|
ADDITION 9
from: The Christ, A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, John E. Remsberg [Remsburg], Prometheus, 1994 ("The Truth Seeker", 1909). [a Classic!]. [See: #23, 481].
"John E. Remsburg (1848-1919) was one of the most popular and widely travelled freethought lecturers of the late nineteenth century. Raised in poverty in small-town Ohio and largely self-educated, Remsburg entered adulthood as one of the youngest soldiers in the Union Army. During the Civil War, he acquitted himself with distinction in the battle of Fort Stevens and received a special certificate of commendation from President Lincoln himself. After the war, he became a school teacher and eventually superintendent of public education in Kansas. By 1880 Remsburg had become a committed freethinker when he published Thomas Paine: The Apostle of Religious and Political Liberty. At this time he also began lecturing on freethought and quickly proved to be a great success. When he retired, twenty years later, he had delivered more than 3,000 lectures and addressed audiences in over 1200 cities and towns in North America. Among Remsburg's other significant books were The Bible and Six Historic Americans." [dust jacket (end)]. The reader who accepts as divine the prevailing religion of
our land may consider this criticism on "The Christ"
irreverent and unjust. And yet for man's true saviors I have
no lack of reverence. For him who lives and labors to uplift
his fellow men I have the deepest reverence and respect, and
at the grave of him who upon the altar of immortal truth has
sacrificed his life I would gladly pay the sincere tribute of
a mourner's tears. It is not against the man Jesus that I
write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology; a being in
whose name an Atlantic of innocent blood has been shed; a
being in whose name the whole black catalogue of crime has
been exhausted; a being in whose name five hundred thousand
priests are now enlisted to keep
Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic
story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the
sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have
existed; but THE JESUS OF BETHLEHEM, THE CHRIST OF
CHRISTIANITY, IS AN IMPOSSIBLE CHARACTER AND DOES NOT EXIST.'
[11].
'These [pages 12-13] and a hundred other miracles make up to a great extent this so-called Gospel History of Christ. To disprove the existence of these miracles is to disprove the existence of this Christ. Canon Farrar makes this frank admission: "If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false. If Christ wrought no miracles, then the Gospels are untrustworthy" (Witness of History to Christ, p. 25). Dean Mansel thus acknowledges the consequences of the successful denial of miracles: "The whole system of Christian belief with its evidences,...all Christianity in short, so far as it has any title to that name, so far as it has any special relation to the person or the teaching of Christ, is overthrown" (Aids to Faith, p. 3). Dr. Westcott [Brooke Foss Westcott 1825 - 1901] says: "The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous" (Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 34).... Christianity arose in what was preeminently a miracle-working age. Everything was attested by miracles, because nearly everybody believed in miracles and demanded them. Every religious teacher was a worker of miracles; and however trifling the miracle might be when wrought, in this atmosphere of unbounded credulity, the breath of exaggeration soon expanded it into marvelous proportions.' [14-15]. 'Alluding to Christ's miracles, M. [apparently, Monsieur]
Renan [Ernest Renan 1823 - 1892], a reverential admirer of
Jesus of Nazareth, says: "Observation...teaches...that
miracles never happen but in times and countries in which they
are believed, and before persons disposed to believe them. No
miracle ever occurred in the presence of men capable of
testing its miraculous character....It is not, then, in the
name of this or that philosophy, but in the name of universal
experience, that we banish miracles from history" (Life of
Jesus, p. 29).' [15].
'With the advancement of knowledge the belief in the
supernatural is disappearing. Those freed from Ignorance, and
her dark sister, Superstition, know that miracles are myths.
In the words of Matthew Arnold [1822 - 1888], "Miracles are
doomed; they will drop out like fairies and witchcraft, from
among the matter which serious people believe" (Literature and
Dogma).' [16].
"Miracles must be dismissed from the domain of fact and
relegated to the realm of fiction. A miracle, I [John E.
Remsburg] repeat, is impossible. Above all THIS CHIEF OF
MIRACLES, THE CHRIST, IS IMPOSSIBLE, AND DOES NOT, AND NEVER
DID, EXIST."
[17] [End of Chapter 1]. [See (miracles): #3, 50-52; etc.]. "The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:
Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains
to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two
forged passages in the works of a Jewish author [Josephus], and two disputed
passages in the works of Roman writers [Tacitus; Pliny the Younger], there is to be
found no mention of Jesus Christ." [18-19].
[from #3, 47, 224.: '..."Has Jewish tradition anything to teach us concerning Jesus?"
This question must be answered in the negative. As far as the contemporaneous
Jewish literature goes, it does not contain a single reference to the founder of
Christianity....'].
[from: #3, 56, 281.: "There is no such thing as a really convincing witness in
profane literature [see 244.]."].
'Josephus
Late in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work,
The Antiquities of the Jews, giving a history of his race from
the earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of
this work contain the following passage:
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it
be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful
works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with
pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many
of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the
suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him
to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not
forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third
day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten
thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe
of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"
(Book XVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).
For nearly sixteen hundred years [since Eusebius c. 264 -
340 (see 22)] Christians have been citing this passage as a
testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to
the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker
forgery was never penned....' [20-21] [continues to page 27].
[See (Josephus): #3, 73-76; etc.].
'To these witnesses [Josephus; Tacitus; Pliny the
Younger] is sometimes, though rarely, added a fourth,
Suetonius, a Roman historian who, like Tacitus and Pliny,
wrote in the second century. In his Life of Nero, Suetonius
says: "The Christians, a race of men of a new and villainous
superstition, were punished." In his Life of Claudius, he
says. "He [Claudius [Roman Emperor 41 - 54 C.E.]] drove the
Jews, who at the instigation of Chrestus were constantly
rioting, out of Rome." Of course no candid Christian will
contend that Christ was inciting Jewish riots at Rome fifteen
years after he was crucified [dates vary from 29 - 35 C.E.
(see 212-214)] at Jerusalem.' [32].
We have seen that THE FOUR GOSPELS are not authentic, that they are anonymous writings which APPEARED LATE IN THE SECOND CENTURY [see #25, 550]. If their contents seemed credible and their statements harmonized with each other this want of authenticity would invalidate their authority, because the testimony of an unknown witness cannot be accepted as authoritative. On the other hand, if their authenticity could be established, if it could be shown that they were written by the authors claimed, the incredible and contradictory character of their contents would destroy their authority. As historical documents these books are hardly worthy of
credit. The Arabian Nights is almost as worthy of credit as
the Four Gospels. In both are to be found accounts of things
possible and of things impossible. To believe the impossible
is gross superstition; to believe the possible, simply because
it is possible, is blind credulity. These books are adduced
as the credentials of Christ. A critical analysis of these
credentials reveals hundreds of errors. A presentation of
these errors will occupy the five succeeding chapters of this
work. If it can be shown that they contain errors, however
trivial some of them may appear, this refutes the claim of
inerrancy and divinity. If it can be shown that they abound
with errors, this destroys their credibility as historical
documents. Destroy the credibility of the Four Gospels and
you destroy all proofs of Christ's divinity--all proofs of his
existence." [44].
'1
When was Jesus born? Matthew: "In the days of Herod" (ii, 1). Luke: "When Cyrenius was governor of Syria" (ii, 1-7). Nearly every biographer gives the date of his subject's birth. Yet not one of the Evangelists gives the date of Jesus' birth. Two, Matthew and Luke, attempt to give the time approximately. But between these two attempts there is a discrepancy of at least ten years; for Herod died 4 B.C., while Cyrenius did not become governor of Syria until 7 A.D. .... At least ten different opinions regarding the year of Christ's birth have been advanced by Christian scholars. Dodwell places it in 6 B.C., Chrysostom 5 B.C., Usher, whose opinion is mostly commonly received, 4 B.C., Irenaeus 3 B.C., Jerome 2 B.C., Tertullian 1 B.C. Some modern authorities place it in 1 A.D., others in 2 A.D., and still others in 3 A.D.; while those who accept Luke as infallible authority must place it as late as 7 A.D.' [45-46]. [See: #9, 224-225]. "3
In what month and on what day of the month was he [Jesus] born? Not one of his biographers is prepared to tell; primitive
Christians did not know; the church has never been able to
determine this. A hundred different opinions regarding it
have been expressed by Christian scholars. Wagenseil places
it in February, Paulius in March, Greswell in April,
Lichtenstein in June, Strong in August, Lightfoot in
September, and Newcome in October. Clinton says that he was
born in the spring; Larchur says that he was born in the fall.
Some early Christians believed that it occurred on the 5th of
January; others the 19th of April; others still on the 20th of
May. The Eastern church believed that he was born on the 7th
of January. The church of Rome, in the fourth century,
selected the 25th of December on which to celebrate the
anniversary of his birth; and this date has been accepted by
the greater portion of the Christian world." [47]. [See:
#9, 224-225].
'4
What determined the selection of this [when "Jesus was born"] date? "There was a double reason for selecting this day. In the first place it had been observed from a hoary antiquity as a heathen festival, following the longest night of the winter solstice, and was called "the Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun." It was a fine thought to celebrate on that day the birth of him whom the Gospel called "the light of the world." ...The second reason was, that at Rome the days from the 17th to the 23rd of December were devoted to unbridled merrymaking. These days were called the Saturnalia....Now the church was always anxious to meet the heathen, whom she had converted or was beginning to convert, half-way, by allowing them to retain the feasts they were accustomed to, only giving them a Christian dress, or attaching a new and Christian signification to them" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, pp. 66, 67). Gibbon [Edward Gibbon 1737 - 1794] says: "The Roman Christians, ignorant of the real time of the birth of Jesus, fixed the solemn festival on the 25th of December, the winter solstice when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of the sun."' [48]. [See: #13, 263-328]. '6
Where was Jesus born? Matthew and Luke: In Bethlehem of Judea (Matt. ii, 1; Luke ii, 1-7). Aside from these stories in Matthew and Luke concerning the nativity, which are clearly of later origin than the remaining documents composing the books and which many Christian scholars reject, there is not a word in the Four Gospels to confirm the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Every statement in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as Acts, concerning his nativity, is to the effect that he was born in Nazareth of Galilee. He is never called "Jesus of Bethlehem," but always "Jesus of Nazareth." According to modern usage "Jesus of Nazareth" might merely signify that Nazareth was the place of his residence and not necessarily the place of his birth. But this usage was unknown to the Jews. Had he been born at Bethlehem, he would, according to the Jewish custom, have been called "Jesus of Bethlehem," because the place of birth always determined this distinguishing adjunct, and the fact of his having removed to another place would not have changed it. Peter (Acts ii, 22; iii, 6) Paul (Acts xxvi, 9), Philip (John i, 45), Cleopas and his companion (Luke xxiv, 19), Pilate (John xix, 19), Judas and the band sent to arrest Jesus (John xviii, 5, 7), the High Priest's maid (Mark xiv, 67), blind Bartimaeus (Mark x, 47), the unclean spirits (Mark i, 24; Luke iv, 34), the multitudes that attended his meetings (Matt. xxi, 11; Luke xviii, 37), all declared him to be a native of Nazareth. To the foregoing may be added the testimony of Jesus himself. When Paul asked him who he was he answered: "I am Jesus of Nazareth" (Acts xxii, 8).' [49-50].
'That Jesus the man, if such a being existed, was not born at Bethlehem is affirmed by all critics. That he could not have been born at Nazareth is urged by many. Nazareth, it is asserted, did not exist at this time. Christian scholars admit that there is no proof of its existence at the beginning of the Christian era outside of the New Testament. The Encyclopedia [Encyclopaedia] Biblica, a leading Christian authority, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city called Nazareth in Jesus' time."' [50]. [See (Nazareth): #20, 405].
'593
Who were his [Jesus] apostles?
"A dozen knaves, as ignorant as owls and as poor as
church mice."--Voltaire.
"Palestine was one of the most backward of countries; the
Galileans were the most ignorant of the inhabitants of
Palestine; and the disciples might be counted among the most
simple people of Galilee."--Renan.
"His followers were 'unlearned and ignorant men,' chosen
from the humblest of the people."--Farrar.' [316].
[See (apostles): #15, 338]. The conceptions regarding the nature and character of Christ,
and the value of the Christian Scriptures as historical
evidence, are many, chief of which are the following:
1. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth. 2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan, and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life. 3. Many radical [?] Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit. 4. Other Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth--that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity. The first of these conceptions must be rejected because
the existence of such a being is impossible, and because the
Bible narratives which support it are incredible. The second
cannot be accepted because, outside of these incredible
narratives, there is no evidence to confirm it. One of the
two last [3., or 4.] is the only true and rational conception
of the Christ." [327].
"Count Volney's [1757 - 1820] portraiture [preceding, pages 331-333] of the second member [Jesus] of the Christian godhead is, for the most part, accurate. Numerous other analogies between him and the ancient sun gods might be named. It is the belief of many, however, that these solar attributes of Christ are later accretions borrowed by the Roman Catholic church from the pagan religions which it supplanted. [?] While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the
New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and
perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this
myth. Some believe that he [Jesus] is a historical myth;
others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a
real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent
generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man
Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the
human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and
arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while
refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding
either, is compelled to accept the former as the more
probable." [333].
[Note: the last sentence, is also the sentiment of Joseph McCabe 1867 - 1955]. [See (Xenophanes 6th century B.C.E.): 864-865].
CHRIST AND THE RELIGION HE IS SAID TO HAVE FOUNDED ARE COMPOSITE PRODUCTS, made up, to a great extent, of the attributes, the doctrines, and the customs of the gods and the religions which preceded them and existed around them.... To undertand the origin and nature of Christ and
Christianity it is necessary to know something of the
religious systems and doctrines from which they were evolved.
The following, some in a large and others in but a small
degree, contributed to mold this SUPPOSED divine incarnation
and inspire this SUPPOSED revelation: Nature or Sex Worship.
Solar Worship. Astral Worship. Worship of the Elements and
Forces of Nature. Worship of Animals and Plants. Fetichism.
Polytheism. Monotheism. The Mediatorial Idea. The Messianic
Idea. The Logos. The Perfect Man." [344].
[See (conglomerate; composite; amalgam; etc.): #3, 85, 46].
[See: #12, 262].
'Solar Worship
Scarcely less prevalent than sex worship was the worship of
the sun. While sex worship was confined chiefly to the
generation of human life, sun worship comprehended the
generation of all life. The sun was recognized as the
generative power of the universe. He overshadows the
receptive earth from whom all life is born. I quote from M.
Soury [Jules Soury 1842 - 1906]:
"Amid all these forces, the mightiest is, without contradiction, the sun, the fire of heaven, father of earthy fire, unique and supreme cause of motion and life on our planet. There is no need or reason to understand that the very life, and as it were the blood of our celestial father flows in the veins of the Earth, our mother. In the time of love, when the luminous heaven embraces her, from her fertilized womb springs forth a world. It is she who quivers on the plains where the soft moist air waves gently on the grasses; it is she who climbs in the bush, who soars in the oak, who fills the solitude with the joyous twitter of birds beneath the cloudlet, or from the leaf-lined nests; it is she who in seas and in rurrning [running] waters, or mountains and in woods, couples the gorgeous male with the ardent female, throbs in every bosom, loves in every life. But all this terrestrial life, all this warmth and all this light are but effluents from the sun." (Religion of Israel, pp. 3, 4.)' [342]. "The Perfect Man
The New Testament contains at least five different mythical types or conceptions of Jesus Christ: 1. The Messiah of the synoptics, omitting the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke. 2. The Son of God, or demi-god, introduced in these opening chapters. 3. The incarnate Logos or God of John. 4. The Christ of Paul. 5. Eliminating these more or less supernatural types, there remains in these writings, in addition to the purely natural and purely human Jesus of Nazareth, a type known as the Ideal or Perfect Man. This type is not only mythical, but, in the stricter sense, supernatural and superhuman; for the perfect man must always remain an ideal rather than a real type of man....The portrayal of the vicarious suffering and death of this [Fictional] man [Jesus] has been one of the most powerful agents in the propagation of Christianity." [365]. [See: #21, 413 (Sandmel)]. 'The molders of primitive Christianity were greatly
influenced by various philosophical speculations--by the
teachings of Pythagoras and Plato among the earlier, and by
the writings of Philo and Seneca among the later philosophers.
To Philo, we have seen, they were indebted largely for the
Logos; to Seneca they were indebted chiefly for the Ideal or
Perfect Man. The following extracts are from The Christ Myth
[see #15, 336-343] of Mrs. Evans:
"Seneca advises the cherishing of a hope that victory in the form of a wise man will finally appear, because humanity requires that the exemplification of perfection should be visible." "Seneca's conception of perfect humanity was a combination of the wise man of the Platonists and Stoics and the gentle sufferer who endures insult and sorrow." "The Logos of Philo was too ethereal to answer all the demands of feeble humanity. The Godman must live and suffer and die among and for the people in order to make the sacrifice complete." "Philo endowed the Logos of Heraclitus [fl. 500 B.C.E.]
with the authority of a priestly mediator, who, floating
between earth and heaven, brings God and man together; Seneca
places this mediator as a suffering man among men. Philo,
from his Jewish standpoint, made the Logos the priestly
intercessor; Seneca, from the standpoint of his Stoical
society, believed in the possibility of a perfect man as
savior and guide of weaker men."' [365-366].
'Cognizant of the striking resemblance between some of
the writings of the New Testament and the writings of the
Stoics, particularly of Seneca, modern Christian apologists
affect to believe that this philosopher was acquainted with
the history and the gospel of Christ. But the Stoical
philosophy propounded by Seneca had been forming ever since
the time of Zeno, three centuries before the time of Christ.
Seneca [Seneca the Younger 4 B.C.E.? - 65 C.E.] himself was
born before the Christian era, and no part of the New
Testament was in existence when he wrote. Relative to this
contention Lecky [William Edward Hartpole Lecky 1838 - 1903]
writes: "It is admitted that the greatest moralists of the
Roman empire either never mentioned Christianity, or mentioned
it with contempt....The Jews, with whom the Christians were
then identified, he (Seneca) emphatically describes as 'an
accursed race.'" (European Morals, Vol. 1 pp. 340, 342).
During the second and third centuries Christian scholars
ransacked pagan literature for recognitions of Christ and
Christianity. Regarding this, Lecky says: "At the time, when
the passion for discovering these connections was most
extravagant, the notion of Seneca and his followers being
inspired by the Christians was unknown" (ibid., p. 346).
Gibbon says: "The new sect [Christians] is totally unnoticed
by Seneca" (Rome, Vol. I, 587, note).
Out of all these various religious systems and
doctrines--out of sex worship and sun worship--out of the
worship of the stars and the worship of the elements--out of
the worship of animals and the worship of idols--out of
Polytheism and Monotheism--out of the Mediatorial and Messianic
ideas--out of the Logos and the Ideal Man of the
philosophers--this Christ has come.' [366] [End of Chapter
10].
[See (conglomerate; composite; amalgam; etc.): #3, 85, 46]. [See: #12, 262].
"The noted Assyriologist, George Smith [1840 - 1876], of
the British Museum, who discovered the tablets containing
these fragments of the Babylonian epic [of Gilgamesh], says
that the original text of these legends cannot be later than
the 17th century B.C., and may be much earlier, thus
antedating the oldest books of the Bible nearly 1,000 years.
From these and other Babylonian and Persian legends the most
of the Old Testament legends were borrowed. This fact
disproves the existence of the orthodox Christ. If the
accounts of the creation, the fall of man, and the Noachian
deluge, as given in the Bible, are not authentic, but merely
BORROWED [APPROPRIATED] FABLES, then there remains no
foundation for an atoning Savior." [384].
[See (Cyrus Gordon): #7, 182-188; etc.].
'In the words of Jules Soury [1842 - 1906 ("French
psychologist") ("studied Hebrew under Renan") (Joseph McCabe,
A Rationalist Encyclopaedia)],
"Time, which condenses nebulae, lights up suns, brings life
and thought upon planets theretofore steeped in death, and
gives back ephemeral worlds to dissolution and the fertile
chaos of the everlasting universe--TIME KNOWS NOUGHT OF GODS
NOR OF THE DIM AND FALLACIOUS HOPES OF IGNORANT MORTALS."
With these sublime pictures--a retrospect and a
prophecy--from the gallery of the great master [Robert
Ingersoll 1833 - 1899], I close this long-drawn subject:
"When India is supreme, Brahma sits upon the world's throne. When the sceptre passes to Egypt, Isis and Osiris receive the homage of mankind. Greece, with her fierce valor, sweeps to empire, and Zeus puts on the purple of authority. The earth trembles with the trend of Rome's intrepid sons, and Jove grasps with mailed hand the thunderbolts of Heaven. Rome falls, and Christians, from her territory, with the red sword of war [see: Imperialism], carve out the ruling nations of the world, and now Christ sits upon the old throne. Who will be his successor?" "I look again. The popes and priests are gone. The altars and the thrones have mingled with the dust. The aristocracy of land and cloud have perished from the earth and air. The gods are dead. A new religion sheds its glory on mankind. And as I look Life lengthens, Joy deepens, Love intensifies, Fear dies--Liberty at last is God, and Heaven is here."' [418-419] [End of text].  |