To be objective, when knowing whether actors of the Bible did really exist or not, consists in studying documents and questioning scholars on these issues. But here is the problem : because themselves differ in their opinion, we have some good reason to doubt about the veracity of the facts we are reading in the Bible – at least when the documents produced by archeology, philology or literature don’t exist so that to prove it, or when they give an answer that does not match what we read in the Bible.
And here is the key point : what do we know, about these events, when information does not originate from the Bible itself. In other worlds, what do we know about the historical existence of figures like Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Salomon, and later on, Jesus and his twelve apostles, by studying scholars who are here historians? Do the latter have found, by reading the annals of the kings, or by reading the documentation produced by their people, any evidence that Abraham did really lived in Ur or in the southern part of Mesopotamia at the beginning of his life; or any evidence that Joseph, the son of Jacob, was indeed a vizier or Pharaoh in Egypt; or any evidence that Moses has released, in Egypt, and on behalf of Yahweh, more than half a million of slaves from Jewish origin before leading them towards a promised land they will reach after 40 years in the desert; or any evidence that David have founded an empire which is supposed to have spread from Egypt to Mesopotamia at the time of Salomon; or any evidence, finally, that Jesus, before being three years, was taken into Egypt by Joseph and Mary so that to avoid the killing of an Herod who had decided to kill all the children of this age because he knew that the future king of the Jews (whose name is Jesus) was one of them, and because he was afraid to be overthrown by him in the future ?
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $10
On all these topics, and despite the very hope aroused, in the environment of the Church, by a biblical archaeology whose Father Lagrange was a precursor, we haven’t found anything. And they are not Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman who will contest that argument, themselves having proved, in their book La Bible Dévoilée, that the documents exhumed by the recent archeology don’t match (as far, at least, as the chronology is concerned), what we read in the Bible.
In brief, insofar we have, as historical source, only the biblical texts, we are not sure at all that the figures mentioned in the Pentateuch did really exist, and, if it is the case, that they matched the exact profile we are reading in the Bible.
As for those mentioned in the New Testament, their historical existence can be contested as well. Indeed, we can deduce from the works of both Flavius Josephus, Suetone, Tacit, Pliny the Younger, or Lucien of Samostate, that if Jesus really existed, all these testimonies, except that of Josephus, refer to the god Christos – and not to the man with flesh and bones who has lived in Palestine.
As for Josephus, some scholars have proved that the passage of his work in which he talks about the man Jesus (a man who, because of his wisdom, is, according to Josephus himself more than a simple man – see text quoted hereunder), was added afterwards in the work of Josephus.
Here is the extract of the work of Josephus (cf. Testimonium Flavianum, Jewish Antiques, XVIII, 63-64) in which this author is talking about of Jesus.
… « At that time, a wise man is born, if we can name him a man. He was accomplishing amazing acts and become a leader [or a master, or a guru] for those who accepted the truth with enthusiasm. And he succeeds in convincing many Jews and Greeks. The Christ, it was him…
To return to the historicity of the figures mentioned in the Bible, let us assume, just for a while, that we have found some documents (for example in Egypt, in Syria or in actual Iraq) proving that these figures did really exist as men.
These men will have then lost, in the mind of the readers of the sacred texts, the aura or the divine character they had had before.
The same remark is available regarding the actors of the New Testament
Indeed, except the atheists and the skeptical, nobody contests today the existence of Jesus. It is all the more true since Christianity, whose Jesus embodies the Verb or the Logos, is a reality weighing heavy, nowadays, thanks to the presence of 1,5 billion Christians.
As for knowing whether Jesus did really exist, a man with flesh and bones living in Palestine (that is to say, in the form we are reading in the Gospels), that is another matter.
In other words, if the man did really exist, the miracles accomplished by him have to be proved in a scientific and historical way (namely, by documents coming from archeology and from the other areas belonging to the modern science) and not only by relying, either on the faith of the Christians, or (that is the same) on the biblical texts themselves.
Having said that, whatever are the arguments developed by those who claim that Jesus did really exist, and by those who claim the contrary, the issue is to know which figure are we are talking about, as far as Jesus is concerned, and what are the evidence of his terrestrial existence.
From now on, let us assume, for a while, that the Gospels are historical documents.
We may conclude, after having read them, that Jesus did really existed.
Now, if we consider that the Gospels are not historical documents, we have to examine the other documents, in particular those originating from the historians of that time, and, more specifically, from those who claimed that Jesus (called Christos, or Christus by them) did really exist.
But here is the key issue: who is the Jesus mentioned by the Gospels, and beyond that, which figure was adored by the primeval Christians when they adore a Jesus named by them Christos or Christus?
If this Jesus is a paulinian figure; in other words, if Jesus, has been, as embodying the Christ, a divine creature since the very beginning (at least, since his resurrection), it means that the historical figure named Jesus (a Jesus who is here a man with flesh and bones) is to be differentiated from the divine Jesus (a Jesus whose name is now Christ, or Jesus-Christ)
From now on, the issue is to know whether the man Jesus, with flesh and bones, did really exist.
Let us assume he did exist and he did accomplish the miracles mentioned in the Gospels.
In this case, the historical Jesus merges, after having been crucified and after having resuscitated, with the divine Jesus (a divine Jesus whom Paul will spread the Word all over the world).
Now, let us assume that the historical Jesus was, at first, a simple mortal who will be deified after his death by his worshippers.
That Jesus has nothing to do, at first, with the divine creature whom God has sent onto earth to save men of their sins. Having become divine (according to a historical process named euhemerism) in the mind of Christians who have been Jews before being Christians, he is supposed to have accomplished the miracles mentioned by the Gospels, and in particular, the one consisting, after having cured people and given his own life on the Cross to save men, to resuscitate from the world of the Dead so that to prove he is indeed the Son of the Father, or, that is the same, a divine creature provided with the power of making miracles.
Indeed, if one questions the billion and a half Christians believing in Jesus, about his existence, of all of them will answer that Jesus is a man (or a man-god) who gave his life on the Cross to save men, and, because of his divinity, he had resuscitated.
And if one questions the atheists or the skeptics on the same issue, they will answer that Jesus is only a simple mortal who, because of it, is unable to have accomplished the miracles we read in the Bible, and in particular that one consisting in resuscitating.
Who is right and who is wrong in that matter?
Insofar the faith interferes here with the reason, we can deduct that Christians, precisely because they are Christians, do not need that the divine existence of Jesus should be proved with arguments type a+b, and, instead of it, they condemned as heretics those who used that type of demonstration. Indeed, insofar, according to them, Jesus is a divine creature, he can make miracles and resuscitate.
Some remark about the Bible: insofar the Book comes from God himself, its content is true and has not, therefore, to be proved or, on the contrary, to be contested by anyone. In other words, because the Bible is the divine Word, the quality itself of that Word has not to be discussed (insofar, with the criteria of modern science).
That is, as far as the Christian position, is concerned.
Now, if we rely on the reason or on the logos used by the Greeks of the antiquity, we are founded to require from the scholars (namely, the historians and the archaeologists) that they prove, upon the documents exhumed by them, that Jesus did really exist as a man with flesh and bones. Otherwise, if these proofs or these testimonies are missing, we can deduct from that absence that the Gospels, instead of telling the adventures of the man Jesus, tell those of a creature named Christos or Christ (himself being a hero, or a god, rather than a man – a man who, according to the Fathers of the Church, is a god since the very beginning, a god-man who has sent by His Father onto earth to save men).
In other words, assuming that a human creature named Jesus has been living in Palestine under the Roman emperor Tiberius or under the Roman emperor Augustus, it means that the figure mentioned in the Gospels is to be differentiated from this man insofar the latter has resuscitated from the world of the dead, miracle that a simple mortal is unable to accomplish.
But here is the fundamental objection we can raise against the Christian theologians and against the doctors of the Christian religion: insofar the Jesus described by Paul (a Jesus who is here the Savior or future Savior) appears in other texts than that of the Bible (a saviour whose name is then, respectively Zeus Soter, Dumuzi, Tammuz, Osiris – or Horus -, Dionysos, Adonis, Attis, Quetzalcoatl, or whatever else), the story mentioned in the Bible, instead of or being unique, was known all around the world at that time (a time that is a late one when the Saviour is named Quetzalcoatl – himself belonging to the Aztec mythology)
Having reached that point, we can take a step further and consider that the figures mentioned both in the Bible and the other sacred texts or poems of the antiquity time (i.e. Rig Veda, Mahbhrata, Rmyana, Avesta, Iliad and Odyssey of Homer; etc), these figures, after having embodied gods and/or heroes responsible for the vegetation inside a religion which was a naturalist at the very beginning, had become planets or constellations moving in the sky, when the religion itself had become Sabean after having been naturalist (or strictly naturalist).
Having said that, when we talk about religion, and, beyond that, about the historical or non-historical existence of Jesus, the problem does not rely upon the word «religion» but upon the word «history».
Indeed, ourselves, men of modern time, interpreted the word «History» in another way as did our ancestors (who are, in this particular case, the first Christians, and – by going go back up earlier in History -, heathens adoring other gods that the Eternal God together with His son Jesus Christ).
To them, indeed, the Messiah (whatever was his name at that time: Joshua, Yeoshuha, Jesus, Quetzalcoatl – we are now in the Aztec mythology) was supposed to return to them in order to comfort them, or, on the contrary, in order to punish them for having badly behaved onto him before he had been crucified. Themselves were expecting his next return because he had promised them he will come back among them.
And here is the key point: as know the scholars dealing with religion, this return of the providential creature was referring, at the very beginning, to a naturalist religion which saw, in the god of the vegetation, the providential creature able to resuscitate life on earth by killing the demons opposed to that sort of resurrection.
And because the religion has become Sabean in the meantime, this providential figure is now identified with the sun or with any other element belonging to the cosmos (as, for example, the storm god – himself originating the rain after a long period of drought, and, beyond that, a planet or a constellation).
Let us assume, from now on, that the historical Jesus did really existed. The one whom we read the adventures of in the Gospels is then his celestial copy (a copy who was embodying the god of vegetation when the religion was still naturalist – as John Allegro shows it in his book The sacred mushroom and the cross – and who is now looking like a planet or a constellation (which presupposes that religion has become in the meantime, Sabean).
And it is exactly the key issue when we talk about Jesus.
In other words, we have to differentiate between the man Jesus, a simple mortal who has been deified after his death, under the name of Christos (or Christus), by his worshippers, with the hero the former identified himself with, at the antiquity time (a hero who was himself a god in the old naturalist and Sabean religions).
Now, let us assume that the Jesus mentioned in the Gospels was immediately a divine creature.
In this case, instead of being a man in the strict sense of the word, he was, as incarnating a constellation, a celestial creature with a human profile or shape.
But here is the difference between the man and the constellation: whereas the former is living on earth, the latter is living on the celestial planisphere. More precisely, the constellation embodied by Jesus remains first in the heights of the celestial planisphere, before coming down into the southern part of the celestial planisphere, a southern part that identifies itself with the earth.
In brief, insofar the divine Jesus belongs, with his human shape, to the Sabean religion, himself is a constellation.
As for the religion itself, it refers to a cult of the skies that disappeared when monotheism becomes the unique religion of men, a cult that was itself very glorious at a specific moment of the antiquity time (very late antiquity as far as the Sapiens are concerned, a sect whose name appears first in the Koran),
But here again, we must make a difference between religion which, after having been Sabean, has become monotheist, with a religion whose purpose is to remain Sabean.
And here is the trick: in the latter, actors, who are constellations, are adoring the Unique God (his name is Elohim, or Yahweh Sabaoth, himself being the god of Time and Zodiac as well as the leader of the celestial army), instead of adoring idols (these ones being expressed, in the Sabean religion, by the Hydra constellation or by the Dragon constellation).
As for those who are adoring idols (as, for example, Terah, the father of Abraham, or those Hebrew/Ibris who were adoring the Golden Calf at the foot of the divine mountain while Moses was receiving the Tables of Law from hands of God), the latter is, in the Sabean religion, constellations as well. Except that these constellations are now adorning the Dragon or the Hydra instead of adoring Yahweh.
Indeed, we can prove, by looking at the astronomical charts, that both Abraham and Moses embodied the Centaur constellation (himself adoring a Unique God who was, at that time, either the god of Time and Zodiac or the Leo constellation.
To summarize, our ancestors had, about God and religion, another conception than ourselves. And because of it, instead of studying the Bible as a book which was pagan at the very beginning, the theologians (and, among them, the Christian theologians) are now studying the Holy Book with the purpose to wipe off the old Sabean religion from all over the earth, in profit of a religion putting the accent on the Unique God of Universe. These theologians do not understand (or have not understood) that this unique god is himself, in the old Sabean religion, the god of the Time as well as the god of the celestial planisphere with its numerous planets and constellations.
Cite this page
This content was submitted by our community members and reviewed by Essayscollector Team. All content on this page is verified and owned by Essayscollector Team. All comments and user reviews are moderated by Essayscollector Team. In the case of any content-related problem, you can reach us through the report button.