Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[mstricky]

No, No!!! You are promoting Chinese Whispers. Which Scholar or Historian has presented the evidence that was used to date gMark just after 70 CE. These magical invented dates of authorship can no longer be accepted without the supporting evidence.

The first writing to mention gMark C 180 CE also claimed Jesus was crucified at around c 50 CE--under Claudius. See Against Heresies 2.22

Plus, the author of gMark was NOT a Jew. He did not know that Jews do not anoint the body of a dead with spices three days after burial. See Mark 16.

Brainache was refering to Jesus, not Mark

 

[Brainache]

Christianity must collapse the very same way as the belief in the Myth Gods of the Greek and Romans eventually disappeared.

The mythological fable called Jesus has no historical and theological value in the 21st century and beyond.

If Jesus of Nazareth was not a real God and did not exist what is the purpose of NT and the Church?

Do you really think you can make Christianity go away by shaking your fists and stomping your feet?

It's not working dejudge.

Time to try a new strategy...

 

[dejudge]

Brainache was refering to Jesus, not Mark

Brainache does not know what he is talking about.

Jesus in the Gospels is a product of the Septuagint and Greek/Roman mythology.

I have already exposed that Jesus of Nazareth was EXCLUDED from the genealogies of the Jews in the Gospels. See Matthew 1 and gLuke.

In gJohn, Jesus is the Logos, God Creator.

In fact, there was a tradition that Jesus was perhaps the son of a Roman soldier called Panthera. See Origen "Against Celsus 1.

If Jesus of Nazareth was not God Creator and born of a Ghost then I am afraid we will never know who he was.

 

[catsmate]

Christmas Humphries made that point. If it was proved that the Buddha never existed then it would not make a blind bit of difference to Buddhism.

[OT] It would have been better, I think, if Humphreys had concentrated his intellectual efforts on his day job. [/OT]

 

[angrysoba]

You totally misjudge believers and the tenacity they will cling to their beliefs.

They didn't arrive at their belief by facts so facts cannot sway their belief.

Actually I think this is wrong. It does not follow that facts cannot persuade someone of the falsity of counterfactual beliefs.

A lot of people lose their faith because bad things happen in the world and they cannot accept that God permits it, therefore no God.

 

[Brainache]

Actually I think this is wrong. It does not follow that facts cannot persuade someone of the falsity of counterfactual beliefs.

A lot of people lose their faith because bad things happen in the world and they cannot accept that God permits it, therefore no God.

The problem is that these Mythers don't have facts. What they have is a fringe theory which relies on things not in evidence.

There is no evidence, that I am aware of, for the kind of Jesus worship which Richard Carrier asserts was present in the mid-first century. He says that they were worshipping a Heavenly Jesus right from the start. AFAIK this contradicts the evidence.

I just have to wait and see how he deals with this when his book comes out next year.

 

[angrysoba]

The problem is that these Mythers don't have facts. What they have is a fringe theory which relies on things not in evidence.

There is no evidence, that I am aware of, for the kind of Jesus worship which Richard Carrier asserts was present in the mid-first century. He says that they were worshipping a Heavenly Jesus right from the start. AFAIK this contradicts the evidence.

I just have to wait and see how he deals with this when his book comes out next year.

I think we are talking about two different things:

The "Mythers" I presume to mean that people who say that not only was Jesus not divine but not even a real historical figure.

Whereas tsig was talking about Christian believers who according to him "didn't arrive at their belief by facts so facts cannot sway their belief." In other words, he seems to be saying that even if it can be factually proven that there was no such person as Jesus they will still believe in Jesus anyway.

 

[Brainache]

I think we are talking about two different things:

The "Mythers" I presume to mean that people who say that not only was Jesus not divine but not even a real historical figure.

Whereas tsig was talking about Christian believers who according to him "didn't arrive at their belief by facts so facts cannot sway their belief." In other words, he seems to be saying that even if it can be factually proven that there was no such person as Jesus they will still believe in Jesus anyway.

Yes, basically because they will never accept the "fact".

They reject the argument at the first premise, and because at the moment the best argument against an Historical Jesus is still only a fringe theory, you won't change their minds.

They will just think you are another loony who thinks Jesus was a Spaceman, or something.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Neko,

I don't see how these show that Jesus was a mythical figure.

You're correct - the author is in love with the word "myth" so much he had to use it over and over.

These points are really just arguments against certain elements of the historicity of Jesus.

Certainly it may show that for example there's a lot of things that aren't true within the Gospels. There is no reason to think that some guy named Jesus cast out "demons" or came back from the dead, but that doesn't make Jesus himself a myth no more than the false stories around Moses and Egypt make Egypt not a real place, or untrue legends around a battle make the battle a false event. Certain things can be true, such as the existence of Egypt or pharaohs while others are not.

Yup.
Most agree that the supernatural parts are myths.

I'm not that informed about this issue really, but I'd may as well put in my input on a few of these for the fun of it. I've never gotten into this debate. "The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous." Whether or not someone considers it ridiculous doesn't make the Jesus myth idea any more or less accurate. So I don't see how this contributes to things that "show Jesus never existed at all." Not being ridiculous doesn't equal true.

Indeed.
All he is really saying that the Jesus Myth theory is plausible.

"Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus." While I do believe that this is in fact a myth if I'm not mistaken, I don't see how it necessarily contributes to the Jesus myth idea. As far as I can tell, he was the starter of some small and rather insignificant (at least at the time) cult.

It undercuts one of the main planks for the historicity of Jesus - Josephus.

"Eye-witnesses wrote the Gospels." It's pretty much obvious that they didn't write the Gospels, however that doesn't make Jesus a myth. The stories could have easily been passed down orally before being finally written by someone after several decades. And there is always the mysterious Q source that we really don't know much about to keep in mind. The anonymity of the stories doesn't make Jesus suddenly an entirely mythical figure.

No it doesn't.
But he does argue against there being any eye-witness testimony, which is a common plank of many historical Jesus beliefs.

The mysterious Q is essentially a sayings source with no narrative AFAIK.

"The Gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus." Historians use redaction criticism in regards to this issue. Basically, the Gospels essentially follow one another and copy from one another while changing things to insert their own goals in what they want the messages and such to be. This doesn't mean Jesus didn't at all exist.

But it does argue against there being a firm historical foundation. It shows the story of Jesus could be changed for theological or other reasons - arguing against historicity.

I think this rather makes the point well enough. I don't think there is any particularly good reason here to think that the stories weren't based on a real person.

Overall I think he presents the Jesus Myth case fairly well. Put together, all these points argue against a historical Jesus.

It could very well be for example that there was some guy that made a cult with a handful of followers, was crucified for some crime committed, and then the story was just gradually embellished from there. (Note that I just made this up off the top of my head as someone who doesn't know much at all about this.)

It could be - many people agree.
I don't.
I think it's all myth.

From what I've heard from historians, or at least remember hearing, we don't seem to really have enough information to know how much of the Jesus's story is true. And maybe it is all myth?

Yes. Some historians argue we can know nothing historical about Jesus under all the myth.

Maybe some guy had a strange hallucinogenic vision about this guy named Jesus that did all this stuff, and it just grew from there. But why should we really care?

There IS a theory that Jesus was a hallucinogenic mushroom - seriously. Would you believe that theory was not well received

Such is all just baseless speculation. And its not as if we need to discredit the existence of Jesus to put up a decent argument against Christianity.

Books like this one are trying to lead beyond baseless speculation and find the real history behind the stories. One on the reasons the Jesus Myth is becoming more popular is the scepticism engendered by having so many "real Jesus" theories - there are DOZENS of them.

See David's "Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up" :

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/01/will-the-real-jesus-please-stand-up/


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I think he was part of Greek mythology

Interestingly, there is a character in Greek mythology called "Iasion" or "Iasus" who was born of a virgin, brought mystic teachings to mankind, was killed by Zeus, and then rose to heaven to be with the Gods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iasion

Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday DC,

myth one? really? kinda destroyed the whole Argument.

All he is trying to say is that the Jesus Myth is plausible, not ridiculous.

Because a standard apologist meme is that the Jesus Myth is ridiculous crackpottery like creationism.


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Zugzwang,

I am struggling a bit with some of these 'ten myths'. For example, take myth 5, the gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus.

Does this mean that a consistent picture disproves the historicity of Jesus? Or the opposite? I would think that consistency would tend to disprove HJ, but then the picture of Jesus is not consistent, is it?

His point is that the Gospels are NOT consistent and give wildly different views of Jesus -

G.Mark - a fallible suffering human

G.Matthew - a new Jewish take on Jesus with various errors fixed up and many stories added and Jesus made more perfect

G.Luke - a serene, beatific, and unflappable Jesus - a happy nativity story, a new genealogy

G.John - a Superman Jesus, large and in control, openly the Messiah and who knows he is God

Various differences found in the Gospels include :

* Why did the Jews want to kill Jesus?

* Why did Judas betray him ?

* When was Jesus born ?

* When did Jesus die ?

Historian Paul Winter noted :

"The discrepancies are many and multiple, and at times concern issues so fundamental that, at first glance, one might think that they spoke of totally different events and personalities. It looks as if Jesus in Mark were not the same person as Jesus in John: they speak differently, act differently, die differently"

All attempts to sift through textual criticism to find the real Jesus face one nagging problem - the Gospels present different Jesi, and appear to do so deliberately - the sign of mythmaking, not history.

Myth 10 is also rather weird - that Christianity was new. Eh? Since it is shown as emerging from Judaism, how could it be new? Jesus doesn't debate with Buddhists or Zoroastrians, but different kinds of Jews, e.g. Pharisees, but I don't see how that either helps HJ or hinders it really. Well, I suppose the HJ proponents could argue that the debates are rooted in genuine sectarian divisions of the time, for example, in relation to charismatic and apocalyptic Jewish thinking. But then again, you could invent such debates.

Some apologist like to claim that Jesus brought a NEW message to the world that swept through it like wildfire. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Puppycow,

If you are arguing that the resurrection has no credible evidence at all, I agree. I think that all atheists would agree on this point. I don't think that is an argument that there was never a historical Jesus at all.

By itself it doesn't prove Jesus was not historical, no.

It's just one point that came up because of the apologist meme that the Resurrection is more certain than even the crossing of the Rubicon.

The case for the Jesus Myth is the whole book, not this single point.


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Who (other than Christian fundamentalists) makes anything like the above claims? They are not representative of the scholarly arguments that Jesus likely existed as an historical figure in the early 1st Century. In fact, every scholar I've read on the subject, who thinks that he probably did exist, would dispute every single one of those ten claims.

Fair point.

I think he wrote a popular book for the popular audience - i.e. normal Christian believers and those who are unsure.

We'll have to wait for Carrier's book for a more scholarly work.


Kapyong

 

[MattusMaximus]

I sense this thread will not be pleasing to my Lord.

Why would Zeus be angered by this thread?

 

[marplots]

Why would Zeus be angered by this thread?

He is displeased by hubris.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm reminded of conspiracy theories, where fatal flaws in the CTer's concept are ignored. Religious people do quite the same thing.

 

[NekoTheCat]

Overall I think he presents the Jesus Myth case fairly well. Put together, all these points argue against a historical Jesus.

Sorry, but I'm not simply seeing this at all considering that it still seems to me that none of these seem to actually lend any support to Jesus being a myth, but actually just make other rather unrelated points.

All attempts to sift through textual criticism to find the real Jesus face one nagging problem - the Gospels present different Jesi, and appear to do so deliberately - the sign of mythmaking, not history.

I think it is generally just considered a sign that the authors had their own agendas and edited the stories to fit that and not a sign of mythmaking. Hence redaction criticism. I don't at all see how it follows that this is a sign of Jesus being a myth.

 

[Delvo]

The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous

Say what?

Is that a myth?

It's coming in to a debate between Christians and non-Christians already in progress and part of the way through, responding to what one of them said in response to what another one said without giving the prior stuff that's being responded to.

Non-Christians: "There's no evidence that Jesus existed."

Christians: "That's ridiculous! There's just as much/little evidence for Julius/Socrates/whoever, and you believe in him!" (In other words, the reality of Jesus is just so obvious & solidly established that denying it is like denying any other obvious, accepted historical figure: ridiculous.)

This book: "No, the evidence in those cases is not equivalent, so the fact that it would be ridiculous to say one existed does not make it ridiculous to deny that the other did."

I don't object to the book's illustration of the different kinds/amounts of evidence for historical figures as opposed to mythical ones, but I do object to this mode of presentation. Outside of actual debates or other response-base settings, where the other person's claim is right there before yours, it's never good to make your case in the form of a defense against someone else's instead of free-standing on its own.

Hat tip to Judge Dredd: "I am the Law!"

That's "de" Law.

 

[pakeha]

The apocalyptic content of many of the sayings attributed to Jesus, for one.

The way Paul goes out of his way to explain why his readers should believe him even though people who actually knew Jesus in life are saying that he's wrong about his message, for another.

Now that's very interesting reasoning, indeed.
I agree with you in that the first point would indicate an individual. It's one of the points in which I'm agreement with Stone, actually.

And yes, though I'd never considered that Paul's act could imply an historical Jesus, I think it's a reasonable deduction.

You could, of course, also argue that, Paul has simply made up the opposition to his preaching.
It's a technique modern scammers use to devastating effect on their vics and I myself don't think religious hucksterism has changed much in 2,500 years.

In any case, Foster, thanks for your thinking.
You've posted possibly the best reasons I've read at JREF for thinking it's possible there was an historical Jesus.