The first link gives a pretty good outline of the common arguments and why they don't work. The third link really expands upon those points. You might want to start with that one first.

I'd rather live in a state where there was some kind of consensus, formed by a procedure that allowed loyal dissent, and everyone who was a party to that consensus pooled their resources to enforce it. In other words, a liberal democracy. If you're on the wrong side of that consensus, then you're my enemy.

Enjoy your straw men and false dilemmas.

London, thank you for the thorough definition of the phrase, "Lex Talionis." I'd often heard Satanists use this phrase and I like its sound but did not know its true meaning. Thank you for explaining the law of retaliation / revenge.

Yes. Three hundred years after the fact, as the Catholic church itself was being formed, and formed as a response to an increasingly growing Jesus movement in the Roman empire, wherein more and more aristocracy are converting. The other books still exist; the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts depict Jesus in various ways (gnostic, Jewish, etc.).

I interpret this differently than you; this suggests that there was indeed a single source, however distorted, reinterpreted through additions and omissions, or suppressed it may be. It is evidence only of later propaganda, not relevant to the historical Jesus.


He was not significant. Not in the least. And the Romans did not bother with records of the troublesome Jews. Why would they? They were beneath contempt, merely tolerated until they tried to usurp Roman rule, to which the response was then to crush them as quickly and ruthlessly as possible.

At the time of his death, he had accomplished nothing but being a pain in the ass to local authorities, whose primary concern was keeping the peace with all the bickering Jews. There would be no reason whatsoever to mark his death.

I cannot stress the importance of surviving texts in this context. The very earliest Christian documents, which are the letters of Paul (~60), were entirely unconcerned with the biographical information of Jesus. He assumes his audience already knows. If Jesus were a complete fabrication, would not the earliest texts attempt to create a fuller picture of Jesus? Paul spends most of his time denouncing other Jesus followers (whose texts we do not have).

In this period, there were other Jewish preachers, several Judaisms, all of them warring with each other. Jesus fits here as one of the many sectarian preachers.

We have very few primary source surviving texts from any of these groups. If someone had found the Dead Sea Scrolls two thousand years ago instead of ~50, then we might be discussing its contents and the historical validity of the "Teacher of Righteousness" (the prime religious leader in the texts produce at Qumran).

The text itself is the very reason that the story survived. If every copy had been lost or destroyed, he would be a vague legend that only historians would know about.

I have certainly voiced this opinion before, and may again.

Call it professional duty.

It may have already been mentioned; but, I wonder if it would be beneficial to discuss the difference between Lex Talionis on a personal level, and as used in the essay "Pentagonal Revisionism".

I mention that because...and not to suggest that anyone is implying this...there are legal limitations to what an individual can and cannot do to achieve retribution. This is quite often one of the first things a CoS agent has to straighten out. Seems a lot of people are fascinated by the ideas of revenge and curses. I find that quite telling, by the way.

I know what I "should" be able to do to someone. I also know what could land me in prison. I suppose it's a good thing our religion discusses the ritual chamber.

Agreed. As far as curses go (its always easier to destroy than to create or contribute), I have seen the Ritual Chamber as a place of retribution, among other things, where vengeance can exhaust itself.

Not necessarily. Again, it's not like the only two choices are "He was real" or "His story was purposely contrived and made-up in one sitting". It has more of an urban myth ring to it.

As far as I know, it can be proven that Jesus really was a physically existing person but I believe the character as such was created later on..
There's quite the theory about all that in "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln.

I hear people make this claim, but I've seen no evidence of it.

Actually, there is no evidence. The gospels can't count, because they do not stand up to any serious historical analysis. The Josephus mention of an historical Jesus of Nazareth was clearly added later.

The glaringly obvious explanation for the Jesus stories is that the period was rife with such stories. Seriously, you couldn't turn the corner without hearing about some man/god. It was a cultural reference that took on a life of its own, not unlike the modern 2012 Mayan craze. Things were changing, so, of course, it was the end of the world...enter the man/god(s).

Hm...interesting point..as I said before there's quite the theory about all that in "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. And they support their thesis on historical documents and contradictions in evangeliums. Also proving that Jesus of NAZARETH was a lie, yes, but there is supposedly a whole another concept. I got to give it to them, although a bit conspiracious at times, they were pretty convincing. Of course whether their analysis was right or not doesn't change anything for anybody, Atheists don't care and Christians refuse to believe it anyway. I have to say that yes, I'm acclining to agree about him not existing, but...damn that book had some good points.
This is all hypothetical of course, I couldn't care less whether or not Jesus really excisted, the Christ-philosophy is unacceptable to me either way. But it's a neat story.

Actually, almost every single claim in that book has been debunked.
As a history book "Holy Blood..." is a travesty.

Yes, so I've heard. My point was that I thought they did a fairly good job at that thesis of theirs. But - to be honest - it doesn't really matter, because like you pointed out, it still is unreliable as a history book. It was an interesting read, at least for me, even if it was to be taken as fiction from the beginning. Had it's moments, but it's not like it's some unchallengeable source of truth. Au contraire. There will always be the prove-debunk "race" going on in regards of said topic. And quite frankly - I don't give a crap about the outcome. At least as long as some unspeakable horror isn't unleashed.

Here is a good example:

"Vandals, those who destroy and deface objects and property other than their own, should, when apprehended, be destroyed, or at least punished in a fitting manner. If a painting hanging in a museum is slashed, the perpetrator of that act should be eviscerated. If paint is used to deface, the defacer's countenance should be permanently dyed in an irregular and repellent manner. If a carefully tended shrub or plant is wantonly ripped out by the roots, the culprit's arm should be ripped out of its socket.... They cry out by their acts to be destroyed" (The Devil's Notebook, 97).

Totally true!