Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Hokulele]

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.

And you have just proved you aren't aware of the subtleties of the Greek word Logos. Congratulations!

Hint, reposting an argument that has already been shown to be less than persuasive doesn't magically make it any better.

 

[pakeha]

I even tried conceding defeat.

Nothing can stop it.

We may have to use Nucular Force.

Run for your lives!

[qimg]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3jqURTbipoCLMTLmYMVFojckY7Ch_OXYFZfp87fAzoV1isav4ag[/qimg]

You know I've an allergy to videos, but...

 

[dejudge]

Actually, the above argument is fallacious. The fact that people in a very superstitious culture made up and believed magical stories about religious figures does not prove that those figures never existed.

It is your argument that is entirely fallacious. Virtually every account of Jesus is either fiction or implausible which supports mythology and there is no corroborative evidence from non-apologetic sources for any account of Jesus of Nazareth pre 70 CE. Apologetic writers also admitted Jesus of Nazareth was a product of a Ghost and a Virgin.

You have nothing to support your claim that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history so please stop wasting time.

 

[mijopaalmc]

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?

Yeah, he does seem to forget this whole part:

6There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. 9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 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. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

 

[I Ratant]

...
You want to know How he was conceived?

.
A heavenly turkey baster?

 

[IanS]

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.

You mean to say that you have no idea that there have ever been mythical stories about fictional figures all throughout history? That's news to you is it?

On the contrary, afaik especially in ancient history from biblical times, and especially in the case miraculous supernatural religious figures, the ancient world was awash with such beliefs.

 

[dejudge]

And you have just proved you aren't aware of the subtleties of the Greek word Logos. Congratulations!

Hint, reposting an argument that has already been shown to be less than persuasive doesn't magically make it any better.

Your post is embarrassing. You are not familiar with the teachings of the early Church. Please, just go get familiar with the NT and the teachings of the Church, especially the Nicene Creed.


The Nicene Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You mean to say that you have no idea that there have ever been mythical stories about fictional figures all throughout history? That's news to you is it?

On the contrary, afaik especially in ancient history from biblical times, and especially in the case miraculous supernatural religious figures, the ancient world was awash with such beliefs.

Cool straw man, bro!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Your post is embarrassing. You are not familiar with the teachings of the early Church. Please, just go get familiar with the NT and the teachings of the Church, especially the Nicene Creed.


The Nicene Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

And that was a consensus document written more than 200 years after the Gospels. What does it have to say about anything early Christians believed?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

Yeah. The author of John had had, what, 60 to 90 years of myth making to draw from before he wrote his work?

 

[Craig B]

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.

You have to show that the Gospel stories are pure invented fiction, intentionally produced as such by their authors, like Harry Potter. Before I discuss this further with you, is that in fact what you are saying? It is a rather important question.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You have nothing to support your claim that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history so please stop wasting time.

Perhaps it is because of your own certainty that you assume that I must be arguing the opposite of your position. I have not claim that Jeshua ben Joseph was an historical person, only that it is plausible that he was. Do you understand?

 

[zugzwang]

And that was a consensus document written more than 200 years after the Gospels. What does it have to say about anything early Christians believed?

Because it's all fake, man. Nicene was a fake by Constantine; Paul was a fake by somebody or other; the gospels were a fake by the other lot.

Come on, dude, you have to stay tuned with the latest textual research.

 

[Hokulele]

Your post is embarrassing. You are not familiar with the teachings of the early Church. Please, just go get familiar with the NT and the teachings of the Church, especially the Nicene Creed.


The Nicene Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

So your evidence that early Christians believed that Jesus was God, and not an avatar of God, or God incarnate, is ...

... a policy set centuries later that basically states that Jesus isn't God, but God incarnate.


Mind. Blown.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your post is embarrassing. You are not familiar with the teachings of the early Church. Please, just go get familiar with the NT and the teachings of the Church, especially the Nicene Creed.


The Nicene Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Um... You do realize that people can believe ridiculous things about long dead people, right?

I mean, if someone argued that Joseph Smith never existed because Mormons claim he spoke to angels, you can see how that would be a stupid argument to make, yes?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because it's all fake, man. Nicene was a fake by Constantine; Paul was a fake by somebody or other; the gospels were a fake by the other lot.

Come on, dude, you have to stay tuned with the latest textual research.

It's all fake, man.

 

[dejudge]

And that was a consensus document written more than 200 years after the Gospels. What does it have to say about anything early Christians believed?

What?? Are you claiming the early Church did not use the EARLIER teachings in the Gospels to formulate the Nicene Creed.

Please, you are not making much sense.

The very claims about Jesus in the 1st chapter of gJohn is found in the Nicene Creed.


John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made .

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe . 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born , not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 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.

The Nicene Creed was developed from gJohn and earlier beliefs of Christians.


The Nicene Creed

I believe..........in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made....

 

[pakeha]

Then why was the crucifixion element present in the narrative?


It doesn't make the question any less valid.

You question reminded me of an article I read last summer.
I've just now hunted down the corresponding link to a most intriguing explanation of the presence of crucifixion in the NT narratives

"Justin Martyr depicted the paschal lamb as being offered in the form of a cross and he claimed that the manner in which the paschal lamb was slaughtered prefigured the crucifixion of Jesus. It is generally thought that Justin, who was born and raised in Samaria, was thinking of the Samaritan Passover, but the present day Samaritan practice would not justify his depiction of the lamb in the form of a cross. An examination of the rabbinic evidence, on the other hand, seems to show that in Jerusalem the Jewish paschal lamb was offered in a manner which resembled a crucifixion. The earlier Samaritan practice, it is suggested, followed the Jerusalem tradition but has since been changed. The rabbinic evidence could also provide an explanation for the crown of thorns with which Jesus was adorned."
http://silouanthompson.net/2012/04/crucifixion-paschal-lamb/

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.

And Marian apparitions, too.

 

[tsig]

And that was a consensus document written more than 200 years after the Gospels. What does it have to say about anything early Christians believed?

A lot more than 200 years,

t is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day Iznik in Turkey) by the first ecumenical council, which met there in the year 325.[2]

 

[mijopaalmc]

A lot more than 200 years,

t is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day Iznik in Turkey) by the first ecumenical council, which met there in the year 325.[2]

I was going from the dating of John to ~90 CE.

But much larger point is that, though by the Council of Nicaea the orthodox Church had adopted some of the Johannine theology that dejudge is so obsessed with, the Nicene adoption says almost nothing about what Christians at the end of the 1st century believed about Jesus. In fact, each of the canonical Gospels paints theologically very different picture of Jesus, so dejudge's claim that the prologue in John somehow represents a widely held belief in the incorporeality of the earthly Jesus is patently absurd.