Everything written below comes from the solar-mythology website. You are more than welcome to look into yourself. None of the writing is my own. I am merely sharing information I have found to be of great importance. I understand how this can be alot to take in, which is why I am doing this in parts and once per week as is.

Incase you missed the previous publishings
Solar Myth Index
#1 Introduction to Solar Mythologyand the Jesus Story
JESUS NEVER EXISTED INDEX:
#2 Deley (2003) Evidence that Jesus never existed
#3 Edward Gibbon (1776) Irked by Silence of the Contemporaries
#4 Robert Taylor (1829) Demonstration That No Such Person As Jesus Christ Ever Existed
#5 Kersey Graves 1875: All history ignores him.

Welcome.

Feel free to speak about whatever you like in the comments.

Online Legal Research:
Your opponent will cite legal authorities. You must do the same ... if you want to win. Learn how ... or lose. JurisDictionary® shows how.
You won't need a lawyer.

ODYSEE Decentralized Video Platform

FREE BTC

No KYC required method to buy BLURT:
First get ionomy account
Fund your Ionomy wallet with StealthX there is a minimum amount, about 30usd or 500mxn for btc buys. 50usd/750mxn for ltc be sure addresses are correct.

Then buy blurt at Ionomy. It's that simple. Exit the same in reverse.

The argument that Jesus never existed is so trivial it’s relegated to Appendix D of the 1882 book "Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions" by T.W. Doane. Here it is:

APPENDIX D.

by T.W. Doane (1882)

We maintain that not so much as one single passage purporting to be written, as history, within the first hundred years of the Christian era, can be produced to show the existence at or before that time of such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ, or of such a set of men as could be accounted his disciples or followers.A Those who would be likely to refer to Jesus or his disciples, but who have not done so, wrote about:B

Josephus

Out of this number it has been claimed that one (Josephus) spoke of Jesus, and another (Tacitus) of the Christians. Of the former it is almost needless to speak, as that has been given up by Christian divines many years ago. However, for the sake of those who still cling to it we shall state the following:

Dr. Lardner, who wrote about A. D. 1760, says:C

1. It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.
2. Josephus has nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works, except the testimony above mentioned,3 and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.4
3. It interrupts the narrative.
4. The language is quite Christian.
5. It is not quoted by Chrysostom,5 though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it, had it been then, in the text.
6. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.
7. Under the article Justus of Tiberius, this author (Photius) expressly states that this historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.
8. Neither Justin, in his dialogue with Typho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have even mentioned this testimony.
9. But, on the contrary, Origen openly affirms (ch. xxiv., bk. i, against Celsus), that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ.6

In the "Bible for Learners," we read as follows:

"Flavius Josephus, the well-known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A. D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of that times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not seem to have ever mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his 'Jewish Antiquities' that refers to him is certainly spurious, and was inserted by a later and a Christian hand.

The Talmud compresses the history of Jesus into a single sentence, and later Jewish writers concoct mere slanderous anecdotes. The ecclesiastical fathers mention a few sayings or events, the knowledge of which they drew from oral tradition or from writings that have since been lost. The Latin and Greek historians just mention his name. Thin meager harvest is all we reap from sources outside the Gospels."7

Canon Farrar, who finds himself compelled to admit that this passage in Josephus is an interpolation, consoles himself by saying:

"The single passage in which he (Josephus) alludes to Him (Christ) is interpolated, if not wholly spurious, and no one can doubt that his silence on the subject of Christianity was as deliberate as it was dishonest."8

The Rev. Dr. Giles, after commenting on this subject, concludes by saying:

"Eusebius is the first who quotes the passage, and our reliance on the judgment, or even the honesty, of this writer is not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine."9

Eusebius, then, is the first person who refers to these passages.10 Eusebius, "whose honesty is not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine." Eusebius, who says that it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ.11 This Eusebius is the sheet-anchor of reliance for most we know of the first three centuries of the Christian history. What then must we think of the history of the first three centuries of the Christian era?

• For more on the Testimonium Flavianum see
  https://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Tacitus

The celebrated passage in Tacitus which Christian divines—and even some liberal writers—attempt to support, is to be found in his Annals. In this work he is made to speak of Christians, who "had their denomination from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate."

In answer to this we have the following:D

1. This passage, which would have served the purpose of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers.
2. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus.
3. And though his argument immediately called for the use of this quotation with so loud a voice (Apol. ch. v.), that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounts to a violent improbability.
4. This Father has spoken of Tacitus in a way that it is absolutely impossible that he should have spoken of him, had his writings contained such a passage.
5. It is not quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, who set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which Pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.
6. It has been nowhere stumbled upon by the laborious and all-seeking Eusebius, who could by no possibility have overlooked it, and whom it would have saved from the labor of forging the passage in Josephus; of adducing the correspondence of Christ Jesus and Abgarus, and the Sibylline verses; of forging a divine revelation from the god Apollo, in attestation of Christ Jesus' ascension into heaven; and innumerable other of his pious and holy cheats.
7. Tacitus has in no other part of his writings made the least allusion to "Christ" or "Christians.
8. "The use of this passage as part of the evidences of the Christian religion, is absolutely modern.
9. There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century.12
10. No reference whatever is made to this passage by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before that time,13 which, to say the least, is very singular, considering that after that time it is quoted, or referred to, in an endless list of works, which by itself is all but conclusive that it was not in existence till the fifteenth century, which was an age of imposture and of credulity so immoderate that people were easily imposed upon, believing, as they did, without sufficient evidence, whatever was foisted upon them.
11. The interpolator of the passage makes Tacitus speak of "Christ," not of Jesus the Christ, showing that—like the passage in Josephus—it is, comparatively, a modern interpolation, for
12. The word "Christ" is not a name, but a title;14 it being simply the Greek for the Hebrew word "Messiah." Therefore,
13. When Tacitus is made to speak of Jesus as "Christ," it is equivalent to my speaking of Tacitus as "Historian," or George Washington as "General," or of any individual as "Mister," without adding a name by which either could be distinguished. And therefore,
14. It has no sense or meaning as he is said to have used it.
15. Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians had their denomination from Christ, which would apply to any other of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, as well as to Christ Jesus. And
16. "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" (Acts xi. 26), not because they were followers of a certain Jesus who claimed to be the Christ, but because "Christian" or "Chrēstian," was a name applied, at that time, to any good man.15 And,
17. The worshipers of the Sun-god, Serapis, were also called "Christians," and his disciples "Bishops of Christ."16

So much, then, for the celebrated passage in Tacitus.

FOOTNOTES:

1. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: "Great is our disappointment at finding nothing in the works of Philo about the Christians, their doctrines, or their sacred books. About the books indeed we need not expect any notice of these works, but about the Christians and their doctrines his silence is more remarkable, seeing that he was about sixty years old at the time of the crucifixion, and living mostly in Alexandria, so closely connected with Judea, and the Jews, could hardly have failed to know something of the wonderful events that had taken place in the city of Jerusalem." (Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. ii, p 61.)

The Rev. Dr. assumes that these "wonderful events" really took place, but, if they did not take place, of course Philo's silence on the subject is accounted for.

1. Both these philosophers were living, and must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest information of the existence of Christ Jesus, had such a person as the Gospels make him out to be ever existed. Their ignorance or their willful silence on the subject, is not less than improbable.

[Additional Note by Deley]
This footnote comes from a footnote in the 1829 book DIEGESIS: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity by Robert Taylor, pg. 412. The text is:

“Both those philosophers were living, and must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest information of the existence of Jesus Christ, had such a person ever existed; their ignorance or their wilful silence on the subject, is not less than outrageously improbable. Whatever might be their dispositions with respect to the doctrines of Jesus; the miraculous darkness which is said to have accompanied his crucifixion, was a species of evidence that must have forced itself upon their senses. ‘Each of these philosophers in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect; neither of them have mentioned, or even alluded, to the miraculous darkness at the crucifixion’—Gibbon. Alas! the Christian is constrained to own that omnipotence itself, is not-omnipotent.”

1. Antiquities, bk. xviii. ch. iii. 3.

2. Ibid. bk. xx. ch. ix. 1.

3. John, Bishop of Constantinople, who died A.D. 407, was called St. Chrysostom, or Golden-mouthed, from the charms of his eloquence—the author of the last prayer in our Liturgy.

[Additional Note by Deley]
This footnote is also from the 1829 book DIEGESIS: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity by Robert Taylor, pg. 388.

1. Lardner: vol. vi. ch. iii.

2. Bible for Learners. vol. III. p. 27.

3. Life of Christ, vol. I. p. 63.

4. Hebrew and christ. Rec. vol. II. p. 62.

5. In his Eccl. Hist. lib. 2. ch. xii.

6. Ch. 51. bk. xii of Eusebius Prae paratio Evengelica is entitled, "How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived;" and he closes his work with these words: "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion."

1. The original MSS. containing the "Annals of Tacitus" were "discovered" in the fifteenth century. Their existence cannot be traced back further than that time. And as it was an age of imposture, some persons are disposed to believe that not only portions of the Annals, but the whole work, was forged at that time. Mr. J. W. Ross, in an elaborate work published in London some years ago, contended that the Annals were forged by Poggio Bracciolini, their professed discoverer. At the time of Bracciolini the temptation was great to palm off literary forgeries, especially of the chief writers of antiquity, on account of the Popes, in their efforts to revive learning, giving money rewards and indulgences to those who should procure MS. copies of any of the ancient Greek or Roman authors. Manuscripts turned up as if by magic, in every direction; from libraries of monasteries, obscure as well as famous; the most out-of-the-way places,—the bottom of exhausted wells, besmeared by snails, as the History of Velleius Paterculus, or from garrets, where they had been contending with cobwebs and dust, as the poems of Catullus.

[Additional Note by Deley]
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Humanism," (1910) says, "In another way the soul of literary research was Poggio (1380-1459), a papal secretary and later Florentine chancellor. During the sessions of the Council of Constance (1414-18) he ransacked the monasteries and institutions of the neighbourhood, made valuable discoveries, and 'saved many works' from the 'cells' (ergastula). He found and transcribed Quintilian with his own hand, had the first copies made of Lucretius, Silius Italicus, and Ammianus Marcellinus, and, probably, he discovered the first books of the 'Annals' of Tacitus."

1. A portion of the passage—that relating to the manner in which the Christians were put to death—is found in the Historia Sacraof Sulpicins Severus, a Christian Father, who died A. D. 420; but it is evident that this writer did not take it from the Annals. On the contrary, the passage was taken—as Mr. Ross shows—from the Historia Sacra, and bears traces of having been so appropriated. (See Tacitus & Bracciolini, the Annals forged in XVth century, by J. W. Ross.)

1. "Christ is a name having no spiritual signification, and importing nothing more than an ordinary surname." (Dr. Giles: Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. ii. p. 64.)

"The name of Jesus, and Christ was both known and honored among the ancients." Eusebius: Eccl. Hist., lib. 1. ch. iv.)

The name Jesus is of Hebrew origin, and signifies Deliverer, and Savior. It is the same as that translated in the Old Testament Joshua. The word Christ, of Greek origin, is properly not a name but a title signifying The Anointed. The whole name is therefore, Jesus the Anointed or Jesus the Messiah." (Abbott and Conant; Dic. of Relig. Knowledge, art. "Jesus Christ")

In the oldest Gospel extant, that attributed to Matthew, we read that Jesus said unto his disciples, "Whom say ye that I am?" whereupon Simon Peter answers and says: "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. . . . Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." (Matt. xvi. 15-20.)

This clearly shows that "the Christ" was simply a title applied to the man Jesus, therefore, if a title, it cannot be a name. All passages in the New Testament which speak of Christ as a name, betray their modern date.

1. "This name (Christian) occurs but three times in the New Testament, and is never used by Christians of themselves, only as spoken by or coming from those without the church. The general names by which the early Christians called themselves were 'brethren,' 'disciples,' 'believers,' and 'saints.' The presumption is that the name Christian was originated by the Heathen." (Abbott and Conant: Dic. of Relig. Knowledge, art. "Christian.")

"We are called Christians (not, we call ourselves Christians). So, then, we are the best of men (Christians), and it can never be just to hate what is (Chrēst) good and kind:" (or, "therefore to hate what is Christian is unjust."] (Justin Martyr: Apol. 1. c. iv.)

"Some of the ancient writers of the Church have not scrupled expressly to call the Athenian Socrates, and some others of the best of the heathen moralists, by the name of Christians." (Clark: Evidences of Revealed Relig., p. 284. Quoted in Ibid. p. 41.)

"Those who lived according to the Logos, (i.e., the Piatonists), were really Christians, (Clemens Alexandrinus, in Ibid.)

Undoubtedly we are called Christians, for this reason, and none other, than because we are anointed with the oil of God." (Theophilus of Antioch, in Ibid. p. 399.)

Christ is the Sovereign Reason of whom the whole human race participates. All those who have lived conformably to a right reason, have been Christians, notwithstanding that they have always been looked upon as Atheists." (Justin Martyr: Apol. 1. c. xivi.)

Lucian makes a person called Triephon answer the question, whether the affairs of the Christians were recorded in heaven. "All nations are there recorded, since Chrēstus exists even among the Gentiles."

1. "Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ. (The Emperor Adrian to Servianus, written A.D. 134. Quoted by Dr. Giles, vol. ii. P. 86.)

Note.—Tacitus says—according to the passage attributed to him—that "those who confessed [to be Christians] were first seized, an then on their evidence a huge multitude (Ingens Multitudo) were convicted, not so much on the charge of incendiarism as for their hatred to mankind." Although M. Renan may say (Hibbert Lectures, p. 70) that the authenticity of this passage "cannot be disputed," yet the absurdity of "a huge multitude" of Christians being in Rome, in the days of Nero. A. D. 64—about thirty years after the time assigned for the crucifixion of Jesus—has not escaped the eye of thoughtful scholars. Gibbon—who saw how ridiculous the statement is—attempts to reconcile it with common sense by supposing that Tacitus knew so little about the Christians that he confounded them with the Jews, and that the hatred universally felt for the latter fell upon the former. In this way he believes Tacitus gets his "huge multitude," as the Jews established themselves in Rome as early as 60 years B. C., where they multiplied rapidly, living together in the Traslevere—the most abject portion of the city where all kinds of rubbish was put to rot—where they became "old clothes" men, the porters and hucksters, bartering tapers for broken glass, hated by the mass and pitied by the few. Other scholars, among whom may be mentioned Schwegler (Nachap Zest., ii. 229); Köstlin (Johann-Lehrbegr., 472); and Baur (First Three Centuries, i. 133): also being struck with the absurdity of the statement made by some of the early Christian writers concerning the wholesale prosecution of Christians, said to have happened at that time, suppose it must have taken place during the persecution of Trajan, A. D. 101. It is strange we hear of no Jewish martyrdoms or Jewish persecutions till we come to the times of the Jewish war, and then chiefly in Palestine! But fables must be made realities, so we have the ridiculous story of a "huge multitude" of Christians being put to death in Rome, in A. D. 64, evidently for the purpose of bringing Peter there, making him the first Pope, and having him crucified head downwards. This absurd story is made more evident when we find that it was not until about A. D. 50—only 14 years before the alleged persecution—that the first Christians—a mere handful—entered the capitol of the Empire. (See Renan's Hibbert Lectures, p. 55) They were a poor dirty set, without manners, clad in filthy gaberdines, and smelling strong of garlic. From these, then, with others who came from Syria, we get our "huge multitude" in the space of 14 years. The statement attributed to Tacitus is, however, outdone by Orosius, who asserts that the persecution extended "through all the provinces." (Orosius, ii. 11.) That it was a very easy matter for some Christian writer to interpolate or alter a passage in the Annals of Tacitus may be seen from the fact that the ms. was not known to the world before the 15th century, and from information which is to be derived from reading Dailie On the Right Use of the Fathers, who shows that they were accustomed to doing such business, and that these writings are, to a large extent, unreliable.

[Additional Notes by Deley]
Much of the above comes from the 1829 book DIEGESIS: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity by Robert Taylor.
A. DIEGESIS, pg. 392.
B. DIEGESIS, pg. 412.
C. DIEGESIS, pg. 388.
D. DIEGESIS, pg. 395.

Above from Appendix D. of the 1882 book Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions by T.W. Doane.

"The famous passage which we find in Josephus, about Jesus Christ, was never mentioned nor alluded to in any way whatever by any of the fathers of the first, second, or third centuries; nor until the time of Eusebius, ‘when it was first quoted by himself.’ The truth is, none of these fathers could quote or allude to a passage which did not exist in their times; but was to all points short of absolute certainty, forged and interpolated by Eusebius."
—Mitchell Logan Christian Mythology Unveiled pg 79. (1842)

Next on Solar Mythology #7: 2 John (90 A.D.) Even in Biblical Times People Asserted Christ Never Existed

---

_{Posted from https://blurtlatam.intinte.org}