Theo,

My preference would be that the last argument on all of them say, “Therefore, God might exist.â€? I think if you can get enough mights into your thought process that’s where that leap of faith choice comes in.  Making each argument definitively yes or no is something I don’t think can be done.

That’s quite similar to the thinking of Kant in The Critique of Pure Reason.  If you’re interested in pursuing the above line of reasoning further, I would suggest that you give Kant a read.

(theocrat) I see you can spout off the negative ones, but do any of you really have any idea how far the other side of the argument extends?

Does it matter?

Granted I haven’t read the entire Bible, but I’ve been seriously studying it for more than five years now.

If you wish to keep your faith then I’d recommend not reading the entire Bible.

That mistake is what started me on the path away from belief. It’s an eye opening experience to say the least. You won’t like it in its entirety.

Theo, I’d really like to know how you or any of the other believers here respond to Nunyabiz’s posting here.  Any counters to the allegations that Jesus was merely an allegorical figure, with most of his story recycled from earlier deities?

Originally posted by Socialist Swine:
That’s quite similar to the thinking of Kant in The Critique of Pure Reason.

Thanks for reminding me of the name of the book.  I was going to mention it in another post but couldn’t remember its name.

Originally posted by elwedriddsche:
Does it matter?

How can one know the absolute truth without all the evidence?

Originally posted by Les:
If you wish to keep your faith then I’d recommend not reading the entire Bible.

Interesting statement.  Please elaborate or e-mail with more.  I generally run into the opposite experience.

Originally posted by GeekMom:
Theo, I’d really like to know how you or any of the other believers here respond to Nunyabiz’s posting here.

Following the rules of logic, I give it credence until it can be discredited.  I haven’t read everything in those links yet, but I hope to get to some of it over break.

How can one know the absolute truth without all the evidence?

How can one obtain a conclusion that’s “absolute truth” when much of the “evidence” requires faith, superstition and conjecture?

I think if you can get enough mights into your thought process that’s where that leap of faith choice comes in.  Making each argument definitively yes or no is something I don’t think can be done.  It’s all about how you perceive the mights.

“Mights” and leaps of faith pretty much preclude arriving at a conclusion that can be called “absolute truth,“ IMO.  “Strong belief,“ would be about the best to come out of such thought processes.

Interesting statement.  Please elaborate or e-mail with more.  I generally run into the opposite experience.

Just take a gander through the About Me archives. There’s an entry in there someplace where I discuss my journey away from Baptist Christianity toward atheism and it’s catalyst happened to be a front-to-back reading of the Bible.

Originally posted by OB:
How can one obtain a conclusion that’s “absolute truth� when much of the “evidence� requires faith, superstition and conjecture?

If one is trying to discern the characteristics of God based on the scripture in the Bible, one would need to read a lot more than the negative verses.  “Faith, superstition and conjecture” is what you do with the absolute truth of God’s character in the Bible.

Originally posted by OB:
“Mights� and leaps of faith pretty much preclude arriving at a conclusion that can be called “absolute truth,� IMO.

I would agree with that as well, but you are trying to tie two different conclusions from two different posts together.

I will definitely make looking through those archives a priority over break.

So Theo, like most of the Atheist on this site I have read the bible not once but several times.
2x about 25-30 years ago and once about 8-10 years ago when I found out the TRUE origins of the Bible being Astrological and that Jesus was an allegory for the sun, the 3rd time is the only time the Bible made any sense at all.
While there is “some” good in the Bible, so what.

There is “some good” in the Qur’ran, even more in the Philosophies of Buddha, finding a little good in a book doesn’t mean you must believe it cover to cover, especially the absurd parts, there is virtually nothing good in the OT, the reason the NT takes an about face has nothing to do with the fictitious Jesus, It has to do with WHY it was written and by WHOM.
The WHY is because of slavery in Rome and the Jewish uprising & growing popularity of the original Christians (Gnostics) which taught salvation through self awareness/knowledge.

According to the Gnostics, salvation, we are told is to be found both inside of oneself and can also be discerned in the natural world, being displayed without any doubting or second thoughts, without the need for any leaders, by such creatures as the birds and the animals and the fish. The Gnostics made a call to people to ignore the religious leaders, and then draw the conclusion that by rejecting their necessarily authoritarian doctrines the path would be open to ‘come to know yourself’ which would then lead to enlightenment, this enlightenment being the only ‘salvation’ people require in Gnostic thought, with the implication being that religious leaders and authority figures are actually an impediment to human salvation, since it would appear then that people need to be saved from religion. There is no doctrine of ‘punishment’ in Gnostic thought, but rather if you fail to achieve enlightenment, you pay the price by living a life of inner ‘poverty’. When you achieve enlightenment then you will realize that you were not born an incomplete or somehow defective ‘sinner’, and thus in the need of authoritarian religion as a form of social control, but rather you are by your very nature children of God. On the other hand, it is implied, if you continue to listen to your religious authorities then you become an impoverished pauper as a result of accepting their doctrines, which are hostile to your very nature, and to the nature of the world around you (which is very true of Orthodox Christian doctrines of ‘corrupted nature’ and ‘fallen Eden’ and ‘hereditary sinfulness’). As you can tell what the Gnostics believed was very similar to Buddhism they just put Jesus in place of Buddha basically a Judao-Buddhism.
The Romans could not have such thinking as this, they would lose all control of the masses & slaves.
There is “some” evidence of the Roman “Piso/Flavian” family being the authors of the 4 canonized Gospels, while nobody knows whom really wrote them, there are some things known for certain.
They were NOT written by any Mark,Matthew,Luke & John & whomever wrote them they were certainly either Roman or Greek.
Now the Piso family had the “Motive” had the education & the ways & means to pull off such hoax.

Take a look at the OT which is basically just the Jewish Torah (which is entirely Kemetic in origin), now honestly look at the NT it is literally the Anti-Torah and became moreso with the Gospel according to John, so all of a sudden the Jewish religion becomes “Anti-Semitic”? most all of the old Jewish laws denied, and went from a Monotheistic i.e.: Yahweh into some contrived Trinity which was quite obviously Kemetic in origin as the Jesus character was without question an almost exact copy of the Kemetic Sun-God “Heru” then the Jews themselves in this fairytale turns out to be the ones to call for the death of this alleged Savior?
Seems quite obvious does it not that the NT was written to both go against the Jews & to placate the slaves and common folk, to control the masses and who is the obvious winner here? The Roman Aristocrats.

IF in fact the Piso or Flavian family wrote the NT it makes sense, one can clearly see the motive, one can clearly see the means as the Piso family was very well educated with worldly knowledge as Arrius Piso basically had carte blanche at the Library of Alexandria.
The Pisos writing the NT gives Motive, Authorship of the Gospels, & evidence of the origin of Jesus of which not a single word was ever written by or about him in history.
http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/institutional_analysis/histchr1.html

This would explain also why Jesus is so obviously a carbon copy of Heru/Horus, you can also see how the story line was pieced together by simply following the Zodiac.
Whether or not the Piso’s wrote the NT or not, one thing is perfectly clear and that is that Jesus is without question a fictional character that closely follows the story of Heru and you can very clearly see many other sun god religions patchworked into the NT, which is exactly what you would suspect if people such as the Piso’s made it all up.
The site I listed gives FAR more evidence, some of which is verifiable to explain who wrote the NT than simply saying its “Gods Word” which is absurd. At least it is a viable hypothesis.

http://www.joelbainerman.com/articles/new_test.asp

Nunya, the Joel Bainerman site is entertaining enough, but the guy is a fruitcake.  He seems to be enamored of consipiracy theories, which litter his articles, including the New Testament one.  If he could have blamed the NT on the “foreign elite” and the “media,“ he would have.  I wouldn’t give credence to that particular source.

True enough, I was trying to give a wider range of it by showing a Jewish viewpoint, although that was a poor one indeed.

Here is another one.

http://www.insmkt.com/RomanOriginofChristianity.htm

and a slightly different version putting the blame more on Vespasian and Titus than Arrius.

http://www.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/sae/arts/flavians/flavians.htm

Thing is though, there is allot more evidence even though fair amount of it is sketchy to give credence to the Roman origin of Christianity than what the church tries to spew.
This sounds much more plausible as it gives pretty believable answers to questions that the church can only say, “God did it”, “the Bible says”

Either which way, couple things that are certain is that no such person as Jesus really existed, Jesus was entirely made up from ancient Kemetic religious belief namely “Heru”, he was certainly an allegory for the Sun, the Bible was certainly an astrological story.
Who wrote this tall tale is not certain, though it being of Roman origin makes quite a bit of sense and answers some questions that cant be answered any other way.

A random thought… The philosophers of old made a big deal out of absolute truth being an indispensible attribute of knowledge. I’m not well read in philosophy, but it seems to me that modern philosophers have relaxed their stance and will accept a concept of knowledge that acknowledges that relative truth may just be good enough. That in itself can lead to interesting epistemologies, but what I really wonder about is the connection between theology and philosophy. It almost seems like the more theological arguments in support of god’s existence failed, the less important absolute truth has become to philosophers.

Nunyabiz:

Intriguing hypothesis.  A few questions to flesh out your thinking regarding the Roman conspiracy to create Christianity.

1)  How do you reconcile the Romans creating Christianity, and then only a short time later killing Christians.  That seems to be the antithesis of a choreographed plan for conversion to Christianity, which would be the whole purpose for conjecturing up the conspiracy in the first instance.

2) One of the basic messages contained in the New Testament, is that as a result of Jesus’s coming, we are now free from the law.  This message is inherently at odds with the WHY that you are propounding.  How do you reconcile this message with your WHY?

3) This is a long thread and I’ve not had the time to go back through each of the links that you have posted.  You state:  “There is “someâ€? evidence of the Roman “Piso/Flavianâ€? family being the authors of the 4 canonized Gospels,...“  Is that material linked above?  If not, what are your source materials for this?

4) Although I disagree with your assessment that the NT is anti-semetic, assuming for purposes of this post that it is, do you consider it plausible that Paul, in order to expand his target audience, set aside food laws and circumcision? 

spocko and zilch:

Brand new here and I have to say hysterical stuff.

1) How do you reconcile the Romans creating Christianity, and then only a short time later killing Christians.  That seems to be the antithesis of a choreographed plan for conversion to Christianity, which would be the whole purpose for conjecturing up the conspiracy in the first instance.

Not at all, in fact it was the “Original Christians” the Gnostics that had the biggest problem with Rome, once the “New & Improved” Christianity created by Rome took over the biggest problem then was actually lunatic Christians actively wanting to “martyr” themselves, the count of Christians killed by Rome was greatly exaggerated.
Not to mention guess whom persecuted more Christians than Rome ever dared? LOL Why other lunatic Christians of course, many were martyred by other Christians, as “heretics” Trinitarian Christians against Arian Christians, Protestants Vs Catholics, & most importantly to the Romans turning the Jews against Christians since the Roman made up NT turned Jews into Christ killers/haters this killed 2 birds with one stone.
The big hoax simply worked far to well, Im sure they never thought such total insanity would ensue. As Pope Urban said: “only martyrs will attain to Paradise before the Second Coming.“
Also I believe it was “Nero” whom really started any Roman sanctioned persecution of Christians by blaming the burning of a large part of Rome on them. The Christians were convicted not so much of arson, but of a hatred of mankind which includes anarchism, atheism, and high treason. (Atheism was considered not believing in “Caesar” which was God) This seems to me just as much of a retaliation by Nero than anything else because of the Piso/Flavian attempt to assassinate him after they brought their plan of this hoax to him and he opposed it because his mistress at the time “Poppea” was pro-Jewish.
I think this was around 64CE if I remember right, but you see thing is all these persecutions of early Christians had nothing to do with the Piso/Flavian invented NT as that was not written till no earlier than 70CE (Gospel according to “Matthew”) and never gained much popularity until many years later (there was a “Ur Marcus” written about 10 years earlier but that never gained any favor at all) , prior to about 75CE there was no such thing in any form of Christianity as any Jesus of Nazareth, crucifixion, etc. even though it allegedly happened 40 years before that. Once Nero was assassinated in 68CE there was I think 3 Emperors in & out in about a years time until the Piso’s and a few others all joined ranks behind Vespasian.
Arrius Piso which was Governor of Syria in 66CE deliberately provoked the Jewish revolt so he would have an excuse to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. Then when he wrote the NT, AFTER destroying the Temple cleverly had the fictional Jesus prophecy the destruction because of the Jews’ rejection of him! After Nero though the Christians had about 30 years of relative peace in Rome until Domitian became Emperor, but once again even though Christians were indeed persecuted in Rome from around 50-312 CE it was sorta off & on depending on what particular Emperor was ruling and a large part of these persecutions were really brought on by the Christians themselves because of their militant fanaticism and their “Atheism”.
Christianity like you know today really did not exist until after the council of Nicea canonized the 4 Gospels dreamed up by the Piso’s some 250 years earlier, most of which were virtually unknown until about 170+CE.

2) One of the basic messages contained in the New Testament, is that as a result of Jesus’s coming, we are now free from the law.  This message is inherently at odds with the WHY that you are propounding.  How do you reconcile this message with your WHY?

Hmmm “Free from the Law of sin & death maybe” but seems more to me like the NT preached more of the “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and Pay your taxes, Obey the authority/government etc. etc. so fits the Why perfectly. Romans 13 surely does not sound to me like a Christian is “Free from law” by any stretch of the imagination. http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/chadwell/growth/lesson18.htm

3) This is a long thread and I’ve not had the time to go back through each of the links that you have posted.  You state:  “There is “someâ€? evidence of the Roman “Piso/Flavianâ€? family being the authors of the 4 canonized Gospels,...â€? Is that material linked above?  If not, what are your source materials for this?

Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Vol. III

Tacitus, Annals, XV

Tacitus, Histories I/II/III

some of Pliny’s letters

Suetonius : Lives of the Caesar’s, Book IV

Josephus Jewish War III

Plus many letters from various individuals many of which had several “pen names” or Pseudonyms which was very common practice. In a strange twist I actually found out through researching this that Im actually very distantly related to this Arius Piso through one of my Mothers sisters whom married a “Pate” of whom is directly descended from the Pates in an area of NC which oddly enough are descended from “Thrasea Paetus” which just happens to be none other than “Arius Calpurnius Piso”

http://genforum.genealogy.com/payette/messages/135.html

There are fragments of information scattered in all sorts of writing’s that lead to this hypothesis.

4) Although I disagree with your assessment that the NT is anti-Semitic, assuming for purposes of this post that it is, do you consider it plausible that Paul, in order to expand his target audience, set aside food laws and circumcision?

I think the Gospel according to John is quite anti-Semitic and really there is very little if any evidence that old Saul/Paul ever even existed either, it is entirely possible that Paul was really “Seneca” or “Justus Piso” which in order to improve acceptance of their new religion they were making up took away the food laws and circumcision to make it more palatable. Given the scarceness of truly verifiable evidence for either Paul being a factual character or entirely made up, honestly the probability of him being fictional & just a pen name of either Justus or Seneca is every bit as believable if not moreso. It certainly explains some things that are unexplainable if you believe the Christian storytellers.

http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/institutional_analysis/histchr1.html

Anyway this is only a possibility, a hypothesis, though a vastly more plausible one than believing the Bible to be inerrant & factual in anyway.

Nunyabiz:

I’m but a simple farm boy from Nebraska so bear with me if you will.  I can’t track all that   you’re providing.  It ain’t adding up to me, and I’m guessing that has something to do with my reading comprehension skills rather than your presention.  If you’d do me the kindness of walking this simple farm boy through some things, I’d be appreciative.

1. Let’s start with this whole Gnostics thing. I understand and agree with your shorthand presentation of Gnostic theology.  I get confused after that. 

Here’s why—you indicate that there is no evidence regarding Jesus Christ until around 70 A.D.  At that time this Roman family invented Jesus for the purpose of suppressing the Gnosticism, which you believe the Romans saw as a threat.  Yet, there is the Gospel of Thomas.  This is a Gnostic Gospel and it is possible that it predates the other Gospels, or at least there is speculation that it might.  Interestingly enough this Gospel of Thomas is a purported collection of sayings by Jesus.  I’m not saying that the Gospel is accurate by any stretch of the imagination, but at the very least, it sure seems to me that the Gnostics thought there was this guy Jesus.

Given that, it seems to this farm boy that your conspiracy theory regarding the construction of Christianity to deal with the Gnostics is directly at odds with your original proposition that there never was a Jesus.  I can’t reconcile the two.  Would you do me the honor?

2. History of the Temple and Rebellion

“Arrius Piso which was Governor of Syria in 66CE deliberately provoked the Jewish revolt so he would have an excuse to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem.“

Now I went and read some of the source material you provided. Tacitus and Josephus indicate that the Roman Emperor Caligula played a large role in the rebellion by demanding that the Jews place a statute of him in the Temple. It appears, according to Tacitus that Caligula’s death averts a wholescale war at that point, but it sure seems from all the evidence that I can find that the place is at near boiling.  No provocation would be needed. I believe the procurator of Syria in 66 A.D. was Cestius Gallius.  Are we referencing the same person here?

3.  The Stoning of James

Josephus, in “Antiquities” references the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus, the reputed Messiah.“  How do you read this?

4. Romans 13

Just a note regarding Romans 13.  My take on this is that the writer is struggling with a message that sets its listeners free from the law, hence the instruction in Romans 13 on how to interact with the government.  However, that is a set up to this:  “Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.“

This harkens back to earlier Jewish teachings found in Wisdom.  And it seems clear to me, but my vision may be clouded, that the author saying that government is not entitled to obedience when such obedience would nullify God’s prior claim to the believers’ moral decision.  But again, just my take. 

5. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS WAS A PEN NAME OF ARIUS CALPURNIUS PISO.

I just clicked on your link that is the source material for much of your material.  An excerpt regarding those that sacked Jerusalem from Josephus:

“To give a detailed account of their outrageous conduct is impossible, but we may sum it up by saying that no other city has ever endured such horrors, and no generation in history has fathered such wickedness. In the end they brought the whole Hebrew race into contempt in order to make their own impiety seem less outrageous in foreign eyes, and confessed the painful truth that they were slaves, the dregs of humanity, bastards, and outcasts of their nation. ....It is certain that when from the upper city they watched the Temple burning they did not turn a hair, though many Romans were moved to tears.“

The sentiment of the writer appears to me to be real.  And if real, is entirely inconsistent with the proposition that Piso is Josephus.

Regards,

Nunyabiz:

That site that is the source material for most of your presentation that the Pisos wrote the NT, in various places also advocates incest and bomb building.  Interesting material, but I would ask that from this point forward, just refer me directly to the historical source documents.  I have enough issues without having to read about someone’s sick desire to have sex with their siblings or children.   

Regards,

That site that is the source material for most of your presentation that the Pisos wrote the NT, in various places also advocates incest and bomb building.  Interesting material, but I would ask that from this point forward, just refer me directly to the historical source documents.  I have enough issues without having to read about someone’s sick desire to have sex with their siblings or children.

Damn that West-Ark Church of Christ

Consigliere, you proved from the git-go that you ain’t no “simple farm boy.“  Way to go.  I’ll really look forward to this discussion with Nunya.  (gets popcorn and jujubes)

Given that, it seems to this farm boy that your conspiracy theory regarding the construction of Christianity to deal with the Gnostics is directly at odds with your original proposition that there never was a Jesus.  I can’t reconcile the two.  Would you do me the honor?“

Simple, Jesus is entirely fictional, there is not one single word written by or about him during his alleged lifetime, the attributes of this fictional character just happen to be EXACTLY the same as many other much older pagan Sun-Gods that predate Christianity & Judaism by 1000s of years.
The alleged Gospels were never referred to by anyone anywhere prior to at least 170CE.
The Bible itself is without question a Astrologically based story that follows the zodiac and Jesus is an allegory for the Sun, of this I cant see how there is ANY doubt whatsoever.
So regardless of who wrote what when or why technically is moot as far as fruitlessly trying to prove the existence of some Jesus.

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/solarmyth/day.html  Just keep clicking next.

http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/bible_astrology.htm

2. Cestius Gallius was one of the many aliases Arius Piso apparently used.
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/famtree/josari5.html

While this seems a tad far fetched, it is still far more plausible than some superbogeyman waving his magic wand. Using other names was very common back then, technically it still is, most of the movie stars & authors you know today are not using there real names, just back then it was much easier to get away with using multiple identities to cover their tracks.
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/famtree/josari2.html

The 99.999% probability of Jesus not existing as a real entity trumps anything else, so all else is just fluff and pretty much moot except to just try and figure out who wrote the fairytale.

This Piso or Flavian idea is just a plausible hypothesis to answer some of the fluff.

The main theory about Jesus simply not existing is virtually irrefutable.

I’m but a simple farm boy from Nebraska so bear with me if you will.

That promises to be entertaining. Popcorn, anybody?

I have enough issues without having to read about someone’s sick desire to have sex with their siblings or children.

That’s what I said when I read the Bible!

Spocko delivers again, and luckily my morning coffee was already too far down to endanger the keyboard and monitor.

“Simple, Jesus is entirely fictional,...“

I fear you missed my point.  Let me try again. 

As I understand it, your position is that Jesus is a make believe something or other.  You maintain that this caricature of Jesus was manufactured by the Romans to address their concerns about the Gnosticism. You maintain that this took place no sooner than 70 A.D.  Please confirm for me that this accurately states your position.

If what I stated above is accurate, then we can safely discount this theory.  We can do this because the Gnostics, the very individuals that you maintain had this scary theology that necessited the manufacture of Jesus, were aware of Jesus prior to 70 A.D. as set forth above.

Absent some alternative explanation that I’ve missed, and that is entirely possible, it’s safe to say with certainty that the Romans didn’t manufacture Jesus.

Now that we can safely say that the Romans didn’t manufacture Jesus, we may move to Josephus.  Since, there is no evidence that you have presented that Josephus was anybody other than Josephus, and we have discounted this Roman conspiracy to create Christ, we must take Josephus at face value.  When we take Josephus at face value, we have written evidence that Jesus Christ existed separate and apart from the Gospels. 

If you can produce some evidence that Josephus was not Josephus, other than this Roman conspiracy to concoct a Messiah for the Jewish people, I will gladly entertain it. 

I’m note that I’m not interested in clicking links to read someone else’s thoughts on this subject.  I’ve found in my admittedly limited experience on bulletin boards that links to lengthy material are often a wild goose chase and are a poor substitute for straight forward conversation. 

Regards,

P.S.  Is there a way for me to edit my posts after I have posted them should I discover a typo?  Also, how are you doing the quotes in blue?

Consi: nope, no editing postposting. Hit “preview” instead of “submit” if you want to see how it looks before committing yourself.  Quotes in blue: put [ quote ] before and [ /quote ] after the desired quote, but without the spaces inside the brackets.

My two cents’ worth on the historicity of Jesus: I don’t believe, either, that Jesus was made up by the Romans- that smacks a bit too much of conspiracy theory to me.  I don’t really know if there was an historical Jesus, and I suspect it will never be established one way or another beyond doubt, but I personally don’t give a fig one way or another. 

I’m happy to eat popcorn with elwed and geekmom (unfortunately there are no jujubes here in benighted Austria) and enjoy the spectacle, too, but whatever the case is about Jesus, the Bible is just one fairy tale among many, another way for a prescientific people to try to make sense of their world, and to achieve order in their society, whether consciously or unconsciously conceived- probably some of both, with a lot of axe grinding, politics, and older religions thrown into the mix.

I fear you missed my point.  Let me try again. 

As I understand it, your position is that Jesus is a make believe something or other.  You maintain that this caricature of Jesus was manufactured by the Romans to address their concerns about the Gnosticism. You maintain that this took place no sooner than 70 A.D.  Please confirm for me that this accurately states your position.

That is entirely possible as it is hard for me sometimes to follow completely illogical statements.
Yes my position is that Jesus is entirely fictional as ALL the evidence proves that beyond any reasonable doubt. Evidence btw that you continue to completely ignore, explain all the things Iv listed before if you can, Bible being an Astrological story, Jesus a carbon copy of Heru and an allegory for the Sun in the bible, etc.
As for being manufactured by the Romans, that is just a hypothesis, although really its about the only hypothesis that I can think of that makes any sense, someone in the Roman Aristocracy almost had to be involved in some way.
There is at least some evidence of the Piso/Flavian role.

Other than that what’s left?

Some all knowing, all seeing, all powerful superbogeyman sent part of “Himself” in form of a ghost down to Earth, and just where is this “Heaven” it close by is it?
Anyway, this Ghost of Himself, Boinks what everyone except the Christians call a Ho, Mary a married woman, she then gives Birth to a divine conception of “Himself” in human form, though oddly enough weren’t we already created in his image?
K so now this Godman spends as the story goes over 30+ years on Earth growing up somewhere of which we dont know as there are no accounts of anykind whatsoever of this Godman, NOTHING, not a single word was ever written about or BY him during his alleged lifetime, even though he allegedly strolls around this small area of the middle east for over 30 years healing the sick, curing the blind, feeding the multitudes with a loaf of bread and a couple fish, turning water into wine, causing earthquakes, blacking out the sun for days, and the ever popular raising the dead, he was also a very popular fellow as crowds grew around him everywhere he went, etc.etc.
Now you would think that such a spectacle would at least warrant an honorable mention on the back page of the Jerusalem Inquirer yet not a single word about this Godman.
You would also think this Godman would have at some point raised a quill and scribbled down all these words of wisdom to be passed down to teach all his children, yet not so much as an X.
Now this all loving, all forgiving, godman whom has done nothing wrong other than being a horse thief I guess and turning over a few tables, is picked up and crucified by the Romans.
Then this Godman went though this alleged pain & suffering masochism for MY sin of “Being Born” and THIS is what the alleged superbogeyman had in mind to teach all his children was to send part of himself down to create another part of himself to stroll around apparently fruitlessly for over 30 years with 12 little sycophants in tow in a tiny area of this planet for the sole purpose of sacrificing Himself to Himself for our sin of simply being born.
So Human sacrifice is really the root of Christian religion, this lesson was learned well as we can tell from the Millions upon Millions of totally innocent human beings brutally “sacrificed” to spread the Love for the last 2000 years.

If what I stated above is accurate, then we can safely discount this theory.  We can do this because the Gnostics, the very individuals that you maintain had this scary theology that necessited the manufacture of Jesus, were aware of Jesus prior to 70 A.D. as set forth above.

First off the Gnostic gospels have all been dated to no earlier than 170-400CE, some 100-200 years after the alleged canonized Gospels could have been written, so the Gnostic Gospels got the idea of some Jesus character from the canonized version.
They also very clearly make the point known that they dont believe in any Jesus as some Godman of anykind.
also here is a nice little quote from that Gospel of Thomas you keep referring to as your proof of Jesus:

Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Thomas-114)

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gnostics.html

Yep that Jesus, boy howdy a ladies man for sure.

It is intellectually dishonest to state the Gospel of Thomas predates the Bible. There is no support that it was written before c.140 A.D., since the earliest preserved fragment of this “gospel” is 200 A.D..

http://www.biblequery.org/jesussem.htm

Here is the macabre little story of how these text were found, plus more information on the dating.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html

About the dating of the manuscripts themselves there is little debate. Examination of the datable papyrus used to thicken the leather bindings, and of the Coptic script, place them c. A.D. 350-400. But scholars sharply disagree about the dating of the original texts. Some of them can hardly be later than c. A.D. 120-150, since Irenaeus, the orthodox Bishop of Lyons, writing C. 180, declares that heretics “boast that they possess more gospels than there really are,‘’

The original GREEK text from which the Coptic translations known as the Gnostic Gospels (which were positively dated to 350-400AD) is believed to be possibly from 140ish CE and this “guess” is merely from a single sentence uttered by Irenaeus in approx. 180CE stating that heretics possess more gospels than there really are? pretty shaky dating there.

OK, so lets all just assume that you are correct shall we, even though there is no evidence that you are.
IF you are correct, and these Gnostic Gospels such as ‘The Secret Gospel according to Thomas” predates any known Christian gospel, then would that not make them more accurate? closer to the ever elusive truth? If that is the case then you have proven MY point for me as quite clearly the Gnostics & their gospels “prove” that Jesus was no godman of any kind, basically proves that the Christian gospels are completely wrong in every respect do they not? After all the Gnostics believed that the original God was EVIL, that humans were first born GOOD, that the Serpent was actually the principle of divine wisdom that had to convince adam & eve to seek true knowledge, and that the EVIL GOD threw them out of paradise when they achieved it, The Gnostics believed basically NOTHING of Christianity as it is known today, they did not believe any Trinity, no virgin birth, no crucifixion, no ascension, the idea of Jesus being any son of any god on earth in human form was to them absurd.

So which is it?  take your pick makes no difference to me since Im right either way

Absent some alternative explanation that I’ve missed, and that is entirely possible, it’s safe to say with certainty that the Romans didn’t manufacture Jesus.

Now that we can safely say that the Romans didn’t manufacture Jesus, we may move to Josephus.  Since, there is no evidence that you have presented that Josephus was anybody other than Josephus, and we have discounted this Roman conspiracy to create Christ, we must take Josephus at face value.  When we take Josephus at face value, we have written evidence that Jesus Christ existed separate and apart from the Gospels.

Yes you missed it, and you are way ahead of yourself, No you cant safely say the Romans didn’t manufacture Jesus, basically just like I cant honestly say that they DID, the Piso/Flavian idea is just that, a possible hypothesis, one that makes sense and has “some” supporting documentation, plus Motive, plus fits more of an Occam’s razor explanation and explains what would otherwise be forever unexplainable.

As for Josephus, I have kind of a hard time with that one myself, although far less of problem I must say believing that there is a possibility that Arius Piso could have theoretically been Josephus, than I do of some mythical bogeyman waving his magic wand creating every single thing, the Earth, trillions upon trillions of stars, planets, black holes, even the space in between all while waving his magic wand and speaking a few choice words of “Hebrew”. Arius Piso having josephus as a pen name all of a sudden sounds pretty damn plausible when I think of the absurd alternative.

Now lets even take Josephus “at face value” pretend you are correct, Mkay, first off the 11 lines of text (Testimonium Flavianum) in one book out of many attributed to josephus that mentioned a Jesus character number one very likely did not exist in the original text as there is no mention of the Testimonium Flavianum in the table of contents of the book, slight oversight by the christian whom added the passage.

Lets assume for a moment the text is factual anyway, the text means nothing whatsoever as far as any proof of anykind any alleged Jesus ever existed as the book was written & published in 94CE some 60+ years after any alleged Jesus character was long gone, also since this 94CE mention of some alleged Jesus predates any known Biblical gospel version (the Gospels take your pick while believed to be as early as 70CE “Mark” the earliest surviving text or even mention of text is something like 188CE) it happens to be one clue that in fact its possible Arius Piso was actually Josephus (Josephus btw was a “Flavian”).

So these few lines of text IF not forged give just as much credence to the Arius Piso hypothesis as it does any possibility of the existence of Jesus. Which is very little. Also another Book written by Josephus/Piso was “Jewish War” this book predates the Antiquities of the Jews by some 25 years, This books also mentions the problems in Judea under Pilate, mentions the very same 2 incidents, yet in this earlier book makes no mention at all of any Jesus, John the Baptist, James etc.

This gives credence to both the fact that no Jesus existed, nor any text of anykind existed yet in 70 CE or so.

Jesus had not been invented yet. Therefore Josephus is more proof that no such story existed and no such person existed prior to the fable dreamed up by “somebody” at the very earliest 70-75CE.

I’m note that I’m not interested in clicking links to read someone else’s thoughts on this subject.  I’ve found in my admittedly limited experience on bulletin boards that links to lengthy material are often a wild goose chase and are a poor substitute for straight forward conversation.

Yes always best to deny all possible facts when they do not agree with your fantasy, your Cognitive Dissonance is showing.