Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Craig B]

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.

Anyway the Nicene Creed, at least in its later version, admits the physicality of Christ.

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried ...

My bold. So he was a corporeal earthly figure, as well as an incorporeal heavenly entity.

 

[Beady]

Just to stick in my own two shekels, the story of Jesus as told in Thomas Jefferson's edited version of the Gospels (readily available on Amazon, etc) is historically plausible and not inconsistent with verifiable fact.

 

[Craig B]

Just to stick in my own two shekels, the story of Jesus as told in Thomas Jefferson's edited version of the Gospels (readily available on Amazon, etc) is historically plausible and not inconsistent with verifiable fact.

Yes but to be fair to the mythicists, Jefferson's conception was arrived at not by any positive process, but by the deletion of manifest absurdity. This is the flaw of Deist thought in general; we end up with an apophatic conception of a divinity about which nothing finite or affirmative can be said, and entirely separately a story of Jesus reduced to the dimensions of a pamphlet by Jefferson's busy scissors. However, I am not a mythicist, any more than I am a deist.

ETA Sherlock Holmes is made by his creator to say:

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

That is not a sound doctrine.

 

[dejudge]

Anyway the Nicene Creed, at least in its later version, admits the physicality of Christ. My bold. So he was a corporeal earthly figure, as well as an incorporeal heavenly entity.

May I remind you that The Nicene Creed admits the physicality of the Holy Ghost.


The Nicene Creed

.....And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

 

[Brainache]

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

It didn't work Pakeha.

I just hope we can stop it from spreading...

May I remind you that The Nicene Creed admits the physicality of the Holy Ghost.

The Nicene Creed

......And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

You think that describes a physical being?

I was going to suggest reading it in Greek, but you might want to try it in English first.

 

[dejudge]

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.

An historical Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God by Jews and Roman citizens in the time of Pilate is completely implausible and without a shred of corroboration--zero evidence.

It is completely bogus that since the time of Aretas c 39-41 CE up to at least c 62 CE a Pharisee called Paul preached that Jesus, the Son of God was raised from the dead and that without his resurrection Jews and Roman citizens would have NO Salvation.

There is no record of Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles Peter and Paul in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, and Cassius Dio.

 

[dejudge]

You think that describes a physical being?

I was going to suggest reading it in Greek, but you might want to try it in English first.

You know Greek? You know English? You obviously do not understand the difference between 'physicality" and 'human'.

Please explain the physicality of Romulus and Remus? They were human brothers in the mythological fables IN Plutarch's Romulus.

Please explain the 'physicality' of the angel Gabriel and Satan the Devil?

Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness and the angel Gabriel told the Virgin that the Holy Ghost would overshadow her and she would get a baby name Jesus.

You understand Greek and English??

 

[dejudge]

So he was a corporeal earthly figure, as well as an incorporeal heavenly entity.

So Jesus was a perfect myth--God incarnate.

 

[Brainache]

So Jesus was a perfect myth--God incarnate.

You know "incarnate" means "in the flesh" don't you?

 

[dejudge]

You know "incarnate" means "in the flesh" don't you?

You know what mythology means don't you? You know the father of Jesus was the Holy Ghost in the Bible don't you? You know the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin in the Bible, don't you?

You know that Jesus was a Son of a Ghost and a Virgin.

You know Jesus walked on the sea, don't you?

You know Jesus transfigured don't you?

You know that human beings cannot walked on the sea for over THREE miles don't you??

You know Jesus was NOT a human being.

You know Jesus was a figure of mythology.

 

[Puppycow]

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.

I just think think the Jesus story would have been a better story if it were made up of whole cloth. Greek mythology just feels different. It feels like a myth. The Jesus story feels like North Korean propaganda.

In 1997, the Juche Era dating system was introduced and replaced the Gregorian calendar, which begins with the birth of Kim Il-sung (April 15, 1912) as year 1.[36][37] The year 2013 would thus correspond to Juche 102 (there is no year 0).

In keeping with the modern mythologies that pervade North Korea's version of history, it is alleged that Kim Jong-il was born on Mount Paektu at his father's secret base in 1942 (his actual birth was in 1941 in the Soviet Union) and that his birth was heralded by a swallow, caused winter to change to spring, a star to illuminate the sky, and a double rainbow spontaneously appeared.[38]

Take a real person with a cult following, and the cult will create all these ridiculous myths about the "Dear Leader" and the miracles he performed.

 

[dejudge]

I just think think the Jesus story would have been a better story if it were made up of whole cloth. Greek mythology just feels different. It feels like a myth. The Jesus story feels like North Korean propaganda.

Your historical Jesus is based on your imagination. You needed to present the evidence from antiquity for an historical Jesus of Nazareth but instead you give evidence for some North Korea propaganda.

Let's get the evidence from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously you don't have any.

...Take a real person with a cult following, and the cult will create all these ridiculous myths about the "Dear Leader" and the miracles he performed.

You are exposing that you have no idea what is written in the NT about Jesus.

Are you aware that Jesus, the Son of God, in the Bible, claimed he did NOT want the populace to know he was Christ?

Are you aware that Jesus the Son of God wanted the populace to remain in Sin?

Are you aware that it was the Holy Ghost which came down from heaven to start the Jesus cult?

Are you aware that the resurrected Jesus did NOT have the power to make the disciples preach the Gospel?

You should read the Bible first. Jesus was not on earth when the cult started and had no power to preach the Gospel of the resurrection and Salvation by crucifixion.

See Luke 24 and Acts 1&2

 

[Robrob]

Your historical Jesus is based on your imagination. You needed to present the evidence from antiquity for an historical Jesus of Nazareth but instead you give evidence for some North Korea propaganda.

Let's get the evidence from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously you don't have any.



You are exposing that you have no idea what is written in the NT about Jesus.

Are you aware that Jesus, the Son of God, in the Bible, claimed he did NOT want the populace to know he was Christ?

Are you aware that Jesus the Son of God wanted the populace to remain in Sin?

Are you aware that it was the Holy Ghost which came down from heaven to start the Jesus cult?

Are you aware that the resurrected Jesus did NOT have the power to make the disciples preach the Gospel?

You should read the Bible first. Jesus was not on earth when the cult started and had no power to preach the Gospel of the resurrection and Salvation by crucifixion.

See Luke 24 and Acts 1&2

Not tracking your point. Just because the followers of someone years after the fact, write about his amazing humility and how he didn't want his identity known, etc... How is that "evidence" of anything?

You should read some of the rapturous descriptions of how humble and self depreciating Comrade Stalin was...

 

[Craig B]

May I remind you that The Nicene Creed admits the physicality of the Holy Ghost.

.....And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

The Nicene Creed

There is absolutely nothing there that admits the physicality of anything. Unless you are in some weird way alluding to the notion that the Holy Spirit "proceedeth ... from the Son" if the latter is thought of as in one aspect physical. But you are not basing anything on these words - "filioque" - are you? Not even you, dejudge, would invoke this notorious interpolation, would you, to determine the view of the early church? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque for a discussion of this issue, probably the greatest controversy in the history of the Christian churches.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Take a real person with a cult following, and the cult will create all these ridiculous myths about the "Dear Leader" and the miracles he performed.

I've already told him about Kim Jong Il's perfect 300 game his first time bowling, and about his first time golfing, when he scored 38 under par and got five holes-in-one.

 

[Brainache]

You know what mythology means don't you? You know the father of Jesus was the Holy Ghost in the Bible don't you? You know the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin in the Bible, don't you?

You know that Jesus was a Son of a Ghost and a Virgin.

You know Jesus walked on the sea, don't you?

You know Jesus transfigured don't you?

You know that human beings cannot walked on the sea for over THREE miles don't you??

You know Jesus was NOT a human being.

You know Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Why would I believe all that nonsense? Those things don't happen in the real world. They happen all the time in ancient stories about real people though.

Your argument is useless.

Get a new one, this one's broken.

 

[dejudge]

Not tracking your point. Just because the followers of someone years after the fact, write about his amazing humility and how he didn't want his identity known, etc... How is that "evidence" of anything?

You should read some of the rapturous descriptions of how humble and self depreciating Comrade Stalin was...

You have merely assumed you know what happened without providing a shred of evidence from antiquity.

What is your evidence that Jesus was a human being and that he did have followers? The Bible?

In the Bible Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

Please just go and read your Bible because it is not about history but just pure unadulterated mythology like those of the Jews, Romans and Greeks.

This is the 21st century. Why, why are atheists relying on the Bible for history?

Jesus and God are one. Jesus and God are Myths.

They NEVER had any real existence.

Mark 3:11 NAS--Whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they would fall down before Him and shout, "You are the Son of God !"

John 10:30 KJV----I and my Father are one.

Galatians 2:20 NAS---"I have been crucified with Christ ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

 

[dejudge]

Why would I believe all that nonsense? Those things don't happen in the real world. They happen all the time in ancient stories about real people though.

Your argument is useless.

Get a new one, this one's broken.

You believe the nonsense called HJ of Nazareth in the Bible [God's Word] . You believe the Bible [God's Word] is a source of history for YOUR Jesus. Why do you believe the Bible is history now that you admit the stories in the Bible are nonsense?

Why are atheists telling people today to accept God's Word [the Bible]as a source of history for Jesus of Nazareth?

I will never accept that nonsense called HJ of Nazareth which is a product of the Bible [God's Word]--- a compilation of forgeries, fiction, historical problems, discrepancies, contradictions, implausibility, nonsense and anti-intellectualism.

Who would have thought that atheists accept the Bible as history for Jesus of Nazareth and do so WITHOUT corroboration from credible non-apologetic sources?

The Bible is nonsense--the flagship of anti-intellectualism.

 

[Brainache]

You believe the nonsense called HJ of Nazareth in the Bible [God's Word] . You believe the Bible [God's Word] is a source of history for YOUR Jesus. Why do you believe the Bible is history now that you admit the stories in the Bible are nonsense?

Why are atheists telling people today to accept God's Word [the Bible]as a source of history for Jesus of Nazareth?

I will never accept that nonsense called HJ of Nazareth which is a product of the Bible [God's Word]--- a compilation of forgeries, fiction, historical problems, discrepancies, contradictions, implausibility, nonsense and anti-intellectualism.

Who would have thought that atheists accept the Bible as history for Jesus of Nazareth and do so WITHOUT corroboration from credible non-apologetic sources?

The Bible is nonsense--the flagship of anti-intellectualism.

You have said all that before. It didn't convince anyone then, and it won't convince anyone now.

Can you explain the origins of Christianity if Jesus never existed?

If so, please do. The floor is yours, we are all ears, away you go, don't let me stop you, whenever you're ready....

Shoot!

 

[dejudge]

You have said all that before. It didn't convince anyone then, and it won't convince anyone now.

You promote fallacies. You invent your own stories without any evidence. How in the world can you make such an illogical statement? You have no idea of what you are talking about. You have confirmed that you are hopelessly prone to making statements which makes very little sense.

Can you explain the origins of Christianity if Jesus never existed?

If so, please do. The floor is yours, we are all ears, away you go, don't let me stop you, whenever you're ready....

Shoot!

You can explain nothing about YOUR HJ and have NO evidence at all but spend your time asking questions.

You had the floor and presented nothing.

I presented the evidence already. Why don't you read the evidence?

There is NO evidence whatsoever in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger that there was a character called Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century pre 40 CE who was worshiped as a God by Jews and Roman citizens and was believed to be the Savior of all mankind AFTER He was crucified and resurrected.

Around c 69-79 CE Vespasian was believed to be the Predicted Messianic ruler, Son of God, Savior and healer found in Hebrew Scripture---there was NO Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth in the records of the history of the Jews.

All manuscripts and Codices with the Jesus story that have been recovered and dated are no earlier than the 2nd century.

There is NO support for an historical Jesus and no support for pre 70 CE Jesus cult Churches and Christians.

The evidence fully supports a 2nd century start for the Jesus story and cult.