• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

Status
Not open for further replies.
pakeha said:
Hi, Anders.
How do you think that video ties into this thread?
Click to expand...

It describes how Jesus never existed other than as a story for political and power purposes. It seemed fairly credible to me. And it's similar to the OP book reference:

"Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All

... NAILED sheds light on ten beloved Christian myths, and, with evidence gathered from historians across the theological spectrum, shows how they point to a Jesus Christ created solely through allegorical alchemy of hope and imagination; a messiah transformed from a purely literary, theological construct into the familiar figure of Jesus - in short, a purely mythic Christ." -- http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911
 
Anders Lindman said:
It describes how Jesus never existed other than as a story for political and power purposes. It seemed fairly credible to me. And it's similar to the OP book reference:

"Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All

... NAILED sheds light on ten beloved Christian myths, and, with evidence gathered from historians across the theological spectrum, shows how they point to a Jesus Christ created solely through allegorical alchemy of hope and imagination; a messiah transformed from a purely literary, theological construct into the familiar figure of Jesus - in short, a purely mythic Christ." -- http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911
Click to expand...

There was a thread about this movie last year when it was first released.

Short answer: It's crap, just like the book in the OP.
 
I'm starting to believe that Jesus is a only a fictitious character. And that Christianity is a massive population control meme. And it's a meme that has become immensely ingrained deep into the social and psychological structure of the western world. The meme has taken on a collective life on its own, and when people claim that they have a real and personal relationship with Jesus Christ, then that's not far from the truth.
 
Anders Lindman said:
It describes how Jesus never existed other than as a story for political and power purposes. It seemed fairly credible to me. And it's similar to the OP book reference:

"Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All

... NAILED sheds light on ten beloved Christian myths, and, with evidence gathered from historians across the theological spectrum, shows how they point to a Jesus Christ created solely through allegorical alchemy of hope and imagination; a messiah transformed from a purely literary, theological construct into the familiar figure of Jesus - in short, a purely mythic Christ." -- http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911
Click to expand...

Your post inspired me to take a look at the ten Christian myths of the opening post again:

The ten myths are :
  • Myth 1 - The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous
  • Myth 2 - Jesus was wildly famous - but ...
  • Myth 3 - Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus
  • Myth 4 - Eye-witnesses wrote the Gospels
  • Myth 5 - The Gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus
  • Myth 6 - History confirms the Gospels
  • Myth 7 - Archeology confirms the Gospels
  • Myth 8 - Paul and the epistles corroborate the Gospels
  • Myth 9 - Christianity began with Jesus and his apostles
  • Myth 10 - Christianity was totally new and different
My main objection to this list is that most of the points are widely believed to be true completely or in part by secular people who believe it is more likely than not that an HJ existed. In other words, I think the list is almost completely a strawman argument against the views of many informed secular people who think that an HJ existed.


Myth 1 -The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous
In the years I have participated in these kind of threads there have been at most three reasonably active participants in these threads that believe this, with Piggy being the main proponent of the idea. Far and away the dominant opinion with regards to this is that it is unknowable whether an HJ existed and the available evidence does not support a conclusion that a belief in the non existence of an HJ is ridiculous.

Myth 2 - Jesus was wildly famous
I don't think any of the proponents of an HJ think this is likely. Most think it is impossible, although Eisenman's ideas about an HJ allow, I think, for a well known HJ at the time of his life. Eisenman's ideas on this are fringe and have found only one partial advocate in these threads.

Myth 3 - Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus
The default view is nobody knows for sure, although people that believe the existence of an HJ is more likely than not usually don't reject the James reference. I doubt that either the TF or the James reference are valid but I think it is still a reasonable possibility that an HJ existed. My guess is that the consensus in these threads even amongst the HJ proponents is that the TF does not contain a valid reference to the HJ. I think it's a real stretch to call this a myth at any rate since it is not provable that the Josephus Jesus references are not valid.

Myth 4 - Eye-witnesses wrote the Gospels
No secular individual that has participated in these threads believes that.

Myth 5 - The Gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus
No secular individual that has participated in these threads believes that.

Myth 6 - History confirms the Gospels
No secular individual that has participated in these threads believes that.

Myth 7 - Archeology confirms the Gospels
No secular individual that has participated in these threads believes that.

Myth 8 - Paul and the epistles corroborate the Gospels
No secular individual that has participated in these threads believes that.

Myth 9 - Christianity began with Jesus and his apostles
That's roughly what the discussion is about. Calling it a myth doesn't make it not so.

Myth 10 - Christianity was totally new and different
This is too ambiguous to understand exactly what is meant but I am a proponent of the idea that the groups that gentile Christianity arose out of preceded the HJ. But regardless of whether it is true or not an HJ could have existed.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
Your post inspired me to take a look at the ten Christian myths of the opening post again:

The ten myths are :
  • Myth 1 - The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous
  • Myth 2 - Jesus was wildly famous - but ...
  • Myth 3 - Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus
  • Myth 4 - Eye-witnesses wrote the Gospels
  • Myth 5 - The Gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus
  • Myth 6 - History confirms the Gospels
  • Myth 7 - Archeology confirms the Gospels
  • Myth 8 - Paul and the epistles corroborate the Gospels
  • Myth 9 - Christianity began with Jesus and his apostles
  • Myth 10 - Christianity was totally new and different
My main objection to this list is that most of the points are widely believed to be true completely or in part by secular people who believe it is more likely than not that an HJ existed. In other words, I think the list is almost completely a strawman argument against the views of many informed secular people who think that an HJ existed.


Myth 1 -The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous
In the years I have participated in these kind of threads there have been at most three reasonably active participants in these threads that believe this, with Piggy being the main proponent of the idea. Far and away the dominant opinion with regards to this is that it is unknowable whether an HJ existed and the available evidence does not support a conclusion that a belief in the non existence of an HJ is ridiculous.

Myth 2 - Jesus was wildly famous
I don't think any of the proponents of an HJ think this is likely. Most think it is impossible, although Eisenman's ideas about an HJ allow, I think, for a well known HJ at the time of his life. Eisenman's ideas on this are fringe and have found only one partial advocate in these threads.

Myth 3 - Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus
The default view is nobody knows for sure, although people that believe the existence of an HJ is more likely than not usually don't reject the James reference. I doubt that either the TF or the James reference are valid but I think it is still a reasonable possibility that an HJ existed. My guess is that the consensus in these threads even amongst the HJ proponents is that the TF does not contain a valid reference to the HJ. I think it's a real stretch to call this a myth at any rate since it is not provable that the Josephus Jesus references are not valid.

Myth 4 - Eye-witnesses wrote the Gospels
No secular individual that has participated in these threads believes that.

Myth 5 - The Gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus
No secular individual that has participated in these threads believes that.

Myth 6 - History confirms the Gospels
No secular individual that has participated in these threads believes that.

Myth 7 - Archeology confirms the Gospels
No secular individual that has participated in these threads believes that.

Myth 8 - Paul and the epistles corroborate the Gospels
No secular individual that has participated in these threads believes that.

Myth 9 - Christianity began with Jesus and his apostles
That's roughly what the discussion is about. Calling it a myth doesn't make it not so.

Myth 10 - Christianity was totally new and different
This is too ambiguous to understand exactly what is meant but I am a proponent of the idea that the groups that gentile Christianity arose out of preceded the HJ. But regardless of whether it is true or not an HJ could have existed.
Click to expand...

The book is aimed at the general public, many of whom are unaware that the 'conventional wisdom' about Jesus is bogus.

It would be a bit of a stretch to describe the book as attacking strawman arguments.
 
Recap mode?

The "Ten Christian myths" phrase is fine. I have heard similar things argued. As davfoc points out, several of them are rarely advocated by secular people who write about Jesus here. I would guess that represents a minority of "secular people," and I don't know whether as a group "secular people" are better informed about NT issues than others in the culture they live in.

The killer is the rest of the title, "that show Jesus never existed." A not-wildly-popular Jesus could both exist and easily perform what was necessary to serve as a historically effective Patient Zero. I am also unsure how a man who is half-flayed and then nailed up to die by demand of the people, which is the actual myth, is supposed to be "wildly popular." Nevertheless, I have read that particular corker from both secular and pious sources.

Points three through eight and ten have nothing to do with Jesus' deeds, but describe behavior of other people after his death, or the fruits of that behavior. Point nine reminds us that what we know as Christianity is a collaborative work. For example, Jesus, if he were a histroical person, probably thought his mother had had sex before he was born, while the lopsided majority of his living followers (Catholics, Orthodox, many Protestants and Muslims) profess that she did not. Other people, then, not any historical Jesus, are the "Patients Zero" of that comorbidity of the pandemic.
 
Last edited:
Hi, Anders.
I went to the Youtube channel.
Did you follow the link to their FB page?

https:// www.facebook.com/ awakehebrew

Do you really want to promote those views here?

ETA
My bad.
The FB page has nothing to do with Atwill's Caesar's Messiah.
Brainache is right to point out we had a thread dedicated to Atwill's documentary.
You can access it here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249905
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
Hi, Anders.
I went to the Youtube channel.
Did you follow the link to their FB page?

https:// www.facebook.com/ awakehebrew

Do you really want to promote those views here?

ETA
My bad.
The FB page has nothing to do with Atwill's Caesar's Messiah.
Brainache is right to point out we had a thread dedicated to Atwill's documentary.
You can access it here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249905
Click to expand...

I haven't checked the Facebook page, but as you wrote it's unrelated. Here is a shorter video where the presenter is actually pretty pro-Christian despite his research leading to Jesus as a myth:

The Jesus Myth - Timothy Freke -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg

I also found another video that I will check out:

Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc
 
pakeha said:
Brainache is right to point out we had a thread dedicated to Atwill's documentary.
You can access it here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249905
Click to expand...

I was about to post an answer in that thread about why the Romans allowed and even supported their version of Christianity while at the same time persecuting Christians (or at least being hostile to some Christians). But then it occurred to me that I then need to move into conspiracy theory stuff :D. Maybe a new thread should be started in the Conspiracy Theory section.
 
Well, there's no stopping the MJ crowd now they've got Anders Lindman on their side...

Might be time to fall back and regroup...
 
Anders Lindman said:
I was about to post an answer in that thread about why the Romans allowed and even supported their version of Christianity while at the same time persecuting Christians (or at least being hostile to some Christians). But then it occurred to me that I then need to move into conspiracy theory stuff :D. Maybe a new thread should be started in the Conspiracy Theory section.
Click to expand...

On the one hand it makes no sense to persecute [and sometimes kill?] christians if the Romans were wanting it to spread.

On the other hand it makes no sense for Romans to crucify Jesus as a rebel if he was promoting loving the Roman occupiers, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, paying one's taxes cheerfully, etc.
 
proudfootz said:
On the one hand it makes no sense to persecute [and sometimes kill?] christians if the Romans were wanting it to spread.

On the other hand it makes no sense for Romans to crucify Jesus as a rebel if he was promoting loving the Roman occupiers, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, paying one's taxes cheerfully, etc.
Click to expand...

The author of Acts, 1 Thessalonians and multiple Apologetic writers of antiquity claimed it was the JEWS who killed Jesus.

Chrysostom's Against the Jews 1
They slew the Son of your Lord; do you have the boldness to enter with them under the same roof? ........ For I am persuaded to call the fasting of the Jews a table of demons because they slew God.
Click to expand...
 
proudfootz said:
On the one hand it makes no sense to persecute [and sometimes kill?] christians if the Romans were wanting it to spread
Click to expand...

It's probably too much to start a new conspiracy thread, so will make a short reply here. Two words: controlled opposition.

"A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries. Notably Vladimir Lenin who said ''"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

Count Mirabeau was part of the controlled opposition, because although everyone thought he was supporting the revolution, in reality he supported the monarchy and was a personal friend of the king. He was a government agent. " -- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Controlled opposition

Also, there were many different Christian sects at the time, and those who were different than what the Romans wanted no doubt got persecuted, like the Gnostics. Christianity was turned into an early and very successful controlled opposition movement. Protestantism was a later controlled opposition, manufactured by the Vatican. Islam was yet another controlled opposition started by the Vatican.
 
Anders Lindman said:
It's probably too much to start a new conspiracy thread, so will make a short reply here. Two words: controlled opposition.

"A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries. Notably Vladimir Lenin who said ''"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

Count Mirabeau was part of the controlled opposition, because although everyone thought he was supporting the revolution, in reality he supported the monarchy and was a personal friend of the king. He was a government agent. " -- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Controlled opposition

Also, there were many different Christian sects at the time, and those who were different than what the Romans wanted no doubt got persecuted, like the Gnostics. Christianity was turned into an early and very successful controlled opposition movement. Protestantism was a later controlled opposition, manufactured by the Vatican. Islam was yet another controlled opposition started by the Vatican.
Click to expand...

How does this discussion of Romans persecuting Christians fit into this discussion? By the time there is documentation of Romans persecuting Christians, there are definitely Christians to be persecuted and they're in Rome.

Is there some kind of theory here that the Romans killed the HJ because he was a member of a group they were persecuting? Did that group self identify as Christian? Was that group ethnically Jewish? My apologies, but I have become a bit confused on what the point of this aspect of the discussion is, perhaps somebody that understands what is being discussed could provide some guidance for me. Thank you.
 
davefoc said:
How does this discussion of Romans persecuting Christians fit into this discussion? By the time there is documentation of Romans persecuting Christians, there are definitely Christians to be persecuted and they're in Rome.

Is there some kind of theory here that the Romans killed the HJ because he was a member of a group they were persecuting? Did that group self identify as Christian? Was that group ethnically Jewish? My apologies, but I have become a bit confused on what the point of this aspect of the discussion is, perhaps somebody that understands what is being discussed could provide some guidance for me. Thank you.
Click to expand...

With controlled opposition it's important to make it look real. They needed to act as if Christianity was an enemy of the Roman power elite. It's a huge stage magician trick basically.

The same with Martin Luther that managed to escape being burned at the stake, not because the Catholic Church was powerless but because they allowed it to happen and most likely even trained Luther for the task of starting Protestantism as a controlled opposition movement.
 
pakeha said:
To sig or not to sig, that is the question.
Click to expand...

"The name "Vatican" was already in use in the time of the Roman Republic for a marshy area on the west bank of the Tiber across from the city of Rome. Under the Roman Empire, many villas were constructed there, after Agrippina the Elder (14 BC – 18 October AD 33) drained the area and laid out her gardens in the early 1st century AD. In AD 40, her son, Emperor Caligula (31 August AD 12–24 January AD 41; r. 37–41) built in her gardens a circus for charioteers (AD 40) that was later completed by Nero, the Circus Gaii et Neronis,[23] usually called, simply, the Circus of Nero.[24]" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#History
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom