Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

.
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?

There are people here who present no evidence at all for their HJ of Nazareth and ridicule others that show them that they are wrong and that the Bible does not support an HJ of Nazareth.

I cannot accept arguments from those who use the Bible, the major source of anti-intellectualism in the modern world, for an historical Jesus especially when they call themselves atheists.

In the Bible, Jesus was God Creator.

How in the world can an atheist argue that a character called God Creator in the Bible was really a figure of history and do so WITHOUT external corroboration from non-apologetic sources?

 

[I Ratant]

...
I cannot accept arguments from those who use the Bible, the major source of anti-intellectualism in the modern world, for an historical Jesus especially when they call themselves atheists.

...

.
Personal incredulity carries no weight here.
That the stories may have a real person at their genesis is a reasonable, if unprovable position.
Why get all umbragey about that?
Most posters here place zero credence in anything in the book.
Fiction from the first word to the last.
Arguing forcefully while agreeing with that stance accomplishes what?

 

[mstricky]

Maybe Mandela is the true messiah

 

[dejudge]

.
Personal incredulity carries no weight here.
That the stories may have a real person at their genesis is a reasonable, if unprovable position.
Why get all umbragey about that?
Most posters here place zero credence in anything in the book.
Fiction from the first word to the last.
Arguing forcefully while agreeing with that stance accomplishes what?

What do you expect to accomplish by claiming the stories may have a real person but unprovable?

The people who admit they have no proof for their HJ are angry because I show them that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and God Creator.

Why are people angry that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth in the Bible? Isn't the Bible a source of mythology?

If most posters place zero credence in the Bible and it is unproveable that there was an historical Jesus then HJers are just wasting time.

They will not ever accomplish anything--the HJ argument is hopeless.

 

[The Greater Fool]

What do you expect to accomplish by claiming the stories may have a real person but unprovable?

The people who admit they have no proof for their HJ are angry because I show them that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and God Creator.

Why are people angry that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth in the Bible? Isn't the Bible a source of mythology?

If most posters place zero credence in the Bible and it is unproveable that there was an historical Jesus then HJers are just wasting time.

They will not ever accomplish anything--the HJ argument is hopeless.

I'm a tad confused by the inconsistency bolded...

1. The bible is a book of myths: using this book of myth as evidence or indication of HJ is nonsense.

2. The bible is a book of myths: using this book of myth as evidence or indication that Jesus = Creator God is valid, and the real truth, is NOT(?) nonsense.

Explain, please, how using a book of myths is valid for demonstrating the truth of Jesus = Creator God, but not Jesus = possible real person?

Or, is this a pedantic argument, that Jesus being conceived by a heavenly entity is not by definition human, but only something that appeared human in many respects? And that like any possible HJ, such Creator God Jesus is fictional?

 

[Craig B]

Maybe Mandela is the true messiah

I have just left a street gathering in Glasgow to commemorate him, in Nelson Mandela Place, named in his honour in 1986, addressed by local politicians from the Labour and Scottish National parties, and trade union personalities. He was given the Freedom of the City in 1981, and was much admired here. In 1993, after his release, he visited Glasgow and was warmly acclaimed.

 

[Brainache]

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.




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.

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


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.





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'

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.

There are people here who present no evidence at all for their HJ of Nazareth and ridicule others that show them that they are wrong and that the Bible does not support an HJ of Nazareth.

I cannot accept arguments from those who use the Bible, the major source of anti-intellectualism in the modern world, for an historical Jesus especially when they call themselves atheists.

In the Bible, Jesus was God Creator.

How in the world can an atheist argue that a character called God Creator in the Bible was really a figure of history and do so WITHOUT external corroboration from non-apologetic sources?

What do you expect to accomplish by claiming the stories may have a real person but unprovable?

The people who admit they have no proof for their HJ are angry because I show them that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and God Creator.

Why are people angry that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth in the Bible? Isn't the Bible a source of mythology?

If most posters place zero credence in the Bible and it is unproveable that there was an historical Jesus then HJers are just wasting time.

They will not ever accomplish anything--the HJ argument is hopeless.

How interesting these arguments are.

And so fresh!

This is going to take me a while to digest all these new concepts.

Meanwhile, I have a tune to read them by:

 

[Navigator]

Jesus and Nelson

They spoke a similar message - perhaps they are related...

 

[Brainache]

Jesus and Nelson
They spoke a similar message - perhaps they are related...

HA ha!

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your statement is contradictory and hopelessly confused.

No it isn't. Are you not capable of comprehending the difference between an historical person and a fictional account made up about that person?

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.

That is an asinine argument. Believing that Joseph Smith existed does not mean believing that he was visited by the angel Moroni. Do you deny that Joseph Smith existed? Believing that Kim Jong-il existed does not mean believing that winter changed to spring and a double rainbow appeared at the moment he was born. Do you deny that Kim Jong-il existed?

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.

No, they do not. Your argument is stupid.

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.

Are you simply a troll, posting the most contentious and contrarian things that you can think of in order to generate conflict? Are you really as obtuse as you present yourself to be, or is this just an infantile game?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Although it is, ironically, very similar to the thought processes employed by fundies.

 

[mstricky]

I have just left a street gathering in Glasgow to commemorate him, in Nelson Mandela Place, named in his honour in 1986, addressed by local politicians from the Labour and Scottish National parties, and trade union personalities. He was given the Freedom of the City in 1981, and was much admired here. In 1993, after his release, he visited Glasgow and was warmly acclaimed.

I'll be asking my friend for his bible tomorrow so hopefully can give you the quote about Jesus being Greek

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

And the North Korean state website once reported that Kim Jong-il does not defecate. Are you familiar with a concept called 'making **** up'?

 

[Craig B]

I'll be asking my friend for his bible tomorrow so hopefully can give you the quote about Jesus being Greek

Thank you. I'll be most interested to read that.

 

[Brainache]

And the North Korean state website once reported that Kim Jong-il does not defecate. Are you familiar with a concept called 'making **** up'?

Or, as in this case, the concept of not making **** up.

 

[I Ratant]

And the North Korean state website once reported that Kim Jong-il does not defecate. Are you familiar with a concept called 'making **** up'?

.
As with the legendary Tiger-gator... head of a tiger at one end, head of a gator at the other.... The result is a very mean animal.
"How do it ******"
"It don't, that's why it's so mean!"

 

[NekoTheCat]

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.

And how exactly is it implausible, besides of course you just asserting it is. Not that it of course matters considering that it appears the early Gospels viewed Jesus as purely human and not God (as I and various others have said several times.) And considering that the idea of him being God seems to be very clearly a later invention, I see no reason to think that anyone worshiped him. On top of this, I see no particular reason to think that Romans followed him. You seem more eager to make various claims about who this historical Jesus guy is than I do. If you are going to address someone's point then try not to put up strawmen, and maybe try to actually address it instead of just saying "it's implausible."

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.

Really? When did this come to Paul? And how exactly is such a thing "bogus" as you put it.

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.

I'm pretty sure you've already said this, just as I and others have already stated why we don't think it means Jesus was entirely mythical.

Your statement is contradictory and hopelessly confused.

I've found his position pretty easy to follow thus far.

The Bible is regarded as God's Word by Christians

Quite true for the most part.

and those who argue for an historical Jesus MUST believe that stories in God's Word are historically reliable.

Completely not true at all. Just as those who believe in Saint Nicholas don't have to believe any of the stories around Santa Clause. And similarly, one can believe that Nicholas existed without believing all the miracles and legends around him.

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

Probably a lot of the Christian ones, yes. The more secular ones like atheists? Not at all true.

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

Just no.

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.

Really? Where? I've seen no such thing.

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.

It's just the attempt to poison the well instead of making a real argument of how nothing in the Bible could at all possibly be true and must be completely 100% mythical and made up.

 

[dejudge]

And the North Korean state website once reported that Kim Jong-il does not defecate. Are you familiar with a concept called 'making **** up'?

Are you familiar with Romulus and Remus in Plutarch's Romulus? Are you familiar with the hundreds of Jewish, Greek and Roman mythological characters?

Gods are considered mythological characters. Jesus was God Creator.

 

[mstricky]

Are you familiar with Romulus and Remus in Plutarch's Romulus? Are you familiar with the hundreds of Jewish, Greek and Roman mythological characters?

Gods are considered mythological characters. Jesus was God Creator.

What do you mean by God creator? Are you a believer or not? I am so confused

 

[NekoTheCat]

Are you familiar with Romulus and Remus in Plutarch's Romulus? Are you familiar with the hundreds of Jewish, Greek and Roman mythological characters?

Gods are considered mythological characters. Jesus was God Creator.

Various kings and such have been called gods too. Does that mean they never existed? Or could it possible mean that people can believe that a person is a god? This isn't that difficult of a concept, and your argument is completely void of logic. Just because gods are myths doesn't mean that any person claimed to be a god is mythical. People could start calling me god in the flesh and have a bunch of stories about all the miracles that I've done tomorrow and it wouldn't magically make me stop existing.

But for like the 20th time in this thread, it seems pretty evident the earlier Christians believed that Jesus was just the Messiah, not God. The god issue was something that came up later. So this is entirely irrelevant in the first place.