Jesus NEVER existed.

Constantine called the Council of Nicea — the first general council of the Christian church, 325 A.D.—primarily because he feared that disputes within the church would cause disorder within the empire. The dispute in mind was Arianism, which was the belief that Jesus was a created being. The famous phrase they were disputing was, "There was when, He was not." [link to www.gotquestions.org] <<<< biblical web site.

Here is concrete proof.

1 John.4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John.1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Can you imagine people saying that about a famous person who had only just lived?

Rubbish, no one would say that.

Jesus was NOT a real man.

Christianity, like all religious movements, was born from myth making; and nowhere is this clearer than when we examine the context from which Jesus sprang. The supposed historical underpinning of Jesus, which apologists insist differentiates their Christ from the myriad other savior gods and divine sons of the ancient pagan world, simply does not hold up to investigation.

Jesus vs. Julius Caesar

For instance, historian Richard Carrier has pointed out the problems with Christian apologist Douglas Geivett’s claim that the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection meets “the highest standards of historical inquiry,” and is as certain as Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.E. Carrier notes, “Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception.” Then he compares the evidence for both events:

First of all, we have Caesar’s own account. In contrast, we have nothing written by Jesus, and we do not know who really wrote any of the Gospels. Second, many of Caesar’s enemies reported the crossing of the Rubicon. But we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the supposed event, fifty years after Christian beliefs had become widely known. Third, there are numerous inscriptions, coins, mentions of battles, conscriptions and judgments, which form an almost continuous chain of evidence for Caesar’s entire march. But there is no physical evidence of any kind in the case of Jesus.

Fourth, almost every historian of the period reports the Rubicon crossing, including the most prominent of the Roman age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio and Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have shown proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed with material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they consistently show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn’t enough, all of them cite or quote sources written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions.

But not a single historian mentions the resurrection until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only Christian historians. Of the anonymous Gospel authors, only “Luke” even claims to be writing history, but neither Luke nor any of the others ever cite any other sources or show signs of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims. None have any other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy. Their actual identities are completely unknown, and all overtly declare their bias towards persuading new converts.

Finally, the Roman Civil War could not have proceeded as it did if Caesar had not physically crossed the Rubicon with his army into Italy and captured Rome. Yet the only thing necessary to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief — a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. Carrier concludes that while we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of them are lacking in the case of the resurrection:

“In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event’s historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence — a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes.”1

So even before we begin to examine Jesus’ resurrection, we are forced to recognize that the historical evidence for it, and all the other extraordinary events of Jesus’ career, is not only far from ironclad, but already suspect. So there is nothing unreasonable about taking a skeptical approach to the Gospels’ image of Jesus in the first place. And it’s important to note that we are not just talking about the divine man-god Jesus coming under fire, because it is not just the supernatural aspects of Jesus that have come under suspicion. Even the mundane and perfectly plausible-sounding aspects of Jesus’ life have proved to be problematic…

[link to zerowing21.xanga.com]

More proof ...

The Josephus fraud.

The church quotes a (fraudulent) passage from Flavius Josephus (c37-100 AD) a highly respected and much-quoted Romano-Jewish historian. A native of Judea, living in the 1st century AD, Josephus was actually governor of Galilee for a time (prior to the war of 70 AD) – the very province in which Jesus allegedly did his wonders. He was born in 37 AD and so he was not therefore a contemporary witness to Jesus. Josephus's two major tomes are History of The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews. In these complementary works, the former written in the 70s, the latter in the 90s AD, Josephus mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era but there is only one paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) which mentions Jesus. Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ story in one short paragraph.

1) Jesus's existence (2) his 'more than human' status (3) his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophecy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything ... however it's a forgery which has been debunked time and time again. Starting from a time before our Great Grandfathers. One work in particular called “DIEGESIS: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity” by Robert Taylor (1760 AD) makes some great points when it comes to Josephus:

"It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. (263–339 AD)

Josephus has nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works, except the testimony above mentioned and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother.

It interrupts the narrative.

The language is quite Christian.

It is not quoted by Chrysostom (347 AD), though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it, had it been then, in the text.

It is not quoted by Photius (810 AD), though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

Under the article Justus of Tiberius, this author (Photius) expressly states that this historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

Neither Justin, in his dialog with Typho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have even mentioned this testimony.

But, on the contrary, Origen openly affirms (ch. xxiv., bk. i, against Celsus), that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ."

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defense of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written and is a fraud. Christianity did not establish itself until the 2nd century. Outside of this single bogus paragraph, in all the extensive histories of Josephus there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.

The golden Josephus paragraph did not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius, the very first person to mention it in the fourth century. Dr. Gordon Stein relates "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

Marshall Gauvin remarks: "Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room."

"The following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica: 'That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.'"

Christian scholars such as Theodor Keim, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas and Dr. Alexander Campbell held a similar opinon. By the time of Dr. Chalmers and others, the TF had been so discredited that these authorities understood it as a forgery and did not even consider it for a moment as "evidence" of Jesus's existence and/or divinity. In fact, these subsequent defenders of the faith, knowing the TF to be a forgery, repeatedly commented on how disturbing it was that Josephus did not mention Jesus.

Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus.

The Tacitus Fraud

Another major support piller that a lot of Christians and Christian sympathizers rest on is the works of Cornelius Tacitus know by the name “The Annals”. He is made to speak of “Christians”, who “had their denomination from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate.” Also taking from “DIEGESIS” most modern historians have this as a rebuttal:

This passage, which would have served the purpose of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian Founding Fathers.

It is not quoted by Tertullian (220 AD), though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus.

And though his argument immediately called for the use of this quotation with so loud a voice (Apol. ch. v.), that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounts to a violent improbability.

This Father has spoken of Tacitus in a way that it is absolutely impossible that he should have spoken of him, had his writings contained such a passage.

It is not quoted by Clement of Alexandria (215 AD), who set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which Pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.

It has been nowhere stumbled upon by the laborious and all-seeking Eusebius (263–339 AD), who could by no possibility have overlooked it, and whom it would have saved from the labor of forging the passage in Josephus; of adducing the correspondence of Christ Jesus and Abgarus, and the Sibylline verses; of forging a divine revelation from the god Apollo, in attestation of Christ Jesus’ ascension into heaven; and innumerable other of his pious and holy cheats.

Tacitus has in no other part of his writings made the least allusion to “Christ” or “Christians.”

The use of this passage as part of the evidences of the Christian religion, is absolutely modern in origin.

There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century.

No reference whatever is made to this passage by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before that time, which, to say the least, is very singular, considering that after that time it is quoted, or referred to, in an endless list of works, which by itself is all but conclusive that it was not in existence till the fifteenth century, which was an age of imposture and of credulity so immoderate that people were easily imposed upon, believing, as they did, without sufficient evidence, whatever was foisted upon them.

The interpolation of the passage makes Tacitus speak of “Christ,” not of Jesus the Christ, showing that—like the passage in Josephus—it is, comparatively, a modern interpolation. The word “Christ” is not a name, but a title! It being simply the Greek for the Hebrew word “Messiah.” Therefore, when Tacitus is made to speak of Jesus as “Christ,” it is equivalent to my speaking of Tacitus as “Historian,” or George Washington as “General,” or of any individual as “Mister,” without adding a name by which either could be distinguished. And therefore, it has no sense or meaning as he is said to have used it.

Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians had their denomination from Christ, which would apply to any other of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, as well as to Christ Jesus. And “The disciples were called “Christians first at Antioch” (Acts xi. 26), not because they were followers of a certain Jesus who claimed to be the Christ, but because “Christian” was a name applied at that time to any good man. And, the worshipers of the Sun-god, Serapis, were also called “Christians,” and his disciples “Bishops of Christ.”


Justus of Tiberias

Justus was also an historian, a rival to Josephus, and from the same region. Perhaps his work was not as easily doctored?

" I have read the chronology of Justus of Tiberias ... he makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

– Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 9th Century


Pliny the Younger (61-115 AD)

Around 112 AD, in correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus/Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, reference is made to Christians for the first time. Pliny famously reports to his emperor:

"Christians ... asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." – Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96-97.

Note that Pliny is relaying what those arrested said they believed but there is no reference to 'Jesus.' He continues:

"Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."

Belief in a celestial Christ does not equate to belief in a flesh-and-blood 'Jesus of Nazareth' – and when the 'heretical' and 'gnostic' views of early Christians are examined 'Jesus of Nazareth' is noticeably absent. In fact Nazareth never existed in the 1st century AD. No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

There are a few other later later dubious accounts but none of them speak of a Jesus who was nailed to a Cross. This is odd considered this man was meant to be of such great fame wondering around preforming miracles and when you consider there is a mountain of evidence for the real Julius Caesar who lived before Jesus, odd indeed.


The Gospels

All four canonical gospels were originally written in Greek, the lingua franca (bridge language) of the Roman Orient where-as Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine in the first century AD, Many of the places spoken of in the gospels are incorrect and the gospels are written in third person making it obvious that theys were written by authors further afeild. Furthermore the gospels make statements such as "In the days of John the Baptist," which indicates that the writer was looking way back in time. In another example regarding Jesus's body being stolen, Matthew's gospel claims that "this story has been spread among the Jews to this day." The phrase "to this day" indicates that the writer is talking about a significant length of time ago.

The four canonical gospels were not mentioned or named as such by anyone until the time of Church father Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c. 120/140-c. 200/203 ad/ce). In Against All Heresies (III, 11.8), written around 180 ad/ce, Irenaeus is the first to name the canonical gospels and give reasons for their inclusion and number in the New Testament… The remarks by Irenaeus represent the first mention of all four canonical gospels together. In fact, prior to the end of the second century, there is no evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them.

Much of the information in the gospels is not plausible.

There are two differ accounts of the birth of Jesus. The canonical gospels of Luke and Matthew describe Jesus being born in Bethlehem, in Judea, to a virgin mother.

Luke features the Christmas story, in which Joseph and Mary, as part of a census, travel to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born and laid in a manger. Angels proclaim him a savior for all people, and shepherds come to adore him. However, in Matthew, wise men follow a star to Bethlehem to bring gifts to Jesus, born the King of the Jews and the family flees to Egypt because King Herod seeks to kill Jesus and massacres all toddler boys in Bethlehem in the hope of killing Jesus. However this happens when King Herold was already dead and had been for three years. (73/74 BCE – 4 BCE) and obviously scholars can find no historical evidence for the "Slaughter of the Innocents" by King Herod, even though any such action would surely have been recorded by his many enemies among the Jews. Some scholars see parallels between the infancy account in Matthew's Gospel and the Old Testament, with Joseph going to Egypt, just as Joseph had before him, and Herod killing the infant boys, just as the pharaoh had before him. They say that the author was inspired by the Old Testament story of Moses.

Matthew, Mark and Luke all speak of King Herod. There is no way three disciples who lived in the time of Jesus would make such a mistake as to speak of a King as alive when he had been dead since before the birth of Jesus. This implies the writers did not know Jesus and they did not live in the time period covered by the live of Jesus but rather wrote their gospels much later from a distance.

The Jewish historian Josephus recorded that in the year 6–7, after the exile of Herod Archelaus (one of the sons and successors of Herod the Great), Quirinius (in Greek, sometimes transliterated Cyrenius), a Roman senator, became governor (Legatus) of Syria, while an equestrian assistant named Coponius was assigned as the first governor (Prefect) of the newly-created Iudaea Province. These governors were assigned to conduct a tax census for the Emperor in Syria and Iudaea.

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, [2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. [3] When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. [4] And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. [5] And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, [6] And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. [7] Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. [8] And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. [9] When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. [10] When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. [11] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. [12] And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. [13] And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. [14] When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: [15] And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. [16] Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. [17] Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, [18] In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. [19] But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, [20] Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

Then we get a completely different version of the story with no slaying of the innocents in Luke. LIES MUCH

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. [2] (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) [3] And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. [4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) [5] To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. [6] And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. [7] And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. [8] And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. [9] And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. [10] And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. [11] For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. [12] And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. [13] And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, [14] Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. [15] And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. [16] And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. [17] And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. [18] And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. [19] But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. [20] And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. [21] And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. [22] And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

In Matthew Jesus is born of the Holy Ghost but in Luke the Holy Ghost descends on him when he's baptized.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.doubted

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some. [18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Barabbas a rebel was freed by Pontius Pilate at the Passover feast in Jerusalem in exchange for Jesus. However, no custom of releasing prisoners in Jerusalem is recorded in any historical document other than the gospels. Not to meantion the whole notion of the people welcoming Jesus with huge cheers of Jerusalem only five days prior to them yelling for him to be cruified, it defies all logic. Similarly a God who decides to bless humans with heaven for killing his one and only son makes no sense what-so-ever..


Read more at ...

[link to popemichael.wordpress.com]

[link to www.truthbeknown.com]

[link to www.jesusneverexisted.com]

Last Edited by Lamplite on 07/10/2013 04:21 PM