Greetings,
I would like to aske everybody a question related to the nature of the xtian Jesus and that is:
Was he a real person or just a later invention?

I would like to find - in electornic format if possible - more writings about Jesus. Not biblical or apocryphal but writings wich aren't of an religious nature ...records of the events from Israel from an outside source - like the romans.
Or if there aren't any I wold like to find out how his story was invented, by who and when did it happen. I know that the Xtian mith have lots to do with non-xtian deities like Krishna, Osiris, Mithra. Also many of the biblical stories look like they've been stollen from other ancient religions but still I would like to read more about it.

If you ask me why I want to know these ...I would tell you that this is one of my hobbies ...religions and history ...not the xtian in particular.
I already have some materials about the xtian biblical myths but I would like to have more.
Thank you.

I suspect you'll enjoy this site: http://jesusneverexisted.com/.

Thank you.
As I'm still online I've already started to download the site. I will sure read from it later.

it is my personal understanding and belief that the christ figure most people know today did not actually exist, but rather a more civil disobedient character existed. it is futile to bother believing in such a person anyway, because he did not do anything important, and if he did actually teach anything important it has been defiled so much that there is no telling what he actually said.

but thats just me.

I don't think this is relevant to Satanism, but here are my thoughts on the subject:

>>I would like to find - in electornic format if possible
>> - more writings about Jesus. Not biblical or apocryphal
>>but writings wich aren't of an religious nature
>>...records of the events from Israel from an outside
>>source - like the romans.

In short, there aren't any. And that's precisely why my own research on this issue has led me to believe that Jesus never existed. It's not even like Santa Claus, where despite being a mythical character, the added-on mythology can still be traced back to specific person (in these case, St. Nichollas). No, there wasn't even a particular man who the Gospel stories were based on.

So as for first-hand sources, there are the Gospels (english stories tranlated and edited from older english, translated and edited from latin, translated and edited from greek, probably translated from oral tradition, and two of which were copied from the other two). That's all.

There are no more writings that can be considered first-hand accounts on the life of Jesus. The rest of the Xtian scriptures were mostly written by Xtianity's founder, St. Paul (or as I like to think of him, the Preacher Formerly Known As Saul), who only "knew" him through an hallucination. These other references that Xtians and assorted apoligists cite -- Tacitus, Suetonius, Ignatius, etc. -- were all written well after the alleged death of Jesus. And the Josephus writing is an embarassingly obvious forgery.

As for Jesus having been "real or made up", it's important to understand what is meant here by "made up". It was not in one sitting by one group of people. The story is a collection of various myths and other archetypes from the surrounding areas (Asia Minor, Egypt, etc.). Not surprisingly, we find contraditions in the story.

>>Or if there aren't any I wold like to find out how
>>his story was invented, by who and when did it happen.

As far as on-line documents go, I would highly recommend the essay "Refuting Missionaries" by Hayyim ben Yehoshua. It has two parts, "The Myth of the Historical Jesus" and "The Lack of Historical Evidence for Jesus". You can find these all over the place with a search engine.

I think Jesus was not intended to be real, not even for the writers of the first Christian texts. Jesus was a parable, a symbol, a literary tool to explain an idea. I think the first Christians didn’t believe in Jesus as someone who lived, but as a symbol of the principles of their religion. In the same way we use the image of a black robed skeleton armed with a sickle to represent the concept of "death. People don't believe the Grim Reaper is a real guy that comes to your house when you die. It is a symbolical character.

The same with Jesus the Christ. In those times, foreign and “exotic” religions were fashionable in Rome at the time (much like the New Age thing in America, it is a symptom of decadent empires) Christianity was just one of many “mystery” religions that was popular between high class Romans. The figure of Jesus was the central archetype in their philosophy, but I don’t think they took it as a real person.

When Christianity started getting popular between the lower classes, the message was dumb down to make it understandable to the uneducated masses. Somehow there Jesus stopped being a philosophic metaphor to become “some guy who lived out there, in the occupied territories”.

A modern example could be James Bond. Everyone knows who James Bond is... but nobody believes he really exists; he is part of modern mythology. Imagine now that a couple of centuries pass and only fragments of the movies and novels survive, but the character and his great adventures continue to pass from people to people in oral form. Sooner or later people will start to think James Bond existed for real and perhaps a religion in created around him...

“And he said unto them: This Vodka Martini, shaken and not stirred, is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you…”