Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

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

So you say.

Prove it.

 

[dejudge]

So you say.

Prove it.

You MUST read the evidence for yourself. You will see the proof.

Philo---nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Josephus---nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Pliny the Elder--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth

Plutarch--Nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Tacitus--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Suetonius--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Pliny the younger--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Cassius Dio--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Brainache]

You MUST read the evidence for yourself. You will see the proof.

Philo---nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Josephus---nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Pliny the Elder--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth

Tacitus--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Suetonius--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Pliny the younger--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Cassius Dio--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Oh well.

Have to look elsewhere then, if we want to explain the origins of Christianity I suppose.

Considered that?

 

[dejudge]

Oh well.

Have to look elsewhere then, if we want to explain the origins of Christianity I suppose.

Considered that?

You don't know where to look??

Where did you find Jesus the Zealot. Did he not start Christianity?

Come on!!! You are hiding vital information from me.

Tell us about YOUR Zealot. He started Christianity in the 1st century, did he not??

Isn't there a massive consensus for 1st century Christianity?

 

[Brainache]

You don't know where to look??

Where did you find Jesus the Zealot. Did he not start Christianity?

Come on!!! You are hiding vital information from me.

Tell us about YOUR Zealot. He started Christianity in the 1st century, did he not??

Isn't there a massive consensus for 1st century Christianity?

Start here:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

Now listen, all right-minded men, and take note how God acts: He has a case against all flesh and exacts satisfaction from all who spurn Him.

Whenever Israel broke faith and renounced Him, He hid His face both from it and from His sanctuary and con-signed them to the sword. But whenever He called to mind the covenant which He had made with their forbears, He spared them a remnant and did not consign them to utter extinction.

So, in the Era of Anger, that era of the three hundred and ninety years,1 when He delivered them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, He took care of them and brought to blossom alike out of the priesthood and out of the laity that root which had been planted of old, allowing it once more to possess the land and to grow fat in the richness of its soil. Then they realized their iniquity and knew that they had been at fault. For twenty years, however, they remained like blind men groping their way,2 until at last God took note of their deeds, how that they were seeking Him sincerely, and He raised up for them one who would teach the Law correctly,8 to guide them in the way of His heart and to demonstrate to future ages what He does to a generation that incurs His anger, that is, to the congregation of those that betray Him and turn aside from His way...

See you in a few years.

 

[pakeha]

It didn't work Pakeha.

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

I didn't mean it to do so.
My post was just an attempt at humour, playing on my distaste for argumentun ad youtubum and acting as a homage to one of my favourite movies.
Where else in the Internet but at the JREF can Marcion and Lt. Ripley exist in the same thread?

And to tell the truth, Many of dejudge's posts have sent me off to the web to find out more about authors I'm only beginning to read.

 

[Brainache]

... needs a separate and independent inquiry

Tell me dejudge, what is your opinion of Larry Silverstein?

Still curious.

 

[Brainache]

Start here:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm



See you in a few years.

Here's a little tune to help you in your historical excavations:



Dig, Lazarus. Dig!!!

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

We haven't assumed anything. We have only stated that something is plausible based on the available information. You are the one claiming certainty about the origins of Christianity.

People educated in [the critical habit of thought] ...are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. - William Graham Sumner

 

[dejudge]

We haven't assumed anything. We have only stated that something is plausible based on the available information. You are the one claiming certainty about the origins of Christianity.

People educated in [the critical habit of thought] ...are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. - William Graham Sumner

So, you are really wasting time because educated people admit that it is probable that Jesus was a figure of mythology especially when Jesus was described as a the Son of a Ghost and God Creator, that he walked on water for three miles, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Plus, there is no corroboration at all for Jesus of Nazareth by non-apologetic sources and all the manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus that have been found and dated are from the 2nd century or later.

The argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology is well supported by the evidence and far superior to the argument for HJ of Nazareth.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You believe the nonsense called HJ of Nazareth in the Bible [God's Word] .

Just because someone finds the existence of an historical Jesus plausible, it doesn't indicate that he/she believes the Bible is God's word, or that it presents an historically accurate account of his life.

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?

You seem to be assuming that those disagreeing with you in this thread are Christians. Is it difficult for you to understand that someone could entertain the possibility that a corporeal Jesus lived and was the basis of the Christian mythos, yet not believe said mythology?

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

No one is doing that. You seem to have the extremely simple-minded notion that the only alternative to blind acceptance of the Bible as the inspired word of the One True God® is to reject every aspect of it as completely imaginary. We are looking not only at the Bible, but also the writings of early Christians, and wondering what the origins of this Jesus movement might have been. Saying that Jesus may have been an apocalyptic rabbi executed by the Romans is no more an affirmation of Christianity than stating that Joseph Smith was a 19th Century confidence man who was murdered by a mob is an affirmation of Mormonism.

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.

It is only your ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills that causes you to assume that the historical hypothesis is based on accepting the stories of the Bible at face value. Have you not noticed that we haven't suggested that an historical Jesus really was born of a virgin, performed miracles, and willingly died as a redemptive sacrifice only to be raised from the dead and ascend to heaven? Can you discern the difference between that and a religious radical who was executed, then reinvented by his followers to avoid admitting reality, and ultimately appropriated by others who altered his message until it would have been virtually unrecognizable to the original man. Does that sound at all like an affirmation of the biblical narrative?

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?

I think the key point here is that it takes a lack of thought to believe that the atheists here are doing anything of the sort.

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

Now we're getting somewhere. You really are on a mission against the Bible. Your vitriol against it is such that, to you, even suggesting that the magical Jesus of Christian literature might have been invented around word-of-mouth accounts of a real person, however different from the myths ultimately created, is tantamount to collusion with the enemy.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You MUST read the evidence for yourself. You will see the proof.

Philo---nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Josephus---nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Pliny the Elder--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth

Plutarch--Nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Tacitus--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Suetonius--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Pliny the younger--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Cassius Dio--nothing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Why would we expect them to write about him? Jesus would not have been a big deal in his own time. He may have been relatively well known around Nazareth, and people in adjoining regions may have heard tell of him. But he certainly wasn't famous. He was just another of many holy men in his time and place, and not even one of the relatively famous ones.

But it's interesting that you claim that Christianity wasn't invented until the 2nd Century, yet mention Tacitus and Suetonius. Both men make mention of Nero Caesar's persecution of members of the Christian cult.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology is well supported by the evidence and far superior to the argument for HJ of Nazareth.

You have yet to support this assertion.


By the way, is there scientific consensus that the Earth is about four and a half billion years old?

 

[dejudge]

Just because someone finds the existence of an historical Jesus plausible, it doesn't indicate that he/she believes the Bible is God's word, or that it presents an historically accurate account of his life.

Your statement is contradictory and hopelessly confused.

The Bible is regarded as God's Word by Christians and those who argue for an historical Jesus MUST believe that stories in God's Word are historically reliable.

In God's Word it is claimed Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate and HJers believe it is true without external corroboration from non-apologetic sources.

HJers have a lot of FAITH , belief without evidence, in God's Word.

HJers believe God's Word is a history book for their Jesus.

You seem to be assuming that those disagreeing with you in this thread are Christians. Is it difficult for you to understand that someone could entertain the possibility that a corporeal Jesus lived and was the basis of the Christian mythos, yet not believe said mythology?

Why are you making such a fallacious statement? I have specifically mentioned that people who call themselves atheists are asking people to believe God's Word contains the truth about Jesus of Nazareth.

Brainache , an atheist, has argued vehemently that people must start looking for HJ in God's Word. It is obvious that he has Faith in the historical reliability of the Bible with regards to his HJ.

 

[zugzwang]

Why is the Bible God's Word? Because fundies and evangelicals say it is? Blimey, that's not really anything to do with historical method.

 

[David Mo]

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.

I had written:

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

Hence I agree. The consensus between biblical scholars is strongly biased and in general should not be given too much importance. But in this case (Jesus’ existence) it should be noted that even the few secular historians who deal with the subject agree on the basic elements of the existence of Jesus of Galilee. I mean, surely there was a certain Jesus who was crucified by the Romans.

If the confessional historians are legitimated to do History is another issue. Every belief adds a framework in the task of historian. It may be Christian, Marxist, liberal conservative, progressive and so on. We cannot say a Marxist historian is not historian because he is Marxist. Or liberal, if you like. Maybe the ideological preconception propels him to evident mistakes. But this is unavoidable when ideological preconceptions act in Human Sciences and in History. And this is most common than it is assumed. Do you think that scepticism cannot operate as an ideological preconception?

I'm very minimalist and I think no much can be extracted with certainty from the gospel narratives if any certainty is possible. The pacific and ecumenical Jesus seems at odds with some passages of the Gospels and looks like a later addition of Pauline type. Therefore, the question of Jesus’ existence and the historic Jesus seem to me an irrelevant problem for History. It is a matter of faith and some secular historians have jumped at bandwagon motivated by personal interests or ideological starting points. It is an interesting issue from an epistemologycal point of view, sure. Or Philosophy of religion.

 

[dejudge]

Why would we expect them to write about him? Jesus would not have been a big deal in his own time. He may have been relatively well known around Nazareth, and people in adjoining regions may have heard tell of him. But he certainly wasn't famous. He was just another of many holy men in his time and place, and not even one of the relatively famous ones.

What?? You cannot be serious!! Have you ever read the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus?

All of a sudden you conveniently forgot about the Paul and the Pauline Corpus, the Apostles Peter, James and John--the Pillars of the Jerusalem Church.

By the time the Epistle to the Romans was composed the name of Jesus was known throughout the world.


Romans 1:8 KJV

First , I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Based on the Pauline Corpus, by 37-41 CE, the time of King Aretas, Paul and others were going around the Roman Empire telling people [Jews and Roman citizens] that Jesus was Gods Own Son, that he was Lord, the Christ, that every person should bow to the name of Jesus including the Roman Emperors, that Jesus abolished the Laws of the Jews, and that Jesus resurrected on the Third day for Remission of Sins.

Please, stop the nonsense that Jesus was not well known while you simultaneously argue for authentic Pauline Epistles.

Who are you trying to fool? Those days are done.

Once you argue that the Pauline Corpus is authentic and historically reliable then it is just total nonsense that that Jesus Christ was unknown in the Roman Empire.

Based on Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline Epistles, the Roman Empire was evangelized by Paul and the other apostles of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth.

But it's interesting that you claim that Christianity wasn't invented until the 2nd Century, yet mention Tacitus and Suetonius. Both men make mention of Nero Caesar's persecution of members of the Christian cult.

Again, why can't you repeat what I wrote? I argue that the JESUS story and Jesus cult is a 2nd century invention--not all Christianity.

It is a complete error to assume that any mention of Christians MUST refer to a Jesus cult and those who believe the Jesus story.

You show that that you have no idea of the meaning of the word "Christian" and no idea that there were people called Christians who did not accept the story of Jesus.

'Christian' is derived from the Greek word meaning 'Anointed or Anointing"

Even King David in the Septuagint was called the Christ of God.

In "To Autolycus", Theophilus of Antioch called himself a Christian but never mentioned that he believed in Jesus Christ and never claimed Jesus Christ died for his sins.

Theophilus claimed he was a Christians because he was Anointed with Oil of God.


Theophilus' To Autolycus'

.....And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible.................. Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

 

[David Mo]

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.

It is easy to show that consensus is a myth: put the name of scholars that believe Jesus never existed. If that number is very small, it is because the others believe he existed. This is called "consensus".

You can legitimately deny that this consensus is based on sound reasons. You can legitimately claim that this consensus is influenced by the beliefs and ecclesiastical positions held by historians who defend it. This review is legitimate. But don’t say that there is no consensus. This is wrong.

 

[dejudge]

It is easy to show that consensus is a myth: put the name of scholars that believe Jesus never existed. If that number is very small, it is because the others believe he existed. This is called "consensus".

You can legitimately deny that this consensus is based on sound reasons. You can legitimately claim that this consensus is influenced by the beliefs and ecclesiastical positions held by historians who defend it. This review is legitimate. But don’t say that there is no consensus. This is wrong.

There is no consensus among historians that Jesus existed or did not exist. There is no study, no data, no statistics available that show the number of historians worldwide and the number who argue for or against an historical Jesus.

You may find that less than 1% of historians worldwide have given an opinion of Jesus on Nazareth.

I can deny the veracity of your claim because you cannot present any actual data for your invented consensus based on imagination.

Please present the data or stop inventing.

 

[I Ratant]

So, you are really wasting time because educated people admit that it is probable that Jesus was a figure of mythology especially when Jesus was described as a the Son of a Ghost and God Creator, that he walked on water for three miles, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Plus, there is no corroboration at all for Jesus of Nazareth by non-apologetic sources and all the manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus that have been found and dated are from the 2nd century or later.

The argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology is well supported by the evidence and far superior to the argument for HJ of Nazareth.

.
The shrillness of these attacks makes me wonder when the different fonts and colors will be invoked, typical of a ranter.
There are few posters here who defend the divinity of JC, so why the noise?