Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Foster Zygote]

For the umpteenth time the Bible is not a credible historical source. The Bible is a known source of fiction, forgeries, implausibility, historical problems, contradictions and discrepancies.

No one here is basing the idea that there was a person upon whom the myths were constructed on the premise that the Bible is a credible historical source.

Does not the Bible say Jesus was baptized, crucified but was the Son of a Ghost and God Creator that walked on the sea for three miles before he transfigured?

You are not interested in the biography of Jesus of Nazareth.

We seem interested enough to know that the Bible never actually says that Jesus was God himself.

And the official Korean claim is that Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong Il were both heaven sent. It is also officially claimed that the first time Kim Jong Il ever bowled, he scored a perfect 300, and that in his first ever golf game he got five holes-in-one and scored 38 under par. I guess that means that Kim Jong Il never actually existed.

 

[Brainache]

...
And the official Korean claim is that Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong Il were both heaven sent. It is also officially claimed that the first time Kim Jong Il ever bowled, he scored a perfect 300, and that in his first ever golf game he got five holes-in-one and scored 38 under par. I guess that means that Kim Jong Il never actually existed.

Miracles have changed a lot since Jesus' day...

 

[dejudge]

No one here is basing the idea that there was a person upon whom the myths were constructed on the premise that the Bible is a credible historical source.

You have exposed the problem with the HJ argument. If you do not use the Bible then you are INVENTING your own story.

We seem interested enough to know that the Bible never actually says that Jesus was God himself.

You do not know what you are talking about. You do not know what is in the Bible. Please, first read the Bible if you want to talk about the Jesus character.

The Bible says Jesus was God himself.

John 1:1 NAS -----In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

 

[ddt]

The very fact that the narratives have Jesus being executed by crucifixion tell us something very important. Jesus is said to have been executed because he offended the Temple high priests with what they regarded as blasphemy. But the Romans honestly couldn't have cared less if someone contradicted the theology of the these priests. Contrary to many modern impressions of 1st Century Judaism, there were numerous groups arguing vociferously about matters of "correct doctrine".

You gave quite a nice description in the previous post how the Historical Jesus may have been, but I disagree with you on this point. The Romans wanted to maintain good relations with the high priests, so that they would continue to collaborate, or to be quislings, from whatever side you want to see it.

Pilate only had a small amount of soldiers, around 500. If he needed more, he'd have to request them from his boss, the governor of Syria. During Passover, tens of thousands of pilgrims centered on Jerusalem. Those soldiers would have their hands already full with maintaining normal law and order during such a crowded event. Pilate - or any of the other governors of Judea - couldn't really afford to upset the local power structures, lest they have a full-blown rebellion on their hands.

The Romans put people to death by crucifixion to make an example of them. And they made a point of writing their crimes out in order to make an impression on those who saw them put to death. "Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum" says it all. "This man said he was the king of the Jews and challenged our authority. Look what happened to him."

I don't think that's really convincing. That also could be a simple ploy from the Sanhedrin to convince the Romans to take him out. Sedition would be the simplest charge for that.

 

[IanS]

No one here is basing the idea that there was a person upon whom the myths were constructed on the premise that the Bible is a credible historical source.
.

What then is the source of any Jesus stories if it's not the bible?

If you take away the bible as the entire source of anything to do with Jesus, then where is there any other earlier source of anything ever to do with anyone called Jesus?

 

[Brainache]

What then is the source of any Jesus stories if it's not the bible?

If you take away the bible as the entire source of anything to do with Jesus, then where is there any other earlier source of anything ever to do with anyone called Jesus?

The Talmud, maybe:

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

...
The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521.[1] However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Advocates for the Christian church alleged that the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jewish apologists during the disputations said there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud, and claimed Joshua and its derivations was a common Jewish name, that they referred to other individuals. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.
In the modern era there has been a variance of views among scholars of the references to possible Jesus in the Talmud, depending partly on presuppositions as to the extent to which the ancient rabbis were preoccupied with Jesus and Christianity.[2] This range of views among modern scholars on the subject has been described as a range from "minimalists" who see few passages with reference to Jesus, to "maximalists" who see many passages having reference to Jesus.[3] These terms "minimalist" and "maximalist" are not unique to discussion of the Talmud text, they are also used in discussion of academic debate on other aspects of Jewish vs. Christian and Christian vs. Jewish contact and polemic in the early centuries of Christianity, such as the Adversus Iudaeos genre.[4] "Minimalists" include Jacob Z. Lauterbach (1951) ("who recognize[d] only relatively few passages that actually have Jesus in mind"),[3] while "maximalists" include Herford (1903), (who concluded that most of the references related to Jesus, but were non-historical oral traditions which circulated among Jews),[5][6] and Schäfer (2007) (who concluded that the passages were parodies of parallel stories about Jesus in the New Testament incorporated into the Talmud in the 3rd and 4th centuries that illustrate the inter-sect rivalry between Judaism and nascent Christianity[7][page needed])...

ETA: You might note that at no point did any of these ancient Rabbis dispute the existence of Jesus. They insulted his Mum, and repudiated his teachings (some of them at least), but they never said he was invented by Paul or anyone else.

 

[ddt]

The Talmud, maybe:

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

ETA: You might note that at no point did any of these ancient Rabbis dispute the existence of Jesus. They insulted his Mum, and repudiated his teachings (some of them at least), but they never said he was invented by Paul or anyone else.

You must have missed these passages from that wiki page:

During these disputations the representatives of the Jewish communities offered various defences to the charges of the Christian disputants. Notably influential on later Jewish responses was the defence of Yechiel of Paris (1240) that a passage about an individual named Yeshu in the Talmud was not a reference to the Christian Jesus, though at the same time Yechiel also conceded that another reference to Yeshu was.

and

Amy-Jill Levine notes that even today some rabbinical experts do not consider that the Talmud's account of Jesus' death is a reference to the Jesus of the New Testament.[35] Gustaf Dalman (1922),[36]Joachim Jeremias (1960),[37] Mark Allen Powell (1998)[38] and Roger T. Beckwith (2005)[39] were also favourable to the view the Yeshu references in the Talmud were not to Jesus.

They do not have to deny the existence of Jesus. The point here is only if the Talmud actually references Jesus of Nazareth. And for a long time, completely denying the existence of Jesus could have been quite detrimental to the health of a rabbi (or anyone else).

And judging from just that wiki page, that is quite debatable, especially for the passages that just reference a Yeshu or Yeshua. After all, that is quite a common Hebrew name.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You have exposed the problem with the HJ argument. If you do not use the Bible then you are INVENTING your own story.

You seem to be of the erroneous opinion that cultural legends and fiction have no place in history. We can be certain the the pharaohs embellished the accounts of their own exploits. Does that mean that the wars and battles they relate never happened?

You do not know what you are talking about. You do not know what is in the Bible. Please, first read the Bible if you want to talk about the Jesus character.

The Bible says Jesus was God himself.

John 1:1 NAS -----In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

The gospel of John was not written in English. The Koine Greek texts use an anarthrous form of the word "theos" in reference to "the word". It has been speculated that this is because the author of John chose that wording to distinguish between the word and the father (ho theos).

There is no unified narrative in the Bible. The wording of John certainly influenced those who claimed that Jesus was God himself, but it is not certain if the author intended that interpretation or if he was simply portraying Jesus as more than merely human. There is support for this position to be found in verses such as John 14:28 You heard me say to you, “I am going away, and I am coming to you.” If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I, and John 17:1-5 further suggest that Jesus is a divine creation of God, greater than human, but still not God himself. After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

 

[NekoTheCat]

Does anyone read anything anyone has wrote in here? I feel like the same answers have to be repeated over and over again.

Sorry, but Jesus existing just seems rather more plausible and probable considering the fact that its not exactly uncommon for historical figures, particularly religious ones, to have very embellished and legendary stories. Nor is it uncommon for believers to transform failed prophecies into successful ones, such as the death of a Messiah. There were plenty of other supposed Messiahs and other figures during and around the time of Jesus, yet no one seems inclined to dispute their existence. (Which gives me the impression that this argument exists just due to emotional reasons.)

On the other hand here we have the claim that Jesus was entirely mythological. I think one of the initial problems people have with this position is that quite simply the stories simply don't seem like something a Jewish individual of the time would entirely come up with, but rather seems to be something that appears to be based on a real person. This is something that was gone over in the Reasonable Doubts podcast to some detail, sadly I'm not sure of what episode. (Possible the zeitgeist one.) Next there is no real evidence to suggest that such is the case as opposed to him simply being a cult leader who died and had his story embellished over the span of many years, something which I don't think anyone would argue is all that uncommon.

While there is ultimately no way to really say either way, as when it comes down to it we just don't have the evidence, the more reasonable position at this point seems to me to be to assume he probably existed. The vehement opposition here and elsewhere seems to be very much emotionally based, and if I had to guess, due to people's opposition and wish to diminish Christianity. Seriously it doesn't even seem like half people here are trying to make real arguments. Just constant bickering back and forth.

 

[Brainache]

You must have missed these passages from that wiki page:

and

They do not have to deny the existence of Jesus. The point here is only if the Talmud actually references Jesus of Nazareth. And for a long time, completely denying the existence of Jesus could have been quite detrimental to the health of a rabbi (or anyone else).

And judging from just that wiki page, that is quite debatable, especially for the passages that just reference a Yeshu or Yeshua. After all, that is quite a common Hebrew name.

IanS wanted a non-apologetic ancient source that mentions Jesus The Nazorean, I gave it to him.

I'm not about to second guess those authorities on their expertise in this.

 

[The Norseman]

I’m sorry; there is an academic consensus about Jesus: he was a Jewish preacher in Palestine in the first Century who was crucified by Romans. You can count on the fingers academic historians who do not support this consensus. Yes, you need another hand for extra-academic historians, but the final scoreboard will be an overwhelming result: much more than a thousand to one. This is signifiant consensus.

The quality of this consensus is another matter. But you can not deny that a consensus exists.

I not only have denied any such consensus exists, but have demonstrated some evidence of this non-consensus, unlike you or anyone else who parrots the "overwhelming consensus for an historical Jesus" ever did.

 

[Brainache]

I not only have denied any such consensus exists, but have demonstrated some evidence of this non-consensus, unlike you or anyone else who parrots the "overwhelming consensus for an historical Jesus" ever did.

Then you will be able to point us towards all of these Historians who are teaching about a mythical Jesus, won't you?

No rush, I can wait.

 

[mstricky]

Brainache, are you a believer in the bible/Jesus. I am getting confused with posters, there is a lot of sarcasm and I can't discern who is sincere and who isn't

 

[Brainache]

Brainache, are you a believer in the bible/Jesus. I am getting confused with posters, there is a lot of sarcasm and I can't discern who is sincere and who isn't

I think there was an Apocalyptic Jewish Preacher around whom the gospel stories grew.

There are too many Bible Jesuses to pick just one, so I reject them all and try to see where the stories came from. So far, it looks to me like exaggerations around a real bloke.

Does that answer the question?

 

[mstricky]

I think there was an Apocalyptic Jewish Preacher around whom the gospel stories grew.

There are too many Bible Jesuses to pick just one, so I reject them all and try to see where the stories came from. So far, it looks to me like exaggerations around a real bloke.

Does that answer the question?

Maybe. So you think Jesus was a real person but just a prophet like many others of that time but stories were made up about him and people added on and added on till he became an 'idol'?

 

[Brainache]

Maybe. So you think Jesus was a real person but just a prophet like many others of that time but stories were made up about him and people added on and added on till he became an 'idol'?

Pretty much.

That's what the Historians tell me.

 

[mstricky]

Pretty much.

That's what the Historians tell me.

Yes, I'm getting that way of thinking, I always thought the whole thing is Greek mythology as Mithra/dionysus were born on the 25th Dec and were reserected. There are others too but I can't remember their names....... I'm getting old

 

[Brainache]

Yes, I'm getting that way of thinking, I always thought the whole thing is Greek mythology as Mithra/dionysus were born on the 25th Dec and were reserected. There are others too but I can't remember their names....... I'm getting old

I wouldn't put too much stock in those ideas. Roman Catholicism incorporated a lot of rituals and motifs from the Pagan Religions that were in Rome at the time. That's what is "catholic" about it:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catholic

cath·o·lic (kth-lk, kthlk)
adj.
1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: "The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found" (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: "what was of catholic rather than national interest" (J.A. Froude)...

It doesn't just mean: "pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church".

The Virgin Mary is a prime example of a Pagan Cult grafted onto early Christianity. There is no mention of a Virgin Birth in the earliest stories.

 

[mstricky]

Ok

 

[Iamme]

Oh yeah, agreed. But if the resurrection was proven not to have happened (yeah I know, it can't be) then the church would surely collapse.

Anyway, my main point was that the central tenets of Christianity are very fragile, unlike other religions which do not depend on the reality of their founder.

The ressurection is only PART of it. If he died, and resurrected...why, he could have simply died again later. A dead son of God = no God at all!
But..he ASCENDED into heaven. Witnessed by a good throng, so the Bible claims. He lifted off like David Blaine, and just kept going up into the clouds. I wonder where he went?
Rather than quote another poster...in case you remember it from page 2...someone said there was a transsubstantiation of Jesus? Lol. I think they probably meant ``transfiguration`` where he was in the garden with a couple disciples and angels blinded them and Jesus then began to glow like golden, and a voice boomed from heaven saying this is my son, of whom i am well pleased...something like that.(if my memory serves me...i should try to look up these scriptures) Almost tear-jerking moment i`m sure, for a Christian.