After reviewing your site, I feel the need to point out that none of the sources you use to validate the "lack of" information equating Horus to Jesus hold any substance- Period. Before you claim to have any scholarly information regarding the life of Horus, you first need to actually READ the Egyptian scholars' works. Specifically, the ACTUAL books of Gerald Massey. If you do so, with an unbiased mind, along with referencing the Egyptian hieroglyphic translations that Massey cites, you will understand that Jesus is nothing more that the Heroic, Horus derived, Sun Savior of the age of Aquarius.

Below are the books you should read in their entirety before claiming to know anything about what you talk about.

Read: A BOOK OF BEGINNINGS
ANCIENT EGYPT THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD
THE NATURAL GENESIS
THE HISTORICAL JESUS AND THE MYTHICAL CHRIST.

Furthermore, I would like to add, that Truth is power that will come through regardless of the will of those who perpetuate disinformation, such as those who flaunt the Christian Fraud, like yourself.

This farce WILL COME TO AN END, and the centuries of bloodshed, racism and perversion will end as well.

I hope you awaken.

Peter

Sorry to break it to you, but Massey's work is considered outdated and unreliable by serious Egyptian scholars, and seems only to be taken seriously by anyone gullible enough to be a Christ-myther. He makes wild claims that he generally provides no documentation for, uses sources that he doesn't name (so no one can verify them) or uses sources that no reasonable scholar would take seriously. J.P. Holding pretty much makes mincemeat of Massey here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/massjc.html.

If you want to convince me that pre-Christian godmen did such-and-such, show me versions of the story in which those things happen, or scholars with no axe to grind who agree that they did those things, and then I might be convinced.

David,

I understand your angle and the need for clear sources. Massey is not the only one to talk of these things, however, and even if 5% of what he says is true, the christian system has a real problem being valid.

On a different note, I suggest you take time to find a base of evidence outside the Bible, that actually proves that the jesus figure existed and Christianity was not a product of the solar and steller cult that influenced 99% of all the other religions ever known for, when you speak of gullibility, those that actually think the bible has any ramifications of historical truth, are entertaining the most absurd and obvious farce ever created.

The is no proof Jesus existed other than a few sentences forged into the massive works of Josephus and the like. You would think jesus with all his influence and the spectacle of such things as the resurrection "that all could see" would have made its way into some historical text outside of the bible.

The early Gnostic recognized his figure as mythical and it was through centuries of manipulation that Jesus was historized.

I like how you and all the others who defend the Bible actually use logic to do so. Yet, it is only one sided...

If you weigh the evidence supporting one side against the other, the knowledge supporting a mythical christ and a fraud religion is overwhelming.

This is why they invented the idiotic, control based notion of "faith". So christian mind slaves, when asked to perform a function of logic, could turn around and say "this is matter of faith", defeating the question.

The only evidence I'm asking for is to see the texts for myself, or even for confirmation of the basic facts from scholars who aren't specifically setting out to disprove Jesus. You see these lists pop up from Christ-mythers saying that such-and-such deity did this or that, but their only sources (if they provide them at all) are other Christ-mythers. You say that if 5% of what Massey says is true, then the Christian system has a real problem being valid. I have to ask - if that's true, then why did Massey feel the need to use the other 95%? Why doesn't Massey just use the 5% that's true and try to have his arguments stand on that? Why don't other Christ-mythers just use the real comparisons and stop making up fake ones? Why fabricate so much evidence, if the real evidence is valid?

I admit that in my research I have come across a handful of valid comparisons between Jesus and pre-Christian deities, but you can find comparisons between any two figures, historical or fictional, if you look hard enough. I'm sure you've seen the list of comparisons between Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy, which is far more striking than any valid similarities between Jesus and pre-Christian deities.

As for your request for me to find evidence outside of the Bible that proves Jesus existed, there's plenty of it. Of the two references in Josephus, only one is in doubt, leaving us one that we can be pretty certain Josephus actually wrote. We also have references by Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Lucian, and Celsus (who tried to debunk Christianity, yet accepted that Jesus existed, calling Him a "mere man"). The vast majority of even non-Christian historians agree that Jesus lived, preached and was crucified.

It's actually rather amusing that Christ-mythers keep questioning the valid evidence and holding it to impossible standards, yet are gullible enough to accept anything written by people like Massey, Freke and Gandy, Marshall Gauvin, and Acharya S. without an ounce of skepticism.

Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Lucian, and Celsus all have the same indirect or hideously general distinction as Josephus does. All 2 paragraphs at best, many of which the naming references themselves are questionable.

In fact, the only true documented "historical Jesus" is that of Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, son of Pandira and Stada and was stoned to death a s wizard and then hung on tree. However, this figure was born at min, 100 yrs before the mythical Christ.

And again where is the documentation of the great earthquake? the blacking of the sun and raising of the dead and all the other "miracles". If these thing were true human history, we would never hear the end of it. It is myth pure and simple.

Even if another "Jesus" did exist as a mere man, what good is that to the those millions who consider him the god incarnate Messiah?

Back to the "texts" you want to see regarding the copy cat deity's, most of them seem to be are gone and I don't know how to read Egyptian. However, the pieces available all point to an astrotheological evolution of nearly All RELIGIONS.

The arrogance to think Christianity is different is absurd.

All we have are historians. Sadly any historian that disproves the Christan's ideas of history is deemed to have an" ax age to sharpen" and is assumed to be biased.

Also, my comment about the 5% was a mere point. My intellect and logic tells me that Massey is more right( 90%) than wrong and his interpretations of the evolution of the mythical solar messiah is one of the most obvious things ever realized... and as I said before, the evidence AGAINST the historical Jesus is more massive than in support.... by a long shot.

The dead sea scrolls show the Gnostic perception very clearly. They are allegorical stories. I suggest you read The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth by John Allegro

I hold all information I read in skepticism. And in the books I have read, nothing is more implausible, idiotic, and driven by gullibility than the Bible. No contest.

These arguments you have only avoid the real question. You are looking for anything you can to try and make the fable seem true.

Rather than looking at sociological evolution, etymology and traditional folklore and astrological invention, you and those with such beliefs say " this is the bible- it's true. I not going to look for any other reason for it to be true; however, I will fight to the death to find any holes in any argument that says it is false."

You're skepticism shouldn't be with Massey, Freke and Gandy, Marshall Gauvin, and Acharya S. ... it should be with the allegorical text known as the bible, that has been re-translated and interpolated 100s of times and, though hundreds of years of slaughter and the destruction of knowledge, (such as the Library of Alexandria ) people have been conditioned to think it is historically true.

It is simply sad.

Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Lucian, and Celsus all have the same indirect or hideously general distinction as Josephus does. All 2 paragraphs at best, many of which the naming references themselves are questionable.

Lovely. So we're basically supposed to consider the main historians of the first and second century to be totally unreliable, are we? You might want to inform today's historians about that, since most of them are held in high regard.

In fact, the only true documented "historical Jesus" is that of Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, son of Pandira and Stada and was stoned to death a s wizard and then hung on tree. However, this figure was born at min, 100 yrs before the mythical Christ.

More Massey nonsense? Sorry, but that theory lacks any kind of scholarly support, and is as outdated as pretty much everything else he wrote.

And again where is the documentation of the great earthquake? the blacking of the sun and raising of the dead and all the other "miracles". If these thing were true human history, we would never hear the end of it. It is myth pure and simple.

Yeah, and 2000 years later, we still do hear about it. In fact, you just mentioned it yourself.

Even if another "Jesus" did exist as a mere man, what good is that to the those millions who consider him the god incarnate Messiah?

Showing Christ-mythers that their outdated and unreliable sources aren't to be trusted at least gets them on the road to engaging in critical thinking.

Back to the "texts" you want to see regarding the copy cat deity's, most of them seem to be are gone and I don't know how to read Egyptian.

How handy. It appears that the "Christ-mythers" are the only ones who have ever seen them, and then, what, they lost them? Hid them so that no scholars who aren't Christ-mythers would be able to see them?

Sadly any historian that disproves the Christan's ideas of history is deemed to have an" ax age to sharpen" and is assumed to be biased.

Not at all. There are plenty of historians who are Jewish, secular, atheist, etc. - yet even they know that these "comparisons" are bogus and would never be so gullible as to fall for them. If there was any validity to these lists, you'd think these resputable historians would be glad to come aboard. But try getting this bogus data published in any peer-reviewed historical journal, and you'd just get laughed at.

Also, my comment about the 5% was a mere point. My intellect and logic tells me that Massey is more right( 90%) than wrong and his interpretations of the evolution of the mythical solar messiah is one of the most obvious things ever realized... and as I said before, the evidence AGAINST the historical Jesus is more massive than in support.... by a long shot.

Then you need to read this article: http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html It's about a scholar named W. Ward Gasque who sent a list of Massey's (and other Christ-mythers', such as Alvin Kuhn and Godfrey Higgins) "comparisons" to twenty of the leading Egyptologists in the world, with pretty hilarious results. Of the ten who responded, only one had even heard of any of these people, and pretty much everything they said was easily dismissed.

I hold all information I read in skepticism.

No, you do not. If you'd applied even an ounce of skepticism to Massey's work, you'd have realized that it is nonsense.

And in the books I have read, nothing is more implausible, idiotic, and driven by gullibility than the Bible. No contest.

I just find it interesting that you hold the actual data to an unreasonable amount of skepticism, yet have no problem taking anything a fraud like Gerald Massey says at face value.

Your skepticism shouldn't be with Massey, Freke and Gandy, Marshall Gauvin, and Acharya S.

Actually, yes, it should.

... it should be with the allegorical text known as the bible, that has been re-translated and interpolated 100s of times

Yet still has greater manuscript support than any other ancient text.

and, though hundreds of years of slaughter and the destruction of knowledge, (such as the Library of Alexandria ) people have been conditioned to think it is historically true.

Actually, the Muslims destroyed the Library of Alexandria around 642 AD. If you're referring to what Theodosius did, he did destroy a Serapium which housed part of the library's collection, but not the main library itself (though most pre-Constantine Roman emperors were involved in censoring and burning Christian texts). Early Christians like Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Origen, Pamphilus, Pope Alexander, Pope Agapetus, Emperor Severus, Emperor Julian, Boethius, Saint Benedict, and Eusebius all collected, studied, and/or preserved non-Christian texts. Many non-Christian texts likely survived because of Christians, not in spite of them.

It is simply sad.

I agree.

Lovely. So we're basically supposed to consider the main historians of the first and second century to be totally unreliable, are we? You might want to inform today's historians about that, since most of them are held in high regard.

They wrote on average 30 words per entry. None of them saying anything tangible, except that of Josephus, which was a christian forgery.They said nothing of anything regarding his MYTHICAL life, which would have startled the entire world and would have been all over the historical record.

Peter: In fact, the only true documented "historical Jesus" is that of Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, son of Pandira and Stada and was stoned to death a s wizard and then hung on tree. However, this figure was born at min, 100 yrs before the mythical Christ.

David: More Massey nonsense? Sorry, but that theory lacks any kind of scholarly support, and is as outdated as pretty much everything else he wrote.

Its in the Talmud and is sited on many occasions by many Jewish and christian scholars alike. I agree it is very debated, but the idea that it could be "outdated" is just silly.. Nonetheless, why don't you show me other, TANGIBLE, confluent non-biblical evidence of a Historical Jesus that isn't 2 paragraphs long.

Peter: And again where is the documentation of the great earthquake? the blacking of the sun and raising of the dead and all the other "miracles". If these thing were true human history, we would never hear the end of it. It is myth pure and simple.

David: Yeah, and 2000 years later, we still do hear about it. In fact, you just mentioned it yourself.

Nice responce. You gave no answer or historical documentation, which is very revealing to the level of denial you exist in.

Showing Christ-mythers that their outdated and unreliable sources aren't to be trusted at least gets them on the road to engaging in critical thinking.

Critical Thinking? if anyone has the mental state to rationally consider the bible as actual human history, their comprehension of logic and critical thinking is as infantile as children who believe in Santa Claus. And once again you just blew your cover... as you argue away from the total fable of Christianity and focus on the debunking the opposition.

Peter: Back to the "texts" you want to see regarding the copy cat deity's, most of them seem to be are gone and I don't know how to read Egyptian.

David: How handy. It appears that the "Christ-mythers" are the only ones who have ever seen them, and then, what, they lost them? Hid them so that no scholars who aren't Christ-mythers would be able to see them?

On that logic then, why don't you show ME the SOURCE of all the supposed fact in the bible.

There are plenty of historians who are Jewish, secular, atheist, etc. - yet even they know that these "comparisons" are bogus and would never be so gullible as to fall for them. If there was any validity to these lists, you'd think these resputable historians would be glad to come aboard. But try getting this bogus data published in any peer-reviewed historical journal, and you'd just get laughed at.

That might be true. But I'm not talking about the comparisons here. There is a massive body of historical evidence that says JESUS CHRIST DID NOT EXIST while your evidence in enough to fill half a page and is totally ambiguous, questioning fraud on the most noted- that being Josephus.

Peter: Also, my comment about the 5% was a mere point. My intellect and logic tells me that Massey is more right( 90%) than wrong and his interpretations of the evolution of the mythical solar messiah is one of the most obvious things ever realized... and as I said before, the evidence AGAINST the historical Jesus is more massive than in support.... by a long shot.

David: Then you need to read this article: http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html It's about a scholar named W. Ward Gasque who sent a list of Massey's (and other Christ-mythers', such as Alvin Kuhn and Godfrey Higgins) "comparisons" to twenty of the leading Egyptologists in the world, with pretty hilarious results. Of the ten who responded, only one had even heard of any of these people, and pretty much everything they said was easily dismissed.

That article is written by a Pastor and based on what I read about him, and the extreme generality of his article, I am left with no real impression as I dont have enough information regarding exactly what the 20 egyptologist were presented with( the list he shows is far too small) and the background of those individuals. Gasque perception of "top 20" is a personal decision.

Peter: I hold all information I read in skepticism.

David: No, you do not. If you'd applied even an ounce of skepticism to Massey's work, you'd have realized that it is nonsense.

You have no basis for this assumption. I wish you held this type of thought process to the Bible.

I just find it interesting that you hold the actual data to an unreasonable amount of skepticism, yet have no problem taking anything a fraud like Gerald Massey says at face value.

If that is your feeling, that I suggest you turn that comment to yourself and give it some thought. See, I dont have to refute my own belief system becase I dont entertain the idea that a spooky father figure lives in the sky watching everything I do and is going to judge me for the afterlife. Howvever, the mystic ideas that the Christians perception considers are so OUT THERE and unfounded that is poses a danger to human civilization as a whole for it is based on division.

Peter: You're skepticism shouldn't be with Massey, Freke and Gandy, Marshall Gauvin, and Acharya S.

David: Actually, yes, it should.

Good. Now, apply it to the Bible. Find the "other" source of the absurd myths from the walking on water to the Resurrection into heaven " all could see" to the curing of the blind to the blackening of the sun.. and we will be in business.

Peter: ... it should be with the allegorical text known as the bible, that has been re-translated and interpolated 100s of times

David: Yet still has greater manuscript support than any other ancient text.

This book riddled with contradiction, internal allusions... its one of the most sloppy, incomprehensible and historically absurd of all written texts in human history, In fact they couldn't even get the 4 books of the NT to line up.

Actually, the Muslims destroyed the Library of Alexandria around 642 AD. If you're referring to what Theodosius did, he did destroy a Serapium which housed part of the library's collection, but not the main library itself (though most pre-Constantine Roman emperors were involved in censoring and burning Christian texts). Early Christians like Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Origen, Pamphilus, Pope Alexander, Pope Agapetus, Emperor Severus, Emperor Julian, Boethius, Saint Benedict, and Eusebius all collected, studied, and/or preserved non-Christian texts. Many non-Christian texts likely survived because of Christians, not in spite of them.

99% of the collection was destroyed by religious fanatics and the information lost. I can assure you Tertullian and the like cared not for the gnostic texts that contradicted their religion.

They wrote on average 30 words per entry. None of them saying anything tangible, except that of Josephus, which was a christian forgery.They said nothing of anything regarding his MYTHICAL life, which would have startled the entire world and would have been all over the historical record.

Actually, most of them said things which were tangible. Tacitus mentioned the crucifixion under Nero, and Lucian mentioned the promise of immortality, etc. And 30 or so words per entry is still more than most people of His era received, and more than enough to confirm His existence.

Its in the Talmud and is sited on many occasions by many Jewish and christian scholars alike. I agree it is very debated, but the idea that it could be "outdated" is just silly.. Nonetheless, why don't you show me other, TANGIBLE, confluent non-biblical evidence of a Historical Jesus that isn't 2 paragraphs long.

The idea that Jehoshua bin Pandera was the only true "historical Jesus" is what I’m saying is outdated. Since you seem to reject any historical reference or no more than two paragraphs long, why aren’t you rejecting this one as well?

Peter: And again where is the documentation of the great earthquake? the blacking of the sun and raising of the dead and all the other "miracles". If these thing were true human history, we would never hear the end of it. It is myth pure and simple.

David: Yeah, and 2000 years later, we still do hear about it. In fact, you just mentioned it yourself.

Peter: Nice responce. You gave no answer or historical documentation, which is very revealing to the level of denial you exist in.

Okay, how about Julius Africanus, then. Referencing Thallus, he wrote, "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun."

Critical Thinking? if anyone has the mental state to rationally consider the bible as actual human history, their comprehension of logic and critical thinking is as infantile as children who believe in Santa Claus. And once again you just blew your cover... as you argue away from the total fable of Christianity and focus on the debunking the opposition.

Of course. Since my "opposition" is in this case someone arguing that Jesus never existed, then that’s what I’m going to respond to, instead of wasting my time debating whether Jesus did such-and-such with someone who won’t even acknowledge that He was around to do it. It would be pointless. Though if you want to admit that Jesus probably existed, I’ll be glad to discuss what the Bible says He did.

On that logic then, why don't you show ME the SOURCE of all the supposed fact in the bible.

Sorry, but I’m not sure what you’re asking. Do you mean the original texts? They were presumably written on papyrus, which tends not to last 2000 years, but we do have thousands of ancient copies from which we can draw its manuscript support (which is done by comparing similarities and differences between the existing copies) which tells us that we can be more sure what the original texts said than we can for any other ancient text whose original we no longer have. Only a small handful of passages are in any kind of doubt.

But regarding Massey’s "texts", we don’t have any copies to compare with what he claims the texts said, even though much was supposedly written on stone, which doesn’t biodegrade the way papyrus does. All we have is his word, which doesn’t seem to mean much to modern Egyptologists.

That might be true. But I'm not talking about the comparisons here. There is a massive body of historical evidence that says JESUS CHRIST DID NOT EXIST while your evidence in enough to fill half a page and is totally ambiguous, questioning fraud on the most noted- that being Josephus.

If there is evidence that Jesus did not exist, I would love to see it. Heck, I’ll even put it on my webpage for all to see. I’m just asking that you show it to me yourself instead of just asking me to go read someone else’s book (unless it’s a book supported by mainstream scholars). If you have a real gem for me, don’t ask me to dig through a mountain of trash in order to find it.

That Jesus didn’t exist is nothing more than a minority view of a handful of irreputable fringe "scholars" (I use that term loosely) who have been repeatedly exposed as fabricating, or using fabricated, evidence in support of their positions.

http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html That article is written by a Pastor and based on what I read about him, and the extreme generality of his article, I am left with no real impression as I dont have enough information regarding exactly what the 20 egyptologist were presented with( the list he shows is far too small) and the background of those individuals. Gasque perception of "top 20" is a personal decision.

So are you still under the impression that there are modern Egyptologists who agree with Massey’s work? Can you name one?

David: If you'd applied even an ounce of skepticism to Massey's work, you'd have realized that it is nonsense.

Peter: You have no basis for this assumption.

I absolutely do. Like the work of most (perhaps all) Christ-mythers, it’s making claims that historical data exists, despite the fact it doesn’t. If you don’t already know, the usual tactic is to make up a bunch of Christ-like claims about some ancient deity that most people are unfamiliar with, in hopes that their audience, being unfamiliar, won’t be able to refute the list, and also wouldn’t want to take the time to do the necessary research in order to refute it, and will thus believe the bogus list. The only problem comes when these claims happen to cross the paths of people who are familiar with those deities, or who are willing to look into the data to see if the claims stand up. It’s at that point that the Christ-myther’s dishonesty is exposed, but their usual claim then is that the scholars are reading different versions than the one in which the deity did those Christ-like things. Another tactic of theirs (which I find particularly clever) is for the Christ-myther to co mpletely make up the deity, so there’s nothing their audience can even research. Have you ever heard of a deities named Beddru, Bremrillah, Crite, Gentaut, Ieo, Ischy, Jao, Mikado, or Zoar? They’re fake deities made up by Christ-mythers to invent such parallels.

I wish you held this type of thought process to the Bible.

I do apply skepticism to the Bible, and it may surprise you to know that I do consider several of the major players, such as Adam, Eve, Noah and Job, to be most likely fabrications, characters in parables. But even applying skepticism to the New Testament texts, I find the idea that Jesus’ resurrection is an actual historical event to be (while not a certainty) more likely than not.

If that is your feeling, that I suggest you turn that comment to yourself and give it some thought. See, I dont have to refute my own belief system becase I dont entertain the idea that a spooky father figure lives in the sky watching everything I do and is going to judge me for the afterlife. Howvever, the mystic ideas that the Christians perception considers are so OUT THERE and unfounded that is poses a danger to human civilization as a whole for it is based on division.

You really don’t find Christ-mythers to be divisive? Really? Even though they generally reveal themselves to be hateful of the idea of Christianity, the same way that Holocaust deniers, who similarly dismiss the valid historical evidence while fabricating evidence of their own in support of their claims, are hateful of Jewish people.

Good. Now, apply it to the Bible. Find the "other" source of the absurd myths from the walking on water to the Resurrection into heaven " all could see" to the curing of the blind to the blackening of the sun.. and we will be in business.

We already have multiple accounts for these events. What are you saying, that four independent accounts isn’t enough to convince you, but five will? If scholars were to discover a lost first-century text describing how Jesus walked on water and was resurrected, would you really say that it’s enough to convince you, or would you say "it doesn’t count, since the author was clearly a Christian"? So basically, writings from non-Christians about Jesus’ miracles don’t count, since they don’t confirm that they happened, and writings from Christians don’t count, since they’re...well...Christians. Essentially, there’s no kind of support that could possibly ever convince you, except perhaps a writing from someone who confirms that Jesus did these things, but doesn’t really believe it.

This book riddled with contradiction, internal allusions... its one of the most sloppy, incomprehensible and historically absurd of all written texts in human history, In fact they couldn't even get the 4 books of the NT to line up.

Of course they don’t line up perfectly, since they’re independent accounts of the events. If they lined up perfectly, that would mean that they were just four copies of the exact same account, and thus only a single source.

Imagine asking a long-married couple to each describe their wedding day. While you would expect them to agree on most major details (where the wedding happened, the date, who the pastor was), you would also expect them to remember details differently, and perhaps for their accounts to contradict each other in some ways, since human memory isn’t perfect. If the husband and wife each gave the exact same details, this would be so odd as to suggest that they made up the whole story.

With the four Gospels, the authors remember different details, and perhaps contradict each other in minor details, yet completely agree on the major details. This is exactly what we would expect from honest, independent accounts of the same events, and completely supports the historicity of the texts.

By the way, did you know that there are discrepancies between the various accounts of Caesar’s assassination? Just minor things, like whether Caesar spoke to Brutus, or whether he tried to hide within his robes, but it certainly doesn’t cause us to question the assassination itself.

99% of the collection was destroyed by religious fanatics and the information lost. I can assure you Tertullian and the like cared not for the gnostic texts that contradicted their religion.

Perhaps not, but there’s no evidence that they set out to destroy them. And where are you getting the 99%? Again, Theodosius didn’t destroy the main library, just a Serapium that housed a small portion of the collection, not "99%". Yes, the main collection was destroyed by religious fanatics, but this was the Muslim fanatics who destroyed the library in 642 AD, not Christians. While I won’t deny that some Christians have, sadly, destroyed some texts, far more Christians have been involved in preserving or studying them. Historically speaking, nations that are primarily or exclusively Christian have generally been far less oppressive and driven towards censorship than nations that are primarily atheist (such as the USSR, China and Cuba) or of some other faith (like Afghanistan and Iraq).

Actually, most of them said things which were tangible. Tacitus mentioned the crucifixion under Nero, and Lucian mentioned the promise of immortality, etc. And 30 or so words per entry is still more than most people of His era received, and more than enough to confirm His existence.

Tacitus mentions " christus" and gives no miracle documentation. This could be anyone. Jesus Christ is a fictional name, of course, and Christus, or Christos simply means "anointed" and was a widely used notion for not only mythical messiahs, but people in high positions, such as kings. This quote says nothing. And at most: it says someone named Christus, who was a christian ( the term Christian predates "established" Christianity.) was killed by Pilate. That's all it means. I agree Jesus was said to be killed by Pilate, but Tacitus(56-120 AD) was living during nearly the same period , or within one generation of Jesus's life and in the same general area... I THINK HE WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE RAISING OF THE DEATH AND THE EARTHQUAKE AND ALL THE OTHER ABSURD THINGS, DONT YOU?

I will accept a "Christus" was killed by "Pilate"... but Jesus of Nazareth, the son of god, who healed the sick, transformed on the mount, performed exorcisms, fed 500 with 2 fish/bread, turned water in wine, walked on water, calmed a storm, raised Lazarus, and all the other nonsense MOST LIKELY WOULD HAVE MADE IT INTO AN HISTORIANS WORK WHO LIVED DURING THAT TIME, SUCH AS TACITUS.

Lucian is making an descriptive statement , talking about the CHRISTIANS, not Jesus. His is a speculative comment about the group.

In fact he makes fun of them! and rightly so.

Okay, how about Julius Africanus, then. Referencing Thallus, he wrote, "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun."

Thallus's supposed comment through Julius is totally mythical and un supported. Not to mention Julius is very devout in his christian beliefs, and therefor unbiased. By the time of his writing the NT had been issued in crude form, so he could have easily detail whatever he cared to.

One comment by a third party is FAR from tangible historic evidence, and it is totally unsupported by anything anyone else has to say.

Since my "opposition" is in this case someone arguing that Jesus never existed, then that’s what I’m going to respond to, instead of wasting my time debating whether Jesus did such-and-such with someone who won’t even acknowledge that He was around to do it. It would be pointless. Though if you want to admit that Jesus probably existed, I’ll be glad to discuss what the Bible says He did.

The only source you have regarding the life of Jesus is the bible, which is unsatisfactory, as it has no supporting documents. Do you know how many other "gospels" there were? If you go through them you find see the fabric of what little consistency the new testament has, come apart at the seams. The Book of Enoch, which was kicked out of the set for obvious reasons, was written around 170 BC (!) and depicts the Jesus figure very clearly.. but this figure was non-historical... he was a myth- just like Zeus, Horus and every other god in human history. It was only Christianity that had the nerve to make Christ "real" for political reasons.

Do you mean the original texts? They were presumably written on papyrus, which tends not to last 2000 years, but we do have thousands of ancient copies from which we can draw its manuscript support (which is done by comparing similarities and differences between the existing copies) which tells us that we can be more sure what the original texts said than we can for any other ancient text whose original we no longer have. Only a small handful of passages are in any kind of doubt.

I suggest you read all the original copys of the "other" gospels and see how much "doubt" really exists. You referring to re translations of the same bible for 1500 yrs does not denote original sources. The fact is, the original sources, are the other pagan religions that preceded it.

I suggest you read a book by one of original men appointed to evaluate the dead sea scrolls- John allegro- then lets see what you think about the bible as far as human history.

But regarding Massey’s "texts", we don’t have any copies to compare with what he claims the texts said, even though much was supposedly written on stone, which doesn’t biodegrade the way papyrus does. All we have is his word, which doesn't seem to mean much to modern Egyptologists.

That's a matter of opinion. He wrote thousands and thousands of pages on the Egyptian religion. His treatise on the belief structures are logical and brilliant, in my opinion. When it comes to comparing the intelligent work of such a dedicated man, to the disjunct, hate filled literature in the bible, which has ZERO foundational support outside the logic that it is an evolved religious ideology... I side with logic and clarity. Besides he is just one of many who see the fraud of Christianity...each from different angles.

If there is evidence that Jesus did not exist, I would love to see it. Heck, I’ll even put it on my web page for all to see. I’m just asking that you show it to me yourself instead of just asking me to go read someone else’s book (unless it’s a book supported by mainstream scholars). If you have a real gem for me, don’t ask me to dig through a mountain of trash in order to find it.

That Jesus didn’t exist is nothing more than a minority view of a handful of irreputable fringe "scholars" (I use that term loosely) who have been repeatedly exposed as fabricating, or using fabricated, evidence in support of their positions.

Wrong logic- I don't have to prove that a "24 armed land walking octopus" walked the earth 2000 years ago, because there is no evidence that a "24 armed land walking octopus" ever did.

So are you still under the impression that there are modern Egyptologists who agree with Massey’s work? Can you name one?

Thats not what I implied. My point was the article was poor and inconprehensive. Apart from that flimsy article, I dont know of any one refuting OR supporting his work.

Like the work of most (perhaps all) Christ-mythers, it’s making claims that historical data exists, despite the fact it doesn’t. If you don’t already know, the usual tactic is to make up a bunch of Christ-like claims about some ancient deity that most people are unfamiliar with, in hopes that their audience, being unfamiliar, won’t be able to refute the list, and also wouldn’t want to take the time to do the necessary research in order to refute it, and will thus believe the bogus list. The only problem comes when these claims happen to cross the paths of people who are familiar with those deities, or who are willing to look into the data to see if the claims stand up. It’s at that point that the Christ-myther’s dishonesty is exposed, but their usual claim then is that the scholars are reading different versions than the one in which the deity did those Christ-like things. Another tactic of theirs (which I find particularly clever) is for the Christ-myther to completely make up the deity, so there’s nothing their audience can even research. Have you ever heard of a deities named Beddru, Bremrillah, Crite, Gentaut, Ieo, Ischy, Jao, Mikado, or Zoar? They’re fake deities made up by Christ-mythers to invent such parallels.

Well, I suspect there are always going to be people making things up to fit there needs. I agree with you in the general sense. And the most obvious example of making something up to benefit a group of people or a system- is Christianity.

It is totally made up out of older pagan myths. I don't need to see comparisons of Deity's, nor does anyone else with a thinking mind. A simply cursory understanding of conceptual evolution is enough. Things build upon other things and the Bible is one massive hybrid. The "deity" comparison are of the smallest of the evidence.

I do apply skepticism to the Bible, and it may surprise you to know that I do consider several of the major players, such as Adam, Eve, Noah and Job, to be most likely fabrications, characters in parables. But even applying skepticism to the New Testament texts, I find the idea that Jesus’ resurrection is an actual historical event to be (while not a certainty) more likely than not.

I'm glad you think that way. That means you are on the right path. However, the characteristics of mythos are predominate, so why choose one event over another, when both are equally absurd. Have you have seen human being get kill and then raise form the dead into the sky? No. Because it has never happened and never will. Its like people who believe in angels, but don't believe in goblins or vampires... its the same thing. You cant pick and choose which myth you want to take as fact. Either things are real and tangible or they are not. I feel it is a logical paradox for you think Jesus rose from the dead, but Adam and Eve didn't exists. Now to say a man named Jesus who helped people COULD have existed and was killed by Pilate and that was that.... is a different story and has nothing to do with the bible at all, for the bible is a work of fantastic lore. You cant pick and choose.

You really don’t find Christ-mythers to be divisive? Really? Even though they generally reveal themselves to be hateful of the idea of Christianity, the same way that Holocaust deniers, who similarly dismiss the valid historical evidence while fabricating evidence of their own in support of their claims, are hateful of Jewish people.

The history of Christianity is full of millions of dead, slaughtered humans. The crusades, the inquisition... and even the Iraq war has a pro christian/ anti Muslim over tone,. All monotheistic religions are purely wrong, as they pivot themselves against the other. Catholics vs Protestants/ Muslims vs Hindus/ Shites vs Sunnis... it goes on and on. The Christian mythers are not killing anyone over time. They want to stop the bloodshed by bring out the truth.

We already have multiple accounts for these events. What are you saying, that four independent accounts isn’t enough to convince you, but five will?

Actually there are over 10 documented gospels... it is speculated there were over 100. They are all different and some massively contradicting each other.

If scholars were to discover a lost first-century text describing how Jesus walked on water and was resurrected, would you really say that it’s enough to convince you, or would you say "it doesn’t count, since the author was clearly a Christian"? So basically, writings from non-Christians about Jesus’ miracles don’t count, since they don’t confirm that they happened, and writings from Christians don’t count, since they’re...well...Christians. Essentially, there’s no kind of support that could possibly ever convince you, except perhaps a writing from someone who confirms that Jesus did these things, but doesn’t really believe it.

I want to see an historical text that details the shock events that the bible says happened. there is no detail / no evidence and we have already gone over this. We have massive historical biography's of many men of the period, but Jesus, the saviour of mankind gets about 20 lines.

Of course they don’t line up perfectly, since they’re independent accounts of the events. If they lined up perfectly, that would mean that they were just four copies of the exact same account, and thus only a single source.

Imagine asking a long-married couple to each describe their wedding day. While you would expect them to agree on most major details (where the wedding happened, the date, who the pastor was), you would also expect them to remember details differently, and perhaps for their accounts to contradict each other in some ways, since human memory isn’t perfect. If the husband and wife each gave the exact same details, this would be so odd as to suggest that they made up the whole story.

With the four Gospels, the authors remember different details, and perhaps contradict each other in minor details, yet completely agree on the major details. This is exactly what we would expect from honest, independent accounts of the same events, and completely supports the historicity of the texts.

By the way, did you know that there are discrepancies between the various accounts of Caesar’s assassination? Just minor things, like whether Caesar spoke to Brutus, or whether he tried to hide within his robes, but it certainly doesn’t cause us to question the assassination itself.

Sure, but when you realize there are many other gospels that say very different things, you have to be skeptical about which were chosen to be "canonized" and which were not... and why. It seems to me they chose the ones that were the closest- it was a political move to ensure consistency.

Perhaps not, but there’s no evidence that they set out to destroy them. And where are you getting the 99%? Again, Theodosius didn’t destroy the main library, just a Serapium that housed a small portion of the collection, not "99%". Yes, the main collection was destroyed by religious fanatics, but this was the Muslim fanatics who destroyed the library in 642 AD, not Christians. While I won’t deny that some Christians have, sadly, destroyed some texts, far more Christians have been involved in preserving or studying them. Historically speaking, nations that are primarily or exclusively Christian have generally been far less oppressive and driven towards censorship than nations that are primarily atheist (such as the USSR, China and Cuba) or of some other faith (like Afghanistan and Iraq).

Now here is where you are dead wrong.

Christians and all the other faiths are equally responsible for severe oppression of knowledge, sexuality, human rights and free thought.

Moreover, the physiologic trauma a child goes through in his/her youth when told that if they dont believe in Jesus they are going to be cast into hell and tortured is the most horrible form of child abuse ever created and it scars them for life... which is why most who are brought up in that system of belief can never get out of it.

Monotheism is a means of control. It is mindless and unprogressive for it doesn't allow for an individual to think outside his or her "faith". Even more specifically and profoundly troubling, it breaks the spiritual connection to the nature world. Judio-christian-Islam systems support the idea of being connected to some god in the sky, rather than to other humans and nature. It erodes personal responsibility, for it dictates that " god is in control"... the " divine plan".

I'm not saying all christains are bad or anything like that... it is the overtone of the religion and the divisive nature and thus arrogance of it that makes life on this planet riddled with wars and bias.

I will accept a "Christus" was killed by "Pilate"... but Jesus of Nazareth, the son of god, who healed the sick, transformed on the mount, performed exorcisms, fed 500 with 2 fish/bread, turned water in wine, walked on water, calmed a storm, raised Lazarus, and all the other nonsense MOST LIKELY WOULD HAVE MADE IT INTO AN HISTORIANS WORK WHO LIVED DURING THAT TIME, SUCH AS TACITUS.

No, it most likely would not have. Since Tacitus and the other non-Christian historians who mentioned Jesus weren’t Christians, they would have believed that these stories about Jesus’ death causing the earthquakes, etc weren’t true, and historians tend not to mention things that they don’t believe are true. If Tacitus and the others had written about these things, that would have meant that they were believers, and you’d dismiss them as biased. It’s a big catch-22. You dismiss anything written by a believer or a non-believer.

And besides, you were only asking for evidence of Jesus’ existence. While Tacitus et al aren’t evidence of the earthquake, etc, they are evidence of Jesus’ existence.

Thallus's supposed comment through Julius is totally mythical and un supported. Not to mention Julius is very devout in his christian beliefs, and therefor unbiased. By the time of his writing the NT had been issued in crude form, so he could have easily detail whatever he cared to.

Thanks for proving my point. If a historian mentions it, then to you that means it didn’t happen. If a historian doesn’t, then to you that means it didn’t happen. There’s nothing you will accept, unless it’s something coming from a Christ-myther, in which case you don’t even bother to question it.

One comment by a third party is FAR from tangible historic evidence, and it is totally unsupported by anything anyone else has to say.

You asked for confirmation, and I gave you confirmation. Now you’re asking for confirmation of the confirmation? You find ways to dismiss anything you don’t like. Why aren’t you this skeptical when reading stuff by Christ-mythers? Do they even have confirmation?

The only source you have regarding the life of Jesus is the bible, which is unsatisfactory, as it has no supporting documents. Do you know how many other "gospels" there were? If you go through them you find see the fabric of what little consistency the new testament has, come apart at the seams.

Since the rejected "gospels" weren’t written by anyone who knew Jesus, or who even knew anyone who knew Jesus, then they have no relevancy to the New Testament, whose writings were all by people who knew Jesus either first or second-hand. If I were to write a fake and very bizarre biography of Elvis Presley, it wouldn’t cause the valid biographies of Elvis to ‘come apart at the seams’.

The Book of Enoch, which was kicked out of the set for obvious reasons, was written around 170 BC (!) and depicts the Jesus figure very clearly.. but this figure was non-historical... he was a myth- just like Zeus, Horus and every other god in human history. It was only Christianity that had the nerve to make Christ "real" for political reasons.

Actually, there was nothing that unique about Enoch. It’s description of the coming Messiah more or less jibed with what people were expecting at that time.

I suggest you read all the original copys of the "other" gospels and see how much "doubt" really exists. You referring to re translations of the same bible for 1500 yrs does not denote original sources. The fact is, the original sources, are the other pagan religions that preceded it.

No, Jesus was not based on pre-Christian deities. There is little similarity between them. If you believe that there are striking similarities, then you’re believing this nonsense based on claims invented by your fellow Christ-mythers that have no basis in reality. Seriously, research their claims in texts other than those written by Christ-mythers.

That's a matter of opinion. He [Massey] wrote thousands and thousands of pages on the Egyptian religion. His treatise on the belief structures are logical and brilliant, in my opinion.

Logical, no. Brilliant? Perhaps. Most con men are pretty smart.

My point was the article was poor and inconprehensive. Apart from that flimsy article, I dont know of any one refuting OR supporting his [Massey's] work.

Here’s another for you, then: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/massjc.html

Well, I suspect there are always going to be people making things up to fit there needs. I agree with you in the general sense. And the most obvious example of making something up to benefit a group of people or a system- is Christianity.

It is totally made up out of older pagan myths. I don't need to see comparisons of Deity's, nor does anyone else with a thinking mind. A simply cursory understanding of conceptual evolution is enough. Things build upon other things and the Bible is one massive hybrid. The "deity" comparison are of the smallest of the evidence.

Then I’d love to see the largest of it.

I'm glad you think that way. That means you are on the right path. However, the characteristics of mythos are predominate, so why choose one event over another, when both are equally absurd.

No, the characteristics of mythos aren’t predominate at all in the Gospel writings. In that time, myths generally took place in some undefined (or loosely defined) time and place. Those reading or hearing the myths wouldn’t be able to determine when or where they happened. They almost always contained events that took place outside of human perception (examples: the conversation between God and the devil in "Job" or the creation of plants and animals in "Genesis"). They also never mixed fictional characters with people known in history. Yet the Gospels did all of those things, and wasn't characteristic of mythical writing at all. You also would never find four separate copies of apparent eyewitness accounts of myths in which the major details all lined up, but had the discrepancies in minor details that you would expect from honest, independent, eyewitness accounts.

You cant pick and choose which myth you want to take as fact. Either things are real and tangible or they are not. I feel it is a logical paradox for you think Jesus rose from the dead, but Adam and Eve didn't exists. Now to say a man named Jesus who helped people COULD have existed and was killed by Pilate and that was that.... is a different story and has nothing to do with the bible at all, for the bible is a work of fantastic lore. You cant pick and choose.

You can as long as you have a rational basis for doing so. Choosing to believe events for which we have multiple eyewitness accounts placing the events at a certain time and place, and containing the elements we would expect to find in honest, independent accounts, while rejecting events which have no apparent eyewitness accounts, but were instead recorded by a single individual who showed no familiarity with the time and place, and even describes things that no human could have witnessed, is absolutely logical. That these events aren’t "real and tangible" is nothing more than your opinion, and considering how you’re automatically skeptical of the valid historical evidence, yet accept Massey’s work, that doesn’t say much to me.

The history of Christianity is full of millions of dead, slaughtered humans. The crusades, the inquisition... and even the Iraq war has a pro christian/ anti Muslim overtone

And all of those things are travesties which go completely against what Jesus stands for. He teaches us to love everyone, even our enemies, and to not want to take our neighbor’s property, to forgive those who wrong us, not to persecute, and not to judge hypocritically. The sad fact is that some people, while calling themselves followers of Jesus, revert to the unfortunate human desire to kick the crap out of your neighbor and take their land, or kill people for believing differently. But it’s not Christianity causing this, it’s human nature, and it is usually (though sadly not always) repressed by belief in Jesus.

All monotheistic religions are purely wrong, as they pivot themselves against the other. Catholics vs Protestants/ Muslims vs Hindus/ Shites vs Sunnis... it goes on and on. The Christian mythers are not killing anyone over time. They want to stop the bloodshed by bring out the truth.

But if you get rid of religion, then what will mankind be left with? Atheism? I hate to break it to you, but atheists have caused the deaths of more people in the last century than Christianity has throughout the rest of history. The Crusades and Inquisition, while horrible travesties, took in the neighborhood of two million lives total, perhaps as much as three million. The number killed by 20th century atheist regimes such as those of Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin is in the neighborhood of 50-100 million! I certainly don’t blame atheists or atheism as a whole for the atrocities of the twentieth century (that would be as silly and prejudiced as blaming Christians or Christianity as a whole for the Crusades and Inquisition), but, historically speaking, Christian nations and regimes have been far less destructive and oppressive than their atheist counterparts.

Actually there are over 10 documented gospels... it is speculated there were over 100. They are all different and some massively contradicting each other.

Yeah, that’s because most of them are clearly bogus. Other than the four in the Bible, none of the rest were even written in the first century.

I want to see an historical text that details the shock events that the bible says happened. there is no detail / no evidence and we have already gone over this. We have massive historical biography's of many men of the period, but Jesus, the saviour of mankind gets about 20 lines.

No, Jesus gets about a thousand pages from His century alone. The problem is that you reject it due to your own biases. If a historian mentions the "shock details", then you reject it because that means he is a believer. So there is nothing which could satisfy you.

Sure, but when you realize there are many other gospels that say very different things, you have to be skeptical about which were chosen to be "canonized" and which were not... and why. It seems to me they chose the ones that were the closest- it was a political move to ensure consistency.

No, it was based on whether the apparent author was who he claimed to be, and whether he was in a position to know what he wrote about. Some author making up a gospel in the third century isn’t going to have his Gospel taken very seriously, obviously

Now here is where you are dead wrong.

Christians and all the other faiths are equally responsible for severe oppression of knowledge, sexuality, human rights and free thought.

Perhaps they are about equal, but atheist regimes have them beat by a mile.

I'm not saying all christains are bad or anything like that... it is the overtone of the religion and the divisive nature and thus arrogance of it that makes life on this planet riddled with wars and bias.

No, it’s the human nature to kick the crap out of your neighbor and take his land, and other unfortunate aspects of human nature, that makes the planet riddled with wars and bias. Religions (and not just Christianity, mind you) have been a major force in bringing about peace and human rights. I’m not saying that they’ve been 100% effective or that members of religions have never acted outside of their religion’s tenets, but if you compare the oppression and destruction under religious nations and regimes, they’ve generally been behaving far better than their atheist counterparts have.

Perhaps you have some rosy picture of religions going away and mankind subsequently living in peace and harmony, with freedom and rights for all, but the reality of life inside atheistic nations pretty much puts that to rest.