Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Craig B]

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?

Indeed. If there never had been a Jesus the most likely circumstance is that there would be no stories (plausible or not, true or not) anywhere about any Jesus. There has been no king here in Scotland called Sam, and there are, as expected, no stories (at least none that I have ever heard) about a King called Sam. The stories about Jesus in the Gospels are therefore evidence - albeit not conclusive or irrefutable evidence - that Jesus existed. Still, he may not have existed; but it is the responsibility of those who deny his existence to explain away the references to an existing Jesus in the NT.

 

[KatieG]

I just bought the book. It was only a few dollars as a Kindle edition. I just hope to get a few debating points to annoy Christian family and work mates.

That sounds like fun!

 

[dejudge]

Indeed. If there never had been a Jesus the most likely circumstance is that there would be no stories (plausible or not, true or not) anywhere about any Jesus. There has been no king here in Scotland called Sam, and there are, as expected, no stories (at least none that I have ever heard) about a King called Sam. The stories about Jesus in the Gospels are therefore evidence - albeit not conclusive or irrefutable evidence - that Jesus existed. Still, he may not have existed; but it is the responsibility of those who deny his existence to explain away the references to an existing Jesus in the NT.

What you say shows that you lack knowledge of Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.

Romulus and Remus did not exist but there are stories about them.

Jupiter did not exist but we have stories about it.

The God of Moses did not exist but there are stories about God.

The angel Gabriel did not exist but there are stories about the angel Gabriel.

The Holy Ghost does not exist but there are stories about the Holy Ghost.

Satan the Devil did not exist but there are stories about Satan--the Devil.

By the way, it is those who claim Jesus existed as a human being who should have the supporting evidence.

If you cannot present any evidence for HJ of Nazareth then it makes very little sense to argue.

 

[Craig B]

What you say shows that you lack knowledge of Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.

Romulus and Remus did not exist but there are stories about them.

Jupiter did not exist but we have stories about it.

The God of Moses did not exist but there are stories about God.

The angel Gabriel did not exist but there are stories about the angel Gabriel.

The Holy Ghost does not exist but there are stories about the Holy Ghost.

Satan the Devil did not exist but there are stories about Satan--the Devil.

By the way, it is those who claim Jesus existed as a human being who should have the supporting evidence.

If you cannot present any evidence for HJ of Nazareth then it makes very little sense to argue.

That's right. But the stories in the NT are evidence that Jesus did exist. It is up to you to say that they are not valid evidence, and that may well be so. There is not much biographical information about the Holy Ghost in the NT except in Luke 1:35, that he came on Mary.

 

[David Mo]

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". 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."

Collaboration between upper classes and Romans in the Empire was the rule. Some violent interventions of Jewish leaders against religious/politic opponents are accounted by Josephus. Therefore an intervention of High Priest near Pontius Pilate to eliminate a dangerous popular leader is plausible. At this moment in Palestine is not possible to disconnect clearly the political and the religious fields. So we can without incoherence imagine this scenario: Jesus was an eschatological prophet very critical with upper classes. The High Priest's entourage presents him to Pontius Pilate as a political danger. And Pilate, as a good soldier, decides to cut short before to think too much.

Is this what actually happen? Who knows? Perhaps Pilate didn't like the fuss in the Temple and acted directly...Perhaps Jesus really was a subversive or a foolish who thought his Father was going to send some angelical legions to expel the Romans from Palestine...

We have no reliable account on this -as about the entire gospel story- to be able to decide. And diverse coherent narratives are possible. In some points we can suggest that some interpretations are more plausible than other and some absolutely incredible. It is all.

But this is the most plausible for me: Jesus did something that not pleased to Romans. This sounds as some anti-Roman activity. End point.

 

[IanS]

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.

David - although several posters here, and one in particular, keep insisting that these academics are “historians”, it has been shown here time and time again that whenever anyone names any of these “historians” the very first check in wickipedia reveals that the qualifications, background and teaching of all these individuals is entirely in religious studies, and not at all in any genuine non-religious secular university history. The people here being constantly referred to as “historians”, are most definitely almost all (if not entirely all) bible studies scholars, theologians, as well as a large number of practicing theist Christian writers in general.

So far we have had the names of Bart Ehrman, Dominic Crossan, E.P.Sanders, John Huddleston, Elaine Pagels, Bruce Metzger, and around 180 individuals at some sort of “academic” Jesus project who one poster here brought up (as an example of real “historians”), all of whom were very clearly religious studies academics (plus a couple who just had no qualifications in any history or bible stuff at all).

Not one of these named people has ever turned out to be genuinely a secular academic university “historian” teaching secular history in a university history department. They are almost all, either simply theist Christian writers, theology graduates of various types, or bible studies lecturers in various types of academic institutes, but rarely if ever in mainstream univ. history departments teaching mainstream non-religious history.

Disclaimer - in the USA alone there are probably (at a rough guess), ten’s of thousands of such individuals teaching and writing about the biblical Judeo-Christian history of Jesus (and probably at least as many again all around the rest of the world), and with numbers as large as that you will inevitably find some who believe and say almost anything about Jesus and related religious issues. No doubt a few will be people with real history doctorates who for various reasons claim to believe there is evidence of Jesus (though none of them can ever produce that evidence). You can probably even find a few who are well known scientists (and probably devout Christians at the same time), especially in the USA, who insist Jesus was definitely real and say there is evidence etc. But it has been shown in these threads time-&-time-again, that the vast majority of these people are being described in a highly misleading way when they are repeatedly called “historians” … overwhelming they are not … they are overwhelmingly, as their history, qualifications, religious background, and their teaching all shows, Bible Studies Scholars.

 

[Brainache]

...
Disclaimer - in the USA alone there are probably (at a rough guess), ten’s of thousands of such individuals teaching and writing about the biblical Judeo-Christian history of Jesus (and probably at least as many again all around the rest of the world), and with numbers as large as that you will inevitably find some who believe and say almost anything about Jesus and related religious issues. No doubt a few will be people with real history doctorates who for various reasons claim to believe there is evidence of Jesus (though none of them can ever produce that evidence). You can probably even find a few who are well known scientists (and probably devout Christians at the same time), especially in the USA, who insist Jesus was definitely real and say there is evidence etc. But it has been shown in these threads time-&-time-again, that the vast majority of these people are being described in a highly misleading way when they are repeatedly called “historians” … overwhelming they are not … they are overwhelmingly, as their history, qualifications, religious background, and their teaching all shows, Bible Studies Scholars.

That argument is totally bonkers.

You think not one of these tens of thousands of qualified Historians who know the "Real Truth^TM" has the wherewithal to publish a book about this earth shattering news?

Don't tell me.... He doesn't want to lose his job, right?

 

[IanS]

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?

I don't know who you mean by "earlier Christian communities" (see footnote), but as you just said yourself, you are only talking about "evidence of what earlier Christian communities believed about Jesus" ... that is evidence of their religious "belief" (as you just said yourself), but it is not evidence that their belief was ever true ...

... where is the evidence of Jesus as a living person?



Footnote - before Paul, who do you think had ever written about Jesus as the long awaited OT messiah from Yahweh?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Collaboration between upper classes and Romans in the Empire was the rule. Some violent interventions of Jewish leaders against religious/politic opponents are accounted by Josephus. Therefore an intervention of High Priest near Pontius Pilate to eliminate a dangerous popular leader is plausible. At this moment in Palestine is not possible to disconnect clearly the political and the religious fields. So we can without incoherence imagine this scenario: Jesus was an eschatological prophet very critical with upper classes. The High Priest's entourage presents him to Pontius Pilate as a political danger. And Pilate, as a good soldier, decides to cut short before to think too much.

Is this what actually happen? Who knows? Perhaps Pilate didn't like the fuss in the Temple and acted directly...Perhaps Jesus really was a subversive or a foolish who thought his Father was going to send some angelical legions to expel the Romans from Palestine...

We have no reliable account on this -as about the entire gospel story- to be able to decide. And diverse coherent narratives are possible. In some points we can suggest that some interpretations are more plausible than other and some absolutely incredible. It is all.

But this is the most plausible for me: Jesus did something that not pleased to Romans. This sounds as some anti-Roman activity. End point.

Yes, the Temple priests could certainly have been involved in Jesus' arrest. And if not, they certainly wouldn't have objected to the execution of an anti-Temple apocalyptic firebrand who was out to stir up social revolution. But the narrative that Jesus was innocent of any crime under Roman law was certainly added by Christian narrators living in the Roman world and seeking to emphasize the law abiding status of Christians within the Empire. And I imagine that Pontius Pilatus, given how brutal he is recorded to have been, would have scoffed at the idea that he could have been manipulated into crucifying a man whom he regarded to be innocent.

This does point to another historical element that suggests a corporeal Jeshua ben Joseph: Why invent a religious icon only to depict him as having been executed in a manner reserved for those who were convicted of state crimes against Rome? Someone with a spiritual message of love, morality and God's forgiveness wouldn't even have shown up on Roman radar. But another one of those apocalypticists who had caused so much trouble in the region would have been stepped on like a bug posthaste. The very fact that Jesus was said to have been crucified was a major point of criticism against Christianity for most pagans.

 

[tsig]

Yes, the Temple priests could certainly have been involved in Jesus' arrest. And if not, they certainly wouldn't have objected to the execution of an anti-Temple apocalyptic firebrand who was out to stir up social revolution. But the narrative that Jesus was innocent of any crime under Roman law was certainly added by Christian narrators living in the Roman world and seeking to emphasize the law abiding status of Christians within the Empire. And I imagine that Pontius Pilatus, given how brutal he is recorded to have been, would have scoffed at the idea that he could have been manipulated into crucifying a man whom he regarded to be innocent.

This does point to another historical element that suggests a corporeal Jeshua ben Joseph: Why invent a religious icon only to depict him as having been executed in a manner reserved for those who were convicted of state crimes against Rome? Someone with a spiritual message of love, morality and God's forgiveness wouldn't even have shown up on Roman radar. But another one of those apocalypticists who had caused so much trouble in the region would have been stepped on like a bug posthaste. The very fact that Jesus was said to have been crucified was a major point of criticism against Christianity for most pagans.

No one is saying that Jesus was deliberately invented.

ETA: your statement looks like an "argument from embarrassment", "No one would invent a story that embarrasses them. so Jesus must be real".

 

[Hokulele]

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 .

Um, you do realize that you just proved FZ's original point that John did not consider Jesus to be God, yes?

 

[Foster Zygote]

No one is saying that Jesus was deliberately invented.

Then why was the crucifixion element present in the narrative?

ETA: your statement looks like an "argument from embarrassment", "No one would invent a story that embarrasses them. so Jesus must be real".

It doesn't make the question any less valid.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I don't know who you mean by "earlier Christian communities" (see footnote), but as you just said yourself, you are only talking about "evidence of what earlier Christian communities believed about Jesus" ... that is evidence of their religious "belief" (as you just said yourself), but it is not evidence that their belief was ever true ...

... where is the evidence of Jesus as a living person?



Footnote - before Paul, who do you think had ever written about Jesus as the long awaited OT messiah from Yahweh?

Yeah, that probably ignores the most basic question:

If one is not going to use the Bible as evidence for anything, what evidence is there that there exists anything at all that needs to be explained in the first place?

 

[Sherman Bay]

That's right. But the stories in the NT are evidence that Jesus did exist.

The stories about Jesus in the Gospels are therefore evidence - albeit not conclusive or irrefutable evidence - that Jesus existed.

So if I write a story about someone I made up, that is evidence that he exists? Does Harry Potter exist? There's a story about him -- several, in fact.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So if I write a story about someone I made up, that is evidence that he exists? Does Harry Potter exist? There's a story about him -- several, in fact.

Has Harry Potter been at all integrated into our own historical narratives?

 

[zugzwang]

So if I write a story about someone I made up, that is evidence that he exists? Does Harry Potter exist? There's a story about him -- several, in fact.

That's where multiple independent sources is supposed to come in - that some stories are told by different people.

However, this has flaws in it - for example, there are multiple sources for abduction by aliens.

 

[dejudge]

That's right. But the stories in the NT are evidence that Jesus did exist. It is up to you to say that they are not valid evidence, and that may well be so. There is not much biographical information about the Holy Ghost in the NT except in Luke 1:35, that he came on Mary.

Again, what you say does not make much sense.

There are stories about the Holy Ghost and that without the Holy Ghost the disciples would NOT get the power to preach about Jesus.

I have already shown how Jesus was conceived in the very Bible.

You are arguing that the Bible is evidence for Jesus yet refuse to accept the the very evidence in the Bible that state Jesus was a Ghost--a Phantom.

Look at the evidence and stop talking.

1. Matthew 14:25 KJV--And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea

Jesus of Nazareth was a Phantom--a figure of mythology.

2. Mark 9:2 KJV---And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Phantom--a figure of mythology.

3. Luke 1 KJV---34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be , seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God

Jesus of Nazareth was a Phanton--a figure of mythology.

 

[dejudge]

Um, you do realize that you just proved FZ's original point that John did not consider Jesus to be God, yes?

You don't realize that you just proved that you have no idea of the very first verses of gJohn.

Please, just go and read gJohn before you embarrass yourself again.

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

gJohn's Jesus was God from the very beginning.

gJohn's Jesus was a figure of mythology from the start.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You don't realize that you just proved that you have no idea of the very first verses of gJohn.

Please, just go and read gJohn before you embarrass yourself again.

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

gJohn's Jesus was God from the very beginning.

gJohn's Jesus was a figure of mythology from the start.

Yeah, 'cause John was written in English after all. And there's no way that the subtleties of one language can't be lost when translated into another.

But even if the author of John had intended his readers to infer that Jesus was basically God incarnate, so what? How does this support your argument that there could not have been a corporeal Jesus?

 

[mijopaalmc]

GJohn is the latest canonical Gospel. Why are you using it as evidence of what the earliest Christians believed?