story. So the theory is perfectly valid, especially as it is confirmed by numerous Biblical scholars who know a heck of a lot more about the origins of Christianity than you do.
You have explained the "mission" you are on, and what you endeavor to do with this incredible time, effort, and volume devoted.
But, here is your problem, and what you are up against:
The character Jesus Christ (real or not) is the most epic, prolific, and influential figure in the history of humankind.
This influence is growing in the world, overall...not shrinking.
You are absolutely powerless against this, and all your efforts to quell it are completely impotent.
You are spitting into a strong wind & pounding sand...and that circumstance will not change for you. Not ever.
REVERENCE FOR THE MOST EXALTED CHARACTER--JESUS CHRIST...our ultimate example of human conduct and interaction!
So tell us, phetaroi, if what I've present doesn't convince you in the least that the JEsus of the gospels was a myth, then just exactly what would it take to convince you Jesus of the gospels is a myth, or maybe nothing would convince you. If you profess to not believe the gospels' Jesus is mythical then perhaps you actually do believe the gospels' miracle-working, risen-from-the-dead Jesus really did exist. If so why call yourself an atheist? Why not go over to the Christians' side and profess the divine Jesus to be your savior?
You weren't there and you have no writings to source outside of writings by Paul, and we have no definitive way of knowing when those writings actually came about or how badly they were tampered with by the Church to fit their story. So the theory is perfectly valid, especially as it is confirmed by numerous Biblical scholars who know a heck of a lot more about the origins of Christianity than you do.
Since Paul was martyred in the mid 60's, and since none of his writings mention the destruction of the temple or the Neronian persecutions and reflect a relatively benign attitude of the Romans toward Christians at that time, his writings were before the destruction of the Temple.
Your theory once again is invalid, silly, ridiculous, preposterous . . .take your pick.
So tell us, phetaroi, if what I've present doesn't convince you in the least that the JEsus of the gospels was a myth, then just exactly what would it take to convince you Jesus of the gospels is a myth, or maybe nothing would convince you. If you profess to not believe the gospels' Jesus is mythical then perhaps you actually do believe the gospels' miracle-working, risen-from-the-dead Jesus really did exist. If so why call yourself an atheist? Why not go over to the Christians' side and profess the divine Jesus to be your savior?
Actually, I think you just hit the nail on the head with the bolded. I don't think you can PROVE it either way. I don't believe in the god-magic stuff, but my not believing it isn't proof. And yes, you are confused...because you don't have a grasp of what 'proof' actually is.
Since Paul was martyred in the mid 60's, and since none of his writings mention the destruction of the temple or the Neronian persecutions and reflect a relatively benign attitude of the Romans toward Christians at that time, his writings were before the destruction of the Temple.
Your theory once again is invalid, silly, ridiculous, preposterous . . .take your pick.
When Thrillobyte says, "You weren't there", he seems to forget that he wasn't, either.
Since Paul was martyred in the mid 60's, and since none of his writings mention the destruction of the temple or the Neronian persecutions and reflect a relatively benign attitude of the Romans toward Christians at that time, his writings were before the destruction of the Temple.
Your theory once again is invalid, silly, ridiculous, preposterous . . .take your pick.
And once again, it's not my theory--it's the theory of a dozen Bible scholars. I gave you some of the links. Read the material and stop accusing when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
