Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[The Norseman]

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

I showed exactly what I intend to show. There is no consensus as you and others are constantly claiming. I really wonder why you are claiming a consensus when your own belief in a Jesus the Zealot isn't supported by any consensus. You argue like a theist argues in his God; you assume that there is some sort of minuscule, provable kernel of information that is true and that this provable kernel is what everyone agrees on, thus forming your so-called consensus.

 

[Brainache]

I showed exactly what I intend to show. There is no consensus as you and others are constantly claiming. I really wonder why you are claiming a consensus when your own belief in a Jesus the Zealot isn't supported by any consensus. You argue like a theist argues in his God; you assume that there is some sort of minuscule, provable kernel of information that is true and that this provable kernel is what everyone agrees on, thus forming your so-called consensus.

Another one who doesn't know what "Consensus" means.

Oy Vey!

What do they teach these days?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Craig,

dejudge, you've been churning out EXACTLY the same material for days and days now, including the huge lists of the names of ancient authors with no citation of their works; and you pay no attention whatsoever to anything that anyone else writes about these things. For the last time, the fact that myths attach to the birth of Jesus doesn't necessarily mean that there was no historical core around which these myths may have accreted. I used Alexander as an example of where that is known to have taken place.

Actually it's been YEARS that this poster has been churning out this material under various names without addressing the problem you noted.


Kapyong

 

[lpetrich]

I think that the Arthurian mythos provides a good comparison. It's very evident that the King Arthur story grew in the telling.

Arthur Pendragon supposedly ruled around 500 CE, building an empire that extended across the British Isles and nearby mainland Europe.

However, the first written reference to him was in 828, in the History of the Britons (Historia Brittonum), attributed to the Welsh monk Nennius. He appears in it as a military commander (dux bellorum), and not yet as a king. There are similar scattered references in the next few centuries, but the Arthurian mythos took off in Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain (Historia Regum Britanniae), written around 1136. He and his successors went into gory detail about King Arthur, his career, and his associates, and the King Arthur mythos took its familiar form in their works.

Thus having a gap of over 600 years with not much in between.

The Gospels have a similar growing-in-the-telling quality. The first one composed was Mark, and it's rather short and lacking in various details. Matthew and Luke expand on Mark, and John goes off in a completely different direction.


There's been a lot of argument about what the historical King Arthur was like, and whether there even was one. I think that the Jesus-historicity debate would have gone much like that in the absence of doctrinal commitments. There is no Arthurian Church that makes it a duty for its members to believe that the Arthurian mythos is literal historicity, or at least that there was a historical King Arthur.

 

[Brainache]

I think that the Arthurian mythos provides a good comparison. It's very evident that the King Arthur story grew in the telling.

Arthur Pendragon supposedly ruled around 500 CE, building an empire that extended across the British Isles and nearby mainland Europe.

However, the first written reference to him was in 828, in the History of the Britons (Historia Brittonum), attributed to the Welsh monk Nennius. He appears in it as a military commander (dux bellorum), and not yet as a king. There are similar scattered references in the next few centuries, but the Arthurian mythos took off in Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain (Historia Regum Britanniae), written around 1136. He and his successors went into gory detail about King Arthur, his career, and his associates, and the King Arthur mythos took its familiar form in their works.

Thus having a gap of over 600 years with not much in between.

The Gospels have a similar growing-in-the-telling quality. The first one composed was Mark, and it's rather short and lacking in various details. Matthew and Luke expand on Mark, and John goes off in a completely different direction.


There's been a lot of argument about what the historical King Arthur was like, and whether there even was one. I think that the Jesus-historicity debate would have gone much like that in the absence of doctrinal commitments. There is no Arthurian Church that makes it a duty for its members to believe that the Arthurian mythos is literal historicity, or at least that there was a historical King Arthur.

Yeah, or Pythagoras:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/

...Pythagoras wrote nothing, nor were there any detailed accounts of his thought written by contemporaries. By the first centuries BCE, moreover, it became fashionable to present Pythagoras in a largely unhistorical fashion as a semi-divine figure, who originated all that was true in the Greek philosophical tradition, including many of Plato's and Aristotle's mature ideas. A number of treatises were forged in the name of Pythagoras and other Pythagoreans in order to support this view.

The Pythagorean question, then, is how to get behind this false glorification of Pythagoras in order to determine what the historical Pythagoras actually thought and did. In order to obtain an accurate appreciation of Pythagoras' achievement, it is important to rely on the earliest evidence before the distortions of the later tradition arose. The popular modern image of Pythagoras is that of a master mathematician and scientist. The early evidence shows, however, that, while Pythagoras was famous in his own day and even 150 years later in the time of Plato and Aristotle, it was not mathematics or science upon which his fame rested. Pythagoras was famous (1) as an expert on the fate of the soul after death, who thought that the soul was immortal and went through a series of reincarnations; (2) as an expert on religious ritual; (3) as a wonder-worker who had a thigh of gold and who could be two places at the same time; (4) as the founder of a strict way of life that emphasized dietary restrictions, religious ritual and rigorous self discipline...

 

[mstricky]

Does anyone know what an evangelist is or an evangelist church as opposed to the C of E, please

 

[The Norseman]

Another one who doesn't know what "Consensus" means.

Oy Vey!

What do they teach these days?

Stop personalizing this; it's getting exceedingly tiresome and undermines your credibility.

 

[Brainache]

Stop personalizing this; it's getting exceedingly tiresome and undermines your credibility.

Sorry. I'm only human. This has been explained many times in this thread.

the consensus HJ is a minimal claim of a jewish Preacher at the start of Xtianity. That's it. It's likely that he was Baptised by JTB and later Crucified by the Romans.

Anything more than that is speculation ATM.

I have a some speculations that I favour, but I don't dismiss people who disagree with that Eisenman idea as idiots or something.

 

[dejudge]

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?


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.

You are not familiar with gJohn. Jesus is the ONLY begotten of God.

The author of John claimed Jesus was the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God.

John 1:14 KJV-----And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 3:16 KJV-----For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 KJV-----He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


The author of gJohn showed that his Jesus was not human when he claimed Jesus WALKED on the sea for over THREE miles.

John 6:19 KJV----So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid .

 

[dejudge]

Sorry. I'm only human. This has been explained many times in this thread.

the consensus HJ is a minimal claim of a jewish Preacher at the start of Xtianity. That's it. It's likely that he was Baptised by JTB and later Crucified by the Romans.

Anything more than that is speculation ATM.

I have a some speculations that I favour, but I don't dismiss people who disagree with that Eisenman idea as idiots or something.

You cannot continue with your debunked consensus. There never was any consensus in the first place so why are you making it up? You have been repeatedly busted. Your consensus is a myth.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You cannot continue with your debunked consensus. There never was any consensus in the first place so why are you making it up? You have been repeatedly busted. Your consensus is a myth.

Do you deny the existence of especially active Jewish messianism in the late Second Temple period?

Do you deny the existence of Jewish nationalism in the late Second Temple period?

Do you deny the use of crucifixion as a method of execution used by the Romans in the late Second Temple Period?

Do you understand that the former–and possibly the latter two–is all that is claimed about the historical Jesus? If so, why do you persist in asserting that the existence of a human being who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and was possibly crucified for fomenting rebellion against Romans is so implausible as to require some bizarre form of contemporary mythopoesis to explain the origin of Christianity?

 

[dejudge]

Do you deny the existence of especially active Jewish messianism in the late Second Temple period?

Do you deny the existence of Jewish nationalism in the late Second Temple period?

Do you deny the use of crucifixion as a method of execution used by the Romans in the late Second Temple Period?

Do you understand that the former–and possibly the latter two–is all that is claimed about the historical Jesus? If so, why do you persist in asserting that the existence of a human being who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and was possibly crucified for fomenting rebellion against Romans is so implausible as to require some bizarre form of contemporary mythopoesis to explain the origin of Christianity?

Your questions are not evidence of anything about the history of Jesus.

The "biography" of Jesus can be found in the hundreds of NT manuscripts and Codices if you would just read them.

Again, the Bible and Apologetics are the source for Jesus of Nazareth and it is stated that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, was God the Creator that walked on the sea for THREE miles, transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah, was raised from the dead on the third day and ascended in the clouds.

It was publicly argued and documented for hundreds of years in the Roman Empire that Jesus was born of a Ghost or God Creator by Ignatius, Aristides, Clement, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Lactantius, OPtatus, Jerome, Rufinus, Chrysostom and others.

My conclusion is that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology, a 2nd century invented fable from the very start and was never ever known to be a human being.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Phantom, a myth, a non-entity.


What is your argument and where is the supporting historical evidence?

 

[Craig B]

Gday Craig,
Actually it's been YEARS that this poster has been churning out this material under various names without addressing the problem you noted.
Kapyong

He's just done it again! Same material, same list of ancient authors, faithfully repeated. It's eerie. Like contending with some superhuman force beyond anyone's power to stem or divert from its chosen path. dejudge, I congratulate you on your undeviating consistency of thought and expression!

 

[Brainache]

He's just done it again! Same material, same list of ancient authors, faithfully repeated. It's eerie. Like contending with some superhuman force beyond anyone's power to stem or divert from its chosen path. dejudge, I congratulate you on your undeviating consistency of thought and expression!

I even tried conceding defeat.

Nothing can stop it.

We may have to use Nucular Force.

Run for your lives!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Your questions are not evidence of anything about the history of Jesus.

The "biography" of Jesus can be found in the hundreds of NT manuscripts and Codices if you would just read them.

Again, the Bible and Apologetics are the source for Jesus of Nazareth and it is stated that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, was God the Creator that walked on the sea for THREE miles, transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah, was raised from the dead on the third day and ascended in the clouds.

It was publicly argued and documented for hundreds of years in the Roman Empire that Jesus was born of a Ghost or God Creator by Ignatius, Aristides, Clement, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Lactantius, OPtatus, Jerome, Rufinus, Chrysostom and others.

My conclusion is that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology, a 2nd century invented fable from the very start and was never ever known to be a human being.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Phantom, a myth, a non-entity.


What is your argument and where is the supporting historical evidence?

How nice of you to completely ignore the point!

Questions are, of course, not evidence. However, your posts indicate that you are certain that you understand what the historical Jesus is supposed to explain but that, despite repeated correction, you are unable to accept that what professional historians understand the historical Jesus to explain is not what you assert the historical Jesus explains is not, in fact, what historians understand the historical explains. Until you understand that the historical Jesus is not the figure that Christianity has built into the Christ, you are essentially spounting non-sense about the non-existence of the historical Jesus based on the non-existence of the spiritual Christ.

 

[dejudge]

How nice of you to completely ignore the point!

Questions are, of course, not evidence. However, your posts indicate that you are certain that you understand what the historical Jesus is supposed to explain but that, despite repeated correction, you are unable to accept that what professional historians understand the historical Jesus to explain is not what you assert the historical Jesus explains is not, in fact, what historians understand the historical explains. Until you understand that the historical Jesus is not the figure that Christianity has built into the Christ, you are essentially spounting non-sense about the non-existence of the historical Jesus based on the non-existence of the spiritual Christ.

Bart Ehrman's historical Jesus comes straight out of the Bible. You really have no idea of the argument for the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

The historical Jesus of Nazareth is claimed to have been BAPTIZED by John and CRUCIFIED under Pilate as is written in the Bible. Please, go get familiar with the HJ argument.

In fact, without the Bible there can be no chance of an argument for HJ of Nazareth--no non-apologetic source of antiquity mentioned Nazareth or Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, I have not ignored your questions. I specifically told you to READ the NT manuscripts and Codices. All your questions are answered there.

Read Matthew 1.

Read Luke 1.

Read Mark 6.

Read Mark 9.

Read John 1.

Read Luke 24.

Read Acts 1&2.

Read the Pauline Corpus.

The Bible answers all your questions about Jesus of Nazareth.

You want to know How he was conceived?

 

[Craig B]

... Now, I have not ignored your questions. I specifically told you to READ the NT manuscripts and Codices. All your questions are answered there.
Read Matthew 1.
Read Luke 1.
Read Mark 6.
Read Mark 9.
Read John 1.
Read Luke 24.
Read Acts 1&2.
Read the Pauline Corpus.
The Bible answers all your questions about Jesus of Nazareth.

That list of NT chapters without citations is a welcome change from your usual list of ancient authors without citations, so thank you.

You want to know How he was conceived?

We know already, thanks. Luke 1:35 tells us.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee

Naughty Holy Ghost!

 

[Puppycow]

I rejected Catholocism many years ago, but as a young lad we were taught that Jesus was "fully human and fully devine", and as well that God the Father, Jesus (God the Son), and the Holy Spirit were all fully God and were yet somehow separate entitites.
When we little kids protested that this was irrational, we were told that this was a "mystery of faith".
In other words, if you were a Catholic, you were required to believe it, even if it didn't make sense.

You could have remained Catholic if only you had an Electric Monk. It could have believed it for you even if you couldn't believe it yourself. An Electric Monk can believe anything you tell it to believe.

 

[Puppycow]

Gday Puppycow,



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

That would be Christian true believers making that argument, not atheists or agnostics who think there probably was a historical Jesus (which, btw, does not make one an "apologist").

Anyone who thinks the alleged resurrection really happened ought to be a Christian of some sort, because that would be a miracle. I don't believe in any of the alleged miracles because I don't believe genuine miracles have ever happened in human history (I considered saying I don't believe miracles are possible at all, but I'll leave it at that).

 

[mijopaalmc]

Bart Ehrman's historical Jesus comes straight out of the Bible. You really have no idea of the argument for the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

The historical Jesus of Nazareth is claimed to have been BAPTIZED by John and CRUCIFIED under Pilate as is written in the Bible. Please, go get familiar with the HJ argument.

In fact, without the Bible there can be no chance of an argument for HJ of Nazareth--no non-apologetic source of antiquity mentioned Nazareth or Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, I have not ignored your questions. I specifically told you to READ the NT manuscripts and Codices. All your questions are answered there.

Read Matthew 1.

Read Luke 1.

Read Mark 6.

Read Mark 9.

Read John 1.

Read Luke 24.

Read Acts 1&2.

Read the Pauline Corpus.

The Bible answers all your questions about Jesus of Nazareth.

You want to know How he was conceived?

If you are going to us the Gospels as evidence that people's supernatural claims about Jesus to discredit the entire idea of there being any historical human being upon which Jesus was based, why can't historicists use the Gospels as evidence of what earlier Christian communities believed about Jesus to support the idea that it is possible there was an actual human being upon whom Jesus was based?