PLEASE READ THIS JESUS CHRIST WAS THE SON OF GOD HE EXISTED HE WAS THE TRUE SON OF GOD AND HE GAVE HIS LIFE FOR THE SALVATION OF MANKIND HAD JESUS NOT EXISTED ALLOT OF PEOPLE WOULD NOT DIE FOR HIM AS MANY DID JESUS WAS THE LIVING WORD OF GOD READ-JOHN-1-1 IN THE BEGGINING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD-SO YOU SEE JESUS WAS THE WORD OF GOD-PETER LEONE
I BELIVE HE WAS REAL IT'S A CRIME TO SAY HE DID NOT EXIST

I was reading your list of Popes, and it is very incomplete. Taking a read through of Eusebius and other writers of that era, and the Liber Pontificalis which provides one of the earliest lists of Popes, beginning with Peter. The chain of command is historically unbroken, no matter what your religious belief is, history is accurate on this point. Anything else is truly anti-intellectual. I mean all due respect, though even a amateur scholar like myself was able to pick up the error immediately.

Thank you for your patience in reading this, I hope we can have some future correspondence

In Christ,
Jim Zettel, Jr.

Dear JZjr,
Thanks for your email.
[1] Popes - yes, the list is incomplete, but it's not meant to be complete! It's essentially a list of some of the things Popes did. If you're criticising monarchs, you don't have to list every single monarch who ever lived.
[2] The idea that Peter was the first Pope has always struck me as absurd, since there wasn't anything like a church for him to be Pope over, quite apart from the fact he didn't use the title. I appreciate it's necessary to claim this is so, but in my view it's a bit of retrospective fitting up of history.
[3] I'm perfectly happy to correspond; however, I do like sourced evidence.
Regards
Rae West

Rae,
Thank you for replying to my letter. I is good to see people in the world who still enjoy critical thinking. I do have a reply to your last e-mail.

It is true the term "Pope" was not used until 591 during the reign of Pope St. Ennodius. This does not invalidate the office. What was done for men like Peter and Linus (the second Pope, mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:21), starting at Ennodius, was look back in the past and declare (from what they had already known of Apostalic succession) was give these men the term Pope for each man who fit that office. It is a cultural term. If the cardinals, for better explanation of the office used "Facilitator" then they would have giving that title to all those who fit that office. It might be retrospective fitting for a title, but as for the Office of Bishop of Rome, or Vicar of Christ, that has always been understood in it's present form.
Go to www.catholic.com, they are accurate in citations, I am not a scholar of much weight, but they have material from the earliest fathers.

It also seems that in your view, this "church" that Christ founded was not meant to be a visible hirarchy. Rather it was meant to be something that all people were to profess. Even though reading through your material, it seems that you don't even belive in Jesus.
But I will explain, as best I can, how Catholics can claim a hirarchy of religion. There were things that Christ said that needed to be carried on in an untarnished way through history. At the Last Supper he gave a memorial in His body and blood, which He told the Apostles to do in His rememberance. He said the Apostles had power to bind and loose on earth, the power to forgive and retain sins etc.

These had to be carried on without being bastadized. In a ligistical way, even the Apostles and disiples, in the Acts and through Paul's letters, were setting up local dioceses, so that the Faith would not be errorneous. At times when Paul saw error in a community he would send them a letter of correction. For example the Corinthians were not acknowlaging that at the Lord's Supper the bread and wine where completely changed into the body and blood of Christ, I think that is in 1 Cor. 12. Even Peter and Paul sat down and had a discussion on who the Church was going to be open to accepting, I wish I could give you a quote, but I am not fluent on where it is, but trust me, it is there :)

I hope this expresses a bit more of what the Catholic Church understands. I do look forward to hearing from you.
In Christ,
Jim Zettel, Jr.

... as for the Office of Bishop of Rome, or Vicar of Christ, that has always been understood in it's present form.
*** It hasn't 'always' been understood in is present form - as you say yourself, there were centuries in which is wasn't known.

... it seems that you don't even belive in Jesus.
*** Yes; the probability that such a person existed is tiny, given that there are no references dating from the time he was supposedly around, and the name is constructed on the basis of reifying an attitude - 'Jesus Christ' means something like 'a holy person - the light of the world.'
*** So it's unlikely that 'he' founded a church, or anything else.
*** Even if he did, the question is whether it was true and/or useful.

> .. At the Last Supper he gave a memorial in His body and blood, which He told the Apostles to do in His rememberance. He said the Apostles had power to bind and loose on earth, the power to forgive and retain sins etc.
*** My personal attitude is that these are simple manufactured, and derivative, stories, i.e. they were made up out of unoriginal components.

> .. local dioceses, .. when Paul saw error in a community.. the Corinthians were not acknowlaging .. Peter and Paul sat down and had a discussion on who the Church was going to be open to accepting..
*** I accept, so far as I know, that Saul/Paul existed, but that doesn't mean what he wrote and/or thought was true or had any value. Plenty of people throughout history have expressed opinions on this or that.

> I hope this expresses a bit more of what the Catholic Church understands. I do look forward to hearing from you.
*** In my view, any collection of beliefs, stories, and philosophical statements could be made the basis of religion; all they need is something to force them onto people. This is why most religions have been geographically connected with units of power, typically states or empires; conversely, if/when these decline, the believers tend to switch their beliefs. It's also the reason that most people have little idea of the supposed tenets of their faiths: on questioning, most people who regard themselves as believers in some religious system prove to have little idea of the actual beliefs. (A good example is the splits in Catholicism: in modern times the various Orthodox brands and the Romans can hardly remember the reaosns for their schisms. This shows they aren't basically interested in the beliefs; the thing is essentially social. Whether the advantages of social cohesion on this basis outweigh the difficulties caused by the waste of effort and suppressions needed to enforce it is, in my view, the essential question.
Regards
Rae West

I appreciate your opinion. You told me in your first e-mail that you like having soursed evidence, your opinion is not a resourse.

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion. Jesus Christ, existed. Historians know more about Jesus then they do even about Caesar, and certainly no one would like the intelligence to deny his existence.

The Bible as a resourse is not invalid because it is considered a book of faith. The way the Catholic Church looked at the Bible before it was made canon, was to take each book and consider it first, a historical resourse, not even an inspired manuscript. The process continued through many years by a deep study and cross reference of other texts from that time.

Many of these texts no longer exist, but this is simply a sad fact from every writer. Plato, and Aristotle quoted texts that are no longer around too. The Church, the bishops of high and saintly stature accepted the books simply on their historical accuracy first. But if you want a non-Biblical sourse of Jesus, I give you Tactitus, The gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Peter, and other writing by the Apostles and disiples which are not in the Bible because of theological errors, but each one (though maybe not quoting Christ correctly, nonetheless serve to point out the existence of Jesus).

These manuscipts can be downloaded from univerisity web sites. There are many other historical proofs for other Church teachings. I will not talk about each one now. Only if you are interested.

I will leave you with a question posed by G.K. Chesterton. The literal Resurection of Jesus Christ is a great miracle. Through this belief millions of people in nations have been converted, individuals have experience great changes of heart, holy men and women have worked miracles, had stigmatas, bi-located and fell into great exctasy through the name of Jesus in His Chruch. But what would be greater than this miracle? A greater would be that a man comes, claims to be God, is crusified is buried and that is it. He was just a guy would lied to everyone and then was killed. And this dead guy, moves people to such piety, and such great miracles that cannot be explined through natural science occur. The former only follows logically, the latter does not follow. Think about it.
In Christ,
Jim Zettel, Jr.

> I appreciate your opinion. You told me in your first e-mail that you like having soursed evidence, your opinion is not a resourse.
*** I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I like evidence and prefer it to hearsay. And it's necessary to comment.

> Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion. Jesus Christ, existed. Historians know more about Jesus then they do even about Caesar, and certainly no one would like the intelligence to deny his existence.
*** It's not true that 'historians know more..' etc. Historians have traditionally not considered the issue of whether Jesus existed; the first modern critics in fact were theologians, who detected inconsistencies in the gospels. There are many approaches to considering whether Jesus existed, for example ***documents or archaeological information from the time (none) ***documents etc later; many, but all from 200 AD or later ***general consistency of stories and originality (all the material so far as I know has earlier parallels).

> The Bible as a resourse is not invalid because it is considered a book of faith. The way the Catholic Church looked at the Bible before it was made canon, was to take each book and consider it first, a historical resourse, not even an inspired manuscript. The process continued through many years by a deep study and cross reference of other texts from that time.
*** Of course the Bible or anything else has to be considered as an item of evidence. I didn't say it was or is 'invalid'. So far as I know, it isn't known for certain how the parts making up the modern Bible were chosen. There was a lot not included!
*** But you don't seem to be taking into account the attitude, which seems strange to a modern person, of secrecy about the Bible. Catholics didn't want the Bible translated, and there were endless battles about translating it into local languages. It was treated as a secret for priests.

> Many of these texts no longer exist, but this is simply a sad fact from every writer. Plato, and Aristotle quoted texts that are no longer around too. The Church, the bishops of high and saintly stature accepted the books simply on their historical accuracy first. But if you want a non-Biblical sourse of Jesus, I give you Tactitus, The gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Peter, and other writing by the Apostles and disiples which are not in the Bible because of theological errors, but each one (though maybe not quoting Christ correctly, nonetheless serve to point out the existence of Jesus).
*** There are several references to Tacitus and writers of about 0 AD; their references are all tiny ones and generally regarded as interpolations. (I listed all of them on my site).

> These manuscipts can be downloaded from univerisity web sites. There are many other historical proofs for other Church teachings. I will not talk about each one now. Only if you are interested.
*** You don't seem to understand the difference between science and ethics. You can't 'prove' a church teaching. If they say e.g. thou shalt not kill it's not a provable matter. But perhaps you mean something else.

> I will leave you with a question posed by G.K. Chesterton. The literal Resurection of Jesus Christ is a great miracle. Through this belief millions of people in nations have been converted, individuals have experience great changes of heart, holy men and women have worked miracles, had stigmatas, bi-located and fell into great exctasy through the name of Jesus in His Chruch. But what would be greater than this miracle? A greater would be that a man comes, claims to be God, is crusified is buried and that is it. He was just a guy would lied to everyone and then was killed. And this dead guy, moves people to such piety, and such great miracles that cannot be explined through natural science occur. The former only follows logically, the latter does not follow. Think about it.
***The reason people are converted, as I pointed out before, is because of power structures. If they were forced to say a green dragon laid miracle eggs they'd say they believed that.
***Your claims about miracles aren't credible and I'm surprised yo adhere to them.
***The question of the social effects of Catholicism (or anything else) is a big one. However, the stuff on my site is true and provides the basis for an indictment.

***In my view, it's a shame people have to spend their time on such absurd things. I appreciate that you presumably get money or something through this stuff. You might ask yourself whether, given the massive problems but also possibilities for the world, you mightn't be able to do something better than quote this antiquated stuff.

Regards
Rae West

i have only just come across your site and must compliment you on its content - excellent!

having come from a thoroughly 'anti-jesus' background myself, i am only too aware how outrageous it seems and, frankly weird, to hear people claim a relationship with someone one would imagine to have been dead for nearly 2,000 years... well now that is just what i do!

before you 'delete' this, i would like to suggest you visit www.k.house.org as they do have some very interesting articles, which, i hope might interest you.

if you were to go through the bible, you would find many prophecies in the old testament which jesus fulfilled at his first coming - right from genesis 3:15 - where - in the authorized version (which is a reliable translation of the best manuscript - i.e. the textus receptus,) we are told that there would be enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. the genealogies in the old testament are always traced through the male line - i.e. all that 'begetting' is the father of his son(s) ...until, of course, we come to one born of a virgin with no human male seed involved. so there we have it, right from the beginning a virgin birth indicated!

also the bible clearly tells us that god is the same - past, present and future. so jesus already existed before we ever find him in bethlehem. ..if you go back to genesis 1:1, where it says 'in the beginning god..' the hebrew word used is 'elohim', 'el' means 'god' and 'ohim' is a plural ending - indicating that god has always been a single plurality - somewhat like us being body, mind and spirit - but then we are made in his image! .. anyway, i could go on and on, but i know that if you really are looking for the truth in this matter you will find the real jesus for yourself - however intellectually embarrassing it may seem to admit the most politically incorrect belief there is!

may the lord who is the truth reward you as you check out his claims - which one has to confess are awesome!!

all the best
marcia

Thanks for your e-mail.

> i would like to suggest you visit www.k.house.org as they do have some very interesting articles, which, i hope might interest you.
  *** I think there must be a typo; at least I couldn't get this to work

> if you were to go through the bible, you would find many prophecies in the old testament which jesus fulfilled at his first coming - right from genesis 3:15 - where - in the authorized version (which is a reliable translation of the best manuscript - i.e. the textus receptus,) we are told that there would be enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. the genealogies in the old testament are always traced through the male line - i.e. all that 'begetting' is the father of his son(s) ...until, of course, we come to one born of a virgin with no human male seed involved. so there we have it, right from the beginning a virgin birth indicated!
  *** I'm not quite sure what you're getting at; if you think snakes and women are enemies, anyone could say this at any time and there's no prophecy involved. The 'virgin birth' idea occurs in many cultures and isn't specific to Christianity. I would have thought predictions of a Messiah (e.g. from the 'house of David') always had some implication of race or family.

> also the bible clearly tells us that god is the same - past, present and future. so jesus already existed before we ever find him in bethlehem. ..if you go back to genesis 1:1, where it says 'in the beginning god..' the hebrew word used is 'elohim', 'el' means 'god' and 'ohim' is a plural ending - indicating that god has always been a single plurality - somewhat like us being body, mind and spirit - but then we are made in his image!
  *** Unfortunately 'god' in the modern-ish Bible is mistranslation, presumably deliberate, of Elohim (and a few other words). Judaism wasn't monotheistic, as a few 'Jews' (e.g. Israel Shahak) have the honesty to state.
    When you say '.. also the bible tells us.. god is the same.. So Jesus already existed before.. bethlehem' there's a series of non sequiturs; in the first place, there's no evdience such a creature as 'god' exists; what the bible says may, or may not, be reliable; and your assumptions that jesus existed, which is doubtful, and that he must have been the same as god, also doubtful, simply don't follow.

> .. anyway, i could go on and on, but i know that if you really are looking for the truth in this matter you will find the real jesus for yourself - however intellectually embarrassing it may seem to admit the most politically incorrect belief there is! may the lord who is the truth reward you as you check out his claims - which one has to confess are awesome!!
    *** When you say 'lord' you seem unaware that this is a medieval thing; would you really use a phrase like 'the boss my god'? It's only because you haven't realised the meaning of 'lord' that you don't see its silliness.
    *** You might be interested to read my piece on 'amen' (while on this subject) which seems likely to be a chant to 'Amun' which people have thoughtlessly carried over.

> all the best
> marcia
  *** Thanks; and the same to you.

Hi

Interesting web site. I look forward to perusing it further. On the historical existence of Jesus: I don't believe in the Son of God business, but I have done a lot of study about the historical Jesus and I'm firmly convinced that he did indeed exist. The proposition that he didn't raises more questions than it answers, the most obvious being, why would anybody make up a story about a crucified Messiah?

There's no prior Jewish tradition to suggest it (there may have been a prior Jewish tradition about a Messiah who *dies*, but in that tradition--known I believe only from later documents--he is killed heroically in battle against the enemies of God, not shamefully executed by pagans). There are scores of personality cults that arise around real, charismatic figures. I've never heard of one arising around a fictional character (except possibly one played on TV or in a film by a real actor). This topic is being discussed in a rather spotty way right now on Salon Magazine's "Table Talk" forum at https://204.71.206.112/webx?13@42.L3ehaUlFf8q^0@.ee89c84/291 and
https://204.71.206.112/webx?13@42.L3ehaUlFf8q^0@.ee9e718/10 .

I imagine most of the other topics you have pages for are being discussed on Table Talk as well. You might enjoy participating.

Best wishes,
Jim Crutchfield
Newport News, Virginia
https://www.sybercom.net/mrcynick

[2] .... Many, probably most, religions are based around mythical characters - Bel, Osiris, Isis, Wodin, Zeus, Jupiter, God. And very likely e.g. Moses, Krishna and so on. You seem to dodge this point by referring to 'personality cults'.
    What happened according e.g. to Wells was that 'Christianity' originally had an etheral meaning, something like 'enlightened' or 'golden' or 'lit up'. But this wasn't concrete enough to have wide appeal, so a character was invented later around it. This process still continues - the Sistine chapel, relics, bits and pieces of supposed buildings etc, the Turin shroud, the late-19th C 'sacred heart' etc. all have the effect of making the myth seem real.
    On manufacturing stories, the most interesting book is 'Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions' by Doane, an American, which however is from about 1880 or so. Unfortunately nobody seems to have tried to update it. There are whole chapters on crucified and otherwise executed prophets, and other aspects of the story of 'Jesus', for example the mass killing of children, all, probably, lifted from other sources.

Thanks for your various e-addresses. I haven't yet got round to looking, but probably will...
Regards
Rae West

Thanks for your reply. I would suggest you read some scholars more recent than Wells (I assume you mean H. G. Wells), and perhaps somebody who has specialized in the history of First Century religion. I particularly recommend John Dominic Crossan. Around the turn of the present century there was a lot of interest in "debunking" religion, mostly by rationalists who resented the anti-intellectualism of the Church and were, I think, disillusioned with religion because nobody had yet caught on that there can be more than one kind of truth--that is, e.g., metaphorical truth and scientific fact. Modern scholarship owes those guys an enormous debt for breaking the shackles that religion had put onto science, but their work is often more polemical than scientific.

As for Zeus, Krishna, etc., I'm inclined to follow the thinking that those figures represent (or have their remotest origins in) actual persons, early kings or priests, who were immortalized by their followers after their deaths; or characters in rituals performed as part of early religion; or both. (See Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness ... and Graves, The Greek Myths for some hints about this.)

Also, those figures are not really comparable to Jesus, except insofar as he was deified by tradition after his death. Jesus is more to be compared to the Buddha, Socrates, Apollonius of Tyana, and other holy men of the ancient world. Nobody questions the actual existence of those men, even though there are not always as many or as good ancient witnesses to their lives as there are for Jesus. Belief in Jesus's resurrection ought to be compared (and I say this with all respect) to the phenomenon of Elvis-sightings in recent times: a charismatic person who has evoked profound emotional responses in his followers can remain "present" to them even after death. But that doesn't happen with figures whom people have never seen. Nobody sees Frodo Baggins or Captain Ahab, no matter how deeply those characters have affected them.

The earliest evidence we have of Christianity is the letters of Paul, and they already clearly revolve around the figure of Jesus. The process of deifying him has already started, but hasn't gone nearly as far as it soon would. Nor is there any sign of a previous form of Christianity as a form of "enlightenment" without Jesus. I don't know what evidence Wells calls on, if any. His theory as you've summarized it sounds entirely speculative--it hangs together fine and makes good sense until you try to apply it to the actual evidence, which contradicts it at a fundamental level.

Hope to see you on Table Talk sometime.

Best wishes,

Jim Crutchfield

> Hi Rae
> Thanks for your reply. I would suggest you read some scholars more recent than Wells (I assume you mean H. G. Wells)
  *** No, I mean the Prof Wells I mentioned on my site. Unfortunately I couldn't persuade the old chappie to talk, although he lives quite near me. He has a number of books published by Prometheus.

> and perhaps somebody who has specialized in the history of First Century religion. I particularly recommend John Dominic Crossan.
  *** Well... the problem is that modern 'scholars' are so useless it hardly seems worth the trouble. At least, I'm judging by those who surface in TV/newspapers and who seem invariably naive and gullible.
  *** It occurs to me that a definitive disproof of Wells and other nonbelievers in 'Jesus' would be to find evidence of discussion of 'Christ' as a real person in, for example, Paul's epistles. I haven't checked these, but would expect to find only the vaguest outline of Christianity.

> Around the turn of the present century there was a lot of interest in "debunking" religion, mostly by rationalists who resented the anti-intellectualism of the Church and were, I think, disillusioned with religion because nobody had yet caught on that there can be more than one kind of truth--that is, e.g., metaphorical truth and scientific fact. Modern scholarship owes those guys an enormous debt for breaking the shackles that religion had put onto science, but their work is often more polemical than scientific.
  *** I think this is an unjustified slur. They were interested in truth and unfortunately, I suppose because of systems of funding or something their work virtually stopped. The idea of more than one kind of truth in my view is complete crap, but of course something like it has to be invented if nonsensical stuff is to be treated as if it were serious.

> As for Zeus, Krishna, etc., I'm inclined to follow the thinking that those figures represent (or have their remotest origins in) actual persons, early kings or priests, who were immortalized by their followers after their deaths; or characters in rituals performed as part of early religion; or both. (See Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness ... and Graves, The Greek Myths for some hints about this.)
  *** They may, but it seems unlikely. After all, they were credited with causing weather, hurling thunderbolts, creating the earth, being chopped into bits and being reassembled, etc and many things not possible to early kings or priests. I like Graves but this is highly speculative. In any case, the question is Did Jesus Exist, and all this other material is only marginally relevant.

> Also, those figures are not really comparable to Jesus, except insofar as he was deified by tradition after his death. Jesus is more to be compared to the Buddha, Socrates, Apollonius of Tyana, and other holy men of the ancient world. Nobody questions the actual existence of those men, even though there are not always as many or as good ancient witnesses to their lives as there are for Jesus.
  *** I'm not sure about Buddha. But the existence of Socrates seems more doubtful, as Plato's literary skill may have been up to invenbting such a character. But, again, the question is about Jesus, so these other people aren't directly relevant.

> Belief in Jesus's resurrection ought to be compared (and I say this with all respect) to the phenomenon of Elvis-sightings in recent times: a charismatic person who has evoked profound emotional responses in his followers can remain "present" to them even after death. But that doesn't happen with figures whom people have never seen. Nobody sees Frodo Baggins or Captain Ahab, no matter how deeply those characters have affected them.
  *** [1] Doane has lots of examples of resurrections. This is nothing new - Christianity didn't invent this idea. [2] 'Nobody sees..' isn't true. There are plenty of supposed visions of angels, God, Mary, the Angel of Mons, spiritualist appearances, witches, etc.

> The earliest evidence we have of Christianity is the letters of Paul, and they already clearly revolve around the figure of Jesus. The process of deifying him has already started, but hasn't gone nearly as far as it soon would. Nor is there any sign of a previous form of Christianity as a form of "enlightenment" without Jesus. I don't know what evidence Wells calls on, if any. His theory as you've summarized it sounds entirely speculative--it hangs together fine and makes good sense until you try to apply it to the actual evidence, which contradicts it at a fundamental level.
  *** Oh, right. This is better evidence. As I said above, if you can find passages (allowing perhaps for translations being biased) reliably indicating there was a Jesus this might be good evidence.

Rae West

I think if you will read Crossan, you may find that a whole new set of perspectives open up for you. I suggest "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography" as a good place to start.

Let me invite you again to join the discussion on Table Talk (in part so that I don't have to keep up with two parallel conversations, and in part so that you can benefit from perspectives other than mine). The address is https://204.71.206.112/webx?12@@.ee9e718.

Best wishes,
Jim Crutchfield

Much knowledge, but oh! - for the wonderful explorative freedoms of faith and imagination!

I found this quite funny. One important point about the ragbag of myths and legends is that people repeat them unthinkingly without any imagination.
Regards
Rae West

Dear you,

I read your page.

I don't understood the word "horrid" in the context (I'm a french user). "Exploiting peoples' sympathy with suffering" is a common use of sacred dramas: Osiris was killed by his brother Seth, Orpheus and Attis killed too. You will read many things about that in "The Golden Bough" of James Frazer.

I agree with you that the author of the Piso's story is crazy.

But I don't agree some of your ideas.

In my greek language books, the word "christ" is related to the verb "chrio", to rub the body with oil for exercises in a gymnasium. "to anoint" in the old testament: Exodus 30,25; 1 Samuel 10,1; Isaia 45,1; Daniel 9,24.

You says: "Etymological dictionaries don't explain why a prophet-like figure should have any connection with oil".
But Jesus is never presented as a simple prophet but as the heir of the David's throne. "Son of God" is a title of King David (cf 2 Sam 7,14 & Ps 2,7). Dubourg said the hebraics words of "son of god" have the same value than "messiah" (you know each hebraic letter has a numerical value). Your german etymology is tetratrichotomic. (the only gothic etymology in christian vocabulary is "church" from gothic, "kirk", itself coming from greek "kirie oikos", "house of lord")

You says : "Moreover there are 'alternative' suggestions, for example that the word now written 'chrestus', with variations, meaning something like 'good people', was the correct version of what's now 'Christ'."

The christians argue with a Suetone sentence (Claudius life,xxv) about some jews excited in Rome "impulsore Chresto". But the word "impulsore" can only be used in latin for a person alive, and "chrestos" means "useful" and was a common nickname of slaves regarding latin inscriptions (cf Linck works).

>Another suggestion: 'Christ' might have meant light, in the sense of 'light of the world'. Buddha as the 'Light of Asia' illustrates the principle. Mithra, Mazda, and the winged sun disk representation, all support this sense; the word 'chrysalis', meaning gilded, suggests something similar. There's an etymological tangle, too, of the similar words 'chrism' ('holy' oil) and perhaps charisma and eucharist.

Buddha is the illuminated (inside) and not "the light of Asia": did Gautama know he lived in Asia, made as part of the World according to Herodotus ideas? "Mithra" come from an indo-european root meaning "contract, alliance", as mediator between the gods and the men, in greek "mesites", and you will find this word in 1 Tim 2,5.
Sure, there is some links between mithraism and x-anity, but more about ideas than narrow etymology, like the link with buddhism with the Temptation in Desert. You can find too the Bacchus triumph in Col 2,15 and in the miracle of water turned into wine. Orpheus enchanted the people with his voice like Jesus calling Peter and the others. The narrow gate come from Ahura Mazda (the Cinvat bridge).

With your method, how could you explain the name of "Mary" from the Wisdom? Myriam was a sister of Mose. But if, in the Protogospel of Jack, Mary lived in the Temple, it is because Siracid 24,10. In hebraic, wisdom is "achamoth", and in greek "sophia". In the gnosticism, the Wisdom is the mother of the Logos. You can find this Wisdom as mother of Jesus in 1 Cor 2,8 because the greek word translated by "to know" is the word used in Mt 1,25 and Lc 1,34 and not the word used for Peter's renunciation (Mc 14,71; Mt 26,74).

I don't know when was made the actual Trinity, with the Holy Ghost in place of Mary, but the Gospel of Basilide (around the year 100) use the Sophia as mother of the Christ. This idea come from Osiris, Isis, and Horus, "triad" before a "trinity". Should your fad of etymology make "Jesus" as "Iesous" from "Isis" ? The name of Jesus come from the Josuah who came after Moses : he was one of the only two Hebrews who crossed the desert during 40 years and didn't died in it. After that, he came in Judea passing by the Jordan. His father was named Noun, means "fish", like the old symbol of x-nity. Three no-etymological reasons to choose it as a gospel hero, the fourth reason being "jesus" means "saviour".

Beware to etymologize choosing roots in differents families of languages (like John Allegro and his sacred mushroom, mixing sumerian and semitic), because this sort of conclusion in archeoly in year 3000: "One of the gods of the XXth century was Donald Duck, name meaning "mister old duck" from "don" in spanish, "ald" from "alt" in german, and "duck" from english, languages of different peoples came in America in this time."

>'Star of Bethlehem' and dating of A.D./B.C. Quite a few attempts have been made (projecting backwards, on the Halley's comet in 1066 principle) to correlate possible astronomical events with the 'star of Bethlehem'. One problem of course is that stars move in relation to the earth, so anyone following them will be in difficulties. The only exceptions I can think of are (1) a star at the north pole, (2) a star so low that it appears above the horizon in a fairly constant place. But no star will suspend itself over one place. And a low star would be difficult to follow, since it will invisible most of the time.

Don't worry about the star of Bethlehem: you will find it in Nb 24,17 and in Isaia 60,1-7 with the Magi and the shepherds... If you want a travel to Egypt, use Is 19,1 and Osea 11,1 for the return ticket.

Thierry.

> I don't understood the word "horrid" in the context (I'm a french user) "Exploiting peoples' sympathy with suffering" is a common use of sacred dramas : Osiris was killed by his brother Seth, Orpheus and Attis killed too. You will read many things about that in "The Golden Bough" of James Frazer.
*** Yes. There are several emotional responses to criticisms of Christianity. One of them is that Christ suffered and died (like Socrates). There are similar arguments in war - a lot of people have been killed, how dare you suggest we should stop now? That was what I meant. But if no such person existed, the emotion is misdirected.

> I agree with you that the author of the Piso's story is crazy.
> But I don't agree some of your ideas.
  *** OK! This isn't meant to be a detailed refutation etc (which is probably impossible, given the remote dates and lack of evidence). The idea of the piece is simply to present the idea that 'Jesus' may never have existed. This is an idea which many people will simply never have heard of, as it's rigorously censored.

> In my greek language books, the word "christ" is related to the verb "chrio", to rub the body with oil for exercises in a gymnasium. "to anoint" in the old testament: Exodus 30,25; 1 Samuel 10,1; Isaia 45,1; Daniel 9,24. You says : "Etymological dictionaries don't explain why a prophet-like figure should have any connection with oil". But Jesus is never presented as a simple prophet but as the heir of the David's throne. "Son of God" is a title of King David (cf 2 Sam 7,14 & Ps 2,7). Dubourg said the hebraics words of "son of god" have the same value than "messiah" (you know each hebraic letter has a numerical value). Your german etymology is tetratrichotomic. (the only gothic etymology in christian vocabulary is "church" from gothic "kirk", itself coming from greek "kirie oikos", "house of lord") You says : "Moreover there are 'alternative' suggestions, for example that the word now written 'chrestus', with variations, meaning something like 'good people', was the correct version of what's now 'Christ'."
> The christians argue with a Suetone sentence (Claudius life,xxv) about some jews excited in Rome "impulsore Chresto". But the word "impulsore" can only be used in latin for a person alive, and "chrestos" means "useful" and was a common nickname of slaves regarding latin inscriptions (cf Linck works).
> >Another suggestion: 'Christ' might have meant light, in the sense of 'light of the world'. Buddha as the 'Light of Asia' illustrates the principle. Mithra, Mazda, and the winged sun disk representation, all support this sense; the word 'chrysalis', meaning gilded, suggests something similar. There's an etymological tangle, too, of the similar words 'chrism' ('holy' oil) and perhaps charisma and eucharist.
> Buddha is the illuminated (inside) and not "the light of Asia": did Gautama know he lived in Asia, made as part of the World
> according to Herodotus ideas ?
  *** ('The Light of Asia' is the title of a poem; I'm trying to convey the possible meanings of 'Christ')
> "Mithra" come from an indo-european root meaning "contract, alliance", as mediator between the gods and the men, in greek "mesites", and you will find this word in 1 Tim 2,5. Sure, there is some links between mithraism and x-anity, but more about ideas than narrow etymology, like the link with buddhism with the Temptation in Desert. You can find too the Bacchus triumph in Col 2,15 and in the miracle of water turned into wine. Orpheus enchanted the people with his voice like Jesus calling Peter and the others. The narrow gate come from Ahura Mazda (the Cinvat bridge).
> With your method, how could you explain the name of "Mary" from the Wisdom? Myriam was a sister of Mose. But if, in the Protogospel of Jack, Mary lived in the Temple, it is because Siracid 24,10. In hebraic, wisdom is "achamoth", and in greek "sophia". In the gnosticism, the Wisdom is the mother of the Logos. You can find this Wisdom as mother of Jesus in 1 Cor 2,8 because the greek word translated by "to know" is the word used in Mt 1,25 and Lc 1,34 and not the word used for Peter's renunciation (Mc 14,71 ; Mt 26,74).
> I don't know when was made the actual Trinity, with the Holy Ghost in place of Mary, but the Gospel of Basilide (around the year 100) use the Sophia as mother of the Christ. This idea come from Osiris, Isis, and Horus, a "triad" before a "trinity". Should your fad of etymology make "Jesus" as "Iesous" from "Isis"? The name of Jesus come from the Josuah who came after Moses: he was one of the only two Hebrews who crossed the desert during 40 years and didn't died in it. After that, he came in Judea passing by the Jordan. His father was named Noun, means "fish", like the old symbol of x-nity. Three no-etymological reasons to choose it as a gospel hero, the fourth reason being "jesus" means "saviour".

> Beware to etymologize choosing roots in differents families of languages (like John Allegro and his sacred mushroom, mixing sumerian and semitic), because this sort of conclusion in archeoly in year 3000: "One of the gods of the XXth century was Donald Duck, name meaning "mister old duck" from "don" in spanish, "ald" from "alt" in german, and "duck" from english, languages of different peoples came in America in this time."
*** Thanks for all this. Yes, I'm quite aware of the problems of false etymology. But, you see, again this piece is aimed at readers who've had any information on the subject censored. I think lots of them believe 'Jesus Christ' to be an ordinary name, plus surname. While in fact, as we agree, there's a lot of mythological/historical/mythical input in the name. It's a manufactured name, like 'Will Shakespeare' or 'Napoleon III'.

> >'Star of Bethlehem' and dating of A.D./B.C. Quite a few attempts have been made (projecting backwards, on the Halley's comet in 1066 principle) to correlate possible astronomical events with the 'star of Bethlehem'. One problem of course is that stars move in relation to the earth, so anyone following them will be in difficulties. The only exceptions I can think of are (1) a star at the north pole, (2) a star so low that it appears above the horizon in a fairly constant place. But no star will suspend itself over one place. And a low star would be difficult to follow, since it will invisible most of the time.
> Don't worry about the star of Bethlehem: you will find it in Nb 24,17 and in Isaia 60,1-7 with the Magi and the shepherds... If you want a travel to Egypt, use Is 19,1 and Osea 11,1 for the return ticket.
  *** I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying there was a static star? Again, the point I'm making is related to the bogus stuff on the birth of 'Christ'. Most people never hear any criticisms of this. For example, people still routinely talk about a rock-cut tomb of Christ as though it's an established fact and not a medieval bit of guesswork.
Regards,
Rae West.

PS you don't say whether you think there ever was a 'Jesus'.

Chrest, the Fish, is the Age of Pisces, which commenced at his birth, heralded by a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces, understood by the astrologers as having a profound significance in the field of both Religion (Jupiter) and Politics (Saturn). All the stories told about the god-man Jesus are, like the 12 Labours of Hercules, the stories of the spiritual labours, expressed in deeply esoteric astrological symbolism, of every man -who is also a god. ("Are ye not gods?", Jesus asks his disciples rhetorically somewhere [chapter and verse?]). As for the dead-letter literalism of Churchianity, this has led to it's most incriminating manifestation, the Inquisition, which ought to repel forever every thinking person.
    The Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head, but the Pope may lay his anywhere, or so it was in the past. Intellectually free men have put an end to the latter's tyranny, however much many may regret this. The Religion of a new Astrological Age, the Age of Aquarius, the Age of Man, of Truth and Knowledge - that of Pisces was an Age of Faith and Devotion, etc. - is now necessary. The churchians will oppose this idea with all the fanaticism that they think their bible worship demands of them , but this is because they are completely unaware of the astrological symbolism that suffuses every line of their Holy Scripture. Unless understood astrologically, the Bible is a closed book, full of incomprehensible statements and (magical) events. But then, will they credit even the Jew with understanding HIS OWN books, the very books (the Bible is a collection of small books or pamphlets, after all), they, the Christians, have made their own? No.
    And the Jewish Kabala? Wicked demonology, according to these gentle followers of the Nazarine (Essene). Do Christians live the life of the vegetarian ascetic and the mystic, as the Nazarines did. Of course not. They live the lives of the worldly, and the abbots and monks, so-called ascetics, of former times were, unlike their Nazarine Master, indeed wine-bibbers and gluttons. Can one expect understanding about the Divine Realms from such people? Wisdom cometh from the East, and there is no Religion higher than Truth.

Complements, [sic] J. Pranger

Rae West,
Congratulations on your web site. I only found it last week. My site is: Jesus Moses were Invented - Bible Dates
https://members.aol.com/drewchris/Index.html
    I've been up since Nov 1 99. My analysis of what happened is different from yours.
    How have you publicized your site? I'm gearing up to putting out a news release.
    I knew a Michael West of Harpenden in the 1940's and 50's.Christopher Drew, 72, a retired mechanical engineer living in Flossmoor, Illinois,

I don't know if all this is of any interest to you! but I thought you might be interested in the the reactions of someone new to your piece.
Regards
Rae West

[6] 'The Revelation to John' title comes from the Revised Standard Version. I used it because it is briefer than in the King James Bible. I have changed Agrippa I to 1. Are there any other places where I have an I instead of 1? I improved the sentence with 20% and 95% in it.
[1] Dating. The Assyrians attacked northern Israel in 722 B.C. and removed a lot of people. Hosea wrote his piece shortly after. I say in 720 B.C.. It does not look like a fictional writing to me. 722 B.C. is a well founded secular date.
    Dating method. As I state in the book introduction, I started (5 years ago) with dates for historical events in the Near East, which is now in my book's Appendix. I used published time charts. I credit Atlas of the Bible lands in the Bibliography. I also used Josephus. Then I sequenced the books. Some can be dated from their content. This provides pegs for dating the others. I did the same thing for the Nag Hammadi writings. Having once got dates assigned, I retested them. A decision must be made on each book as to whether it is fiction or history as this radically affects the dating. A word processor is very handy. The scholars that I've met are passionately interested in dating particularly in their field of specialization. They do not publish their dates except in the vaguest terms. The ones they put into encyclopedias are not necessarily reliable.
    I have concentrated on publishing my dates in easily digestible form. I have stated my dating principles but I have avoided detailed arguments as being of scant interest to the public and unnecessary for knowledgeable scholars.
[2] Mary Magdalene was one of the group in Jerusalem who took part in discussions aimed at inventing a better Jesus Christ story. This comes from the Nag Hammadi writings. She was honored by the use of her name in the Bible Gospels.
    My lack of ancient language knowledge is a handicap, but I have been able to question leading language experts. My independence far outweighs this handicap.
[4] Sex. Hosea's wife had feast days, new moons, Sabbaths and solemn feasts. She was no prostitute. See my chapter 9 and read the first two chapters of Hosea. The Astarte system had no male priests. When God was a woman by Merlin Stone discusses several female religious systems. I have visited two Astarte sites in Israel and I possess a copy of an Astarte figurine found near Jerusalem dating from 700 B.C.. It is from the Israel museum's gift shop.
    4000 Astarte figurines have been recovered in Israel. The Israelis know about this religion but it is a secret in the West presumably to keep it from young women.
    I hope I don't sound too defensive. I very much appreciate receiving your comments and making your acquaintance and I would love to hear from you again.
Regards, Christopher Drew.

Dear Acharya S,
I wondered (having just found your site by a roundabout route) whether you might put a link to my site https://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton [I haven't got around to getting domain name]. You're mentioned in there somewhere. Hope Athens is fine.
RegardsRae West

Hiya -
I stumbled upon your "Did Jesus Exist" emails section - very impressive and courageous. I can relate, so I thought you might like to know about my book "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold."
    You may know about it already. If we've corresponded previously, forgive my lack of memory. I've only got so many MBs.

My book may be perused at
https://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm
My main site is at https://www.truthbeknown.com

Take care and keep up the good work.
Acharya S
Archaeologist, Historian, Mythologist, Linguist Member, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece

Take care, and thanks for the link.

JESUS IS LORD 1!!

Do you exist?
    Consider this, I only speak to you via computer. How do I know you exist or if you are a con? Two thousand years from now I should doubt anyone could prove that you yourself existed? Birth certificate...could that not be manipulated? Who will be there to defend your existence? What you say is because you were not present, that it did not exist or that it may have been manipulated. Such a suggestion or statement admits arrogance... does not pride come before the fall? Your statements are one-sided and self-sufficent. You promote yourself. If in fact you consider yourself 'enlightened' perhaps you should consider the existence of Jesus Christ or if you want, wait until He returns and then try to explain your blasphemy. Thought provoking? Be open my friend or be closed and become my enemy. Just remember, as a friend or an enemy we are called to love all and pray for all. Do not attempt to understand rather accept that which is...and you will find the peace you search for.

"There are no facts, only interpretations." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Did Jesus Exist?
I was not clear on whether or not you were questioning if a person named Jesus ever existed, or if you were questioning whether he was God's son.
    If you're looking for concrete proof, I would suggest looking through ancient Roman records, dated at the time Jesus was sentenced before Pilate. Barabbas was also in prison during this time with the insurrectionists, who had committed murder during the uprising. -Mark 15:9-11. There is also mention of a Feast/Passover, when one prisoner of the people's choice was released back to them...which may also add to the possibility of being able to pin point a specific time of year.
    A person of Jesus' notoriety more than likely was listed in the Roman court records.
    If the records do exist, whether or not you'll have access to them is another question.
    You would also have to take into account if they do exist, they could have been fabricated. If they don't exist, it's possible someone destroyed them.
    I would like to add at this point that I believe he did exist, continues to live, and will always live in the hearts of those that believe in him. And that is something my friend, no one can disprove or remove, except the individual holding said beliefs. Meaning, if you change Did to Does and ask.."Does Jesus Exist?" the answer would be a resounding yes. Now ask the question past tense.."Did Jesus Exist?"..the answer would be a resounding yes, based on the existence of earlier generations of Christians/Catholics.
    Am I getting too philosophical? Probably not...because there's no proof of philosophy existing. Same can be said for all the emotions, thoughts, beliefs(including mine, including yours)...and the same can be applied to individuals.
    You cannot base the existence of an object/emotion/individual solely on concrete proof. Who were all the people that died in the Civil War? You can try and trace back..look at records.. pictures.. etc. Even with that my friend, you would have to leave room for human error. Human error, however, does not erase the lives of those dead, yet never found.
    Before I sign off, I just want to add, what I do not like, are those who consider themselves devout Christians/Catholics and really know nothing about the religion. Christianity was based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ and yet history proves, without a shadow of doubt, Christianity severed ties with Jesus' teachings a very long time ago. (Inquisition, Conquistadors, persecution of pagan worshippers)
Sincerely,
Orin Black
Founder of The Underground Movement