Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Craig B]

May Isig the hilited, please?

I would be honoured.

 

[IanS]

So the NT never depicts Jesus as a human being, and Christians don't believe he was a human being? And you say this repeatedly over and over again.

The NT depicts Jesus in a way which people of that time no doubt found to be absolutely wonderful and totally convincing as the story of a wondrous messiah at the right hand of Yahweh. That's how the NT depicts the religious preaching of a Christ that none of them had ever known.

But the huge difference is that now, 2000 years later, we know from modern science, that those biblical depictions of a messiah none of them had ever known, cannot be true. That writing is fictional.

Could it ever have been based on a real person? Well it could have. But the test for that is that some genuine credible evidence of his existence must be produced, otherwise to put it bluntly, it's belief based on 1st century religious faith from barking mad pig-ignorant religious fanatics.

 

[IanS]

@ian S

I could equally well write

But what you cannot do is argue that the bible tells us of a real supernatural Jesus. Unless of course you completely ignore all the non-supernatural descriptions in the the bible, and effectively re-write a new and very different invented figure for yourself called a "divine Jesus" ... but that is not remotely the description of Jesus in the bible. The one is as good as the other. But both are absurd, because the Bible Jesus is depicted both as a human being and as a supernatural figure.

I have not read the rest of your post where you take your own quote above, and proceed to build some sort of case, because what you have written above contains a fatal contradiction in it’s own terms in it’s very first line.

Please look at the highlight in your own opening words above - you are proposing something about what you now call a “Real supernatural Jesus”. That is immediately a completely impossible contradiction in it’s own terms. You cannot possibly have a person (Jesus) who is quote “real supernatural” …

… real people are not supernatural.

So any subsequent argument you try to build from that basis is fatally mistaken from the outset.

If you are going to make any analogies with anything I have said, then please do try to make sure they are not fatally flawed in your very first sentence.

 

[zugzwang]

I agree, and it had thought of including some words on that in my post. But it would have made it too long.

Paul was a visionary who had never personally known any living Jesus, and he treated as rivals and opponents James and Peter who (I am certain of this!) Paul believed or knew had derived their knowledge of Jesus from personal experience. Paul was concerned to show that his visions were more authoritative than Jesus' surviving companions' memories. He had no access to any material about a living Jesus except through the apostles, whom he deprecated; and his personal inclinations were to preach a heavenly Jesus, the one with whom Paul had a monopoly of contact, and against which no argument could be made. You can't argue with a talking light in the sky.

Nevertheless Paul in my opinion knew or believed that Jesus had been a real person alive recently, in the "flesh", and that he had acquired his supernatural attributes and powers from god on the occasion of the resurrection, as Paul states in Romans 1.

This aspect of Paul - his jealousy and bitterness - is interesting, and I wonder how mythicists would deal with it. I suppose those who favour a totally invented Paul could argue that it provides good colouration to a character, making him more plausible!

Those mythicists who don't have an invented Paul, presumably can argue that they were all fighting over their various fantasies - mine are more kosher than yours!

But one argument to the best explanation (parsimony) might be (as you say), that Paul was intensely jealous of people who had met Jesus, or who he believed had met him, so had a kind of inferiority complex, which he compensated for. 'Maybe I didn't actually meet the kid, but I'm plugging hot and heavy into his wavelength!'

 

[Craig B]

I have not read the rest of your post where you take your own quote above, and proceed to build some sort of case, because what you have written above contains a fatal contradiction in it’s own terms in it’s very first line.

Please look at the highlight in your own opening words above - you are proposing something about what you now call a “Real supernatural Jesus”. That is immediately a completely impossible contradiction in it’s own terms. You cannot possibly have a person (Jesus) who is quote “real supernatural” …

… real people are not supernatural.

So any subsequent argument you try to build from that basis is fatally mistaken from the outset.

If you are going to make any analogies with anything I have said, then please do try to make sure they are not fatally flawed in your very first sentence.

Then delete "real". That makes not the slightest difference to my argument, of course. Anyway, there are people who believe that the supernatural "really" exists, by the way. I am by no means one of them.

 

[dejudge]

This aspect of Paul - his jealousy and bitterness - is interesting, and I wonder how mythicists would deal with it. I suppose those who favour a totally invented Paul could argue that it provides good colouration to a character, making him more plausible!

Those mythicists who don't have an invented Paul, presumably can argue that they were all fighting over their various fantasies - mine are more kosher than yours!

But one argument to the best explanation (parsimony) might be (as you say), that Paul was intensely jealous of people who had met Jesus, or who he believed had met him, so had a kind of inferiority complex, which he compensated for. 'Maybe I didn't actually meet the kid, but I'm plugging hot and heavy into his wavelength!'

You are still avoiding the blatant significant problems with the Pauline Corpus.

1. The author of Acts nowhere mentioned that Saul/Paul wrote Epistles up to at least c 62 CE when Saul/Paul arrived in Rome at the time Festus was procurator of Judea.

2. Aristides c 117-138 CE did NOT acknowledge Paul as the one who evangelized the Roman Empire. He also claimed it was the 12 disciples of Jesus who evangelized the world.


3 . Justin Martyr c 150 CE did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Paul Corpus. In fact, Justin knew NOTHING of the supposed foremost evangelist of the early Church. Justin claimed it was twelve ILLITERATES who preached the Gospel to all the world.

4. c 180 CE, Celsus wrote NOTHING of or against Paul but argued against the stories of Jesus based on Origen's Against Celsus.

There is a very secure timeline line for which the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was unknown or was not yet fabricated.

The Entire Pauline Corpus was not yet invented when Celsus wrote "True Discourse" c 180 CE based on Origen's "Against Celsus.

 

[IanS]

Then delete "real". That makes not the slightest difference to my argument, of course. Anyway, there are people who believe that the supernatural "really" exists, by the way. I am by no means one of them.

Sorry, that will not work. If you simply remove your word “real” then what you are left with is your quote below (see the highlight of your changed quote below). Your own quote now becomes total nonsense, because the bible does indeed tell us of a supernatural Jesus, whereas omitting your word “real”, now leaves your quote saying “you cannot argue that the bible tells us of a real supernatural Jesus” … well you most certainly CAN argue exactly that, in fact you MUST argue that, because that is exactly what the bible DOES tell us about Jesus.

@ian S

Look at what you write. I could equally well write -

But what you cannot do is argue that the bible tells us of a real supernatural Jesus.

OK, so enough of this pathetic squirming around - please now tell us what is the claimed evidence showing Jesus was a real person?

Where is the evidence of Jesus, please. Nothing else, thank you. Just that evidence please.

 

[Craig B]

Sorry, that will not work. <snip> OK, so enough of this pathetic squirming around - please now tell us what is the claimed evidence showing Jesus was a real person?

Where is the evidence of Jesus, please. Nothing else, thank you. Just that evidence please.

It is not my practice to respond when addressed in that tone, or in such terms, and not even my respect for you will induce me to change my behaviour in this matter.

 

[dejudge]

The consensus among scholars is that a personage did in fact exist at the time upon whom the later inventions and embellishments were later pasted.

No, No!!! The consensus among all, whether MJ or HJ, is that there is little or no external non-apologetic evidence for an HJ of Nazareth.

The consensus among all, whether HJ or MJ, is that the Bible is not a credible historical source.


How in the world could there be a consensus that Jesus existed when they are right now arguing against one another about the existence of Jesus.

No-one argues at all that the Bible is credible--no one argues that there is an abundance of non-apologetic evidence for HJ of Nazareth.

Essentially, the HJ argument is inherently extremely weak and unsustainable BECAUSE it is based almost entirely on the Bible --a source of forgeries, fiction and events that most likely did not happen..

 

[IanS]

It is not my practice to respond when addressed in that tone, or in such terms, and not even my respect for you will induce me to change my behaviour in this matter.

Your analogy does not have a leg left to stand on. You were simply wrong.

And the remaining point is that these sort of erroneous diversions are continuously avoiding any sort of honest answer to the question of why there is actually no genuine credible evidence of Jesus. That is the only question that maters here -

- what is claimed to be the evidence of Jesus as a living person?

Can you find any honest genuine answer to that? That is - can you cite any genuine credible evidence which truly shows Jesus as a living person?

 

[tsig]

It is not my practice to respond when addressed in that tone, or in such terms, and not even my respect for you will induce me to change my behaviour in this matter.

So instead of providing the evidence you complain about the tone of the post?

That's one way to dodge.

 

[Craig B]

So instead of providing the evidence you complain about the tone of the post?

I do, and I complain further about Ian S's imputations about my honesty in his more recent post.

Your analogy does not have a leg left to stand on. You were simply wrong.

And the remaining point is that these sort of erroneous diversions are continuously avoiding any sort of honest answer to the question of why there is actually no genuine credible evidence of Jesus. That is the only question that maters here - ... Can you find any honest genuine answer to that ... ?

This is no way to conduct the thoughtful and composed discourse that matters of this moment deserve.

 

[IanS]

I do, and I complain further about Ian S's imputations about my honesty in his more recent post.

Imputing something about your honesty? Where was that then?

I don't recall doing that?

What I said was that your attempted analogy was wrong (and consequently only detracted from your attempted argument).

Beyond that, the only really relevant question here is (yet again) -

- if you truly think there is genuine and credible evidence showing Jesus was known to have been a real person, then please tell us what that evidence is. Because so far we have had a gazillion words on this subject, but without any such claimed evidence being produced at all.

- what is this genuine credible evidence showing Jesus was a living human person in the 1st century AD?

 

[Craig B]

Imputing something about your honesty? Where was that then?

I don't recall doing that?

Here it is.

And the remaining point is that these sort of erroneous diversions are continuously avoiding any sort of honest answer ... Can you find any honest genuine answer to that?

 

[davefoc]

Another HJ thread. Who would have thought.
For me this one starts out as less interesting than most. Every myth in the opening list is not one that the secular people around here that have argued that an HJ might have existed believes. Even if every myth in that list was false an HJ still might have existed.

After quite a few years of thinking and reading about this issue I am convinced that the answer to whether an HJ existed or not is unknowable. There is just not reliable data from the time and place of the hypothetical HJ to rule out the possibility that some sort of HJ existed and there is an absence of reliable information about the formation of Christianity to make it knowable that buried in there some place there wasn't a Palestinian whose life served as the seed for Christianity.

What we know is that Christianity, the religion, was created by people separated by time, distance, language and culture from the hypothetical HJ and nothing they had to say about the hypothetical HJ is reliable enough to be used as evidence that the HJ existed.

Almost the only possibly reliable evidence for the existence an HJ are Paul's writings, but nobody can prove when they were written, by whom they were written and whether the author was sufficiently honest and informed to have at least some facts buried within them that would prove the existence of an HJ.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I think, Paul's writings are just enough evidence to support a guess that an HJ existed, but without any external corroboration that can never be more than a guess. Find an historian that refers to Paul, find letters from Paul's correspondents or find some sort of external corroboration for Paul and then you might have something that could provide credibility to Paul's story. Without that all that is possible is a guess. And if your guess is that an HJ didn't exist, I think you might be right . If you think you can know that an HJ didn't exist I think you are wrong.

 

[NekoTheCat]

Another HJ thread. Who would have thought.
For me this one starts out as less interesting than most. Every myth in the opening list is not one that the secular people around here that have argued that an HJ might have existed believes. Even if every myth in that list was false an HJ still might have existed.

After quite a few years of thinking and reading about this issue I am convinced that the answer to whether an HJ existed or not is unknowable. There is just not reliable data from the time and place of the hypothetical HJ to rule out the possibility that some sort of HJ existed and there is an absence of reliable information about the formation of Christianity to make it knowable that buried in there some place there wasn't a Palestinian whose life served as the seed for Christianity.

What we know is that Christianity, the religion, was created by people separated by time, distance, language and culture from the hypothetical HJ and nothing they had to say about the hypothetical HJ is reliable enough to be used as evidence that the HJ existed.

Almost the only possibly reliable evidence for the existence an HJ are Paul's writings, but nobody can prove when they were written, by whom they were written and whether the author was sufficiently honest and informed to have at least some facts buried within them that would prove the existence of an HJ.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I think, Paul's writings are just enough evidence to support a guess that an HJ existed, but without any external corroboration that can never be more than a guess. Find an historian that refers to Paul, find letters from Paul's correspondents or find some sort of external corroboration for Paul and then you might have something that could provide credibility to Paul's story. Without that all that is possible is a guess. And if your guess is that an HJ didn't exist, I think you might be right . If you think you can know that an HJ didn't exist I think you are wrong.

Very well put.

 

[abaddon]

Another HJ thread. Who would have thought.
For me this one starts out as less interesting than most. Every myth in the opening list is not one that the secular people around here that have argued that an HJ might have existed believes. Even if every myth in that list was false an HJ still might have existed.

After quite a few years of thinking and reading about this issue I am convinced that the answer to whether an HJ existed or not is unknowable. There is just not reliable data from the time and place of the hypothetical HJ to rule out the possibility that some sort of HJ existed and there is an absence of reliable information about the formation of Christianity to make it knowable that buried in there some place there wasn't a Palestinian whose life served as the seed for Christianity.

What we know is that Christianity, the religion, was created by people separated by time, distance, language and culture from the hypothetical HJ and nothing they had to say about the hypothetical HJ is reliable enough to be used as evidence that the HJ existed.

I do not disagree with any of that. IMHO, there were likely more than one agitators in the region at the time. IMHO, more than one of these was terminated by the authorities once they raised their head sufficiently above the parapet to be noticed. IMHO, those agitators were subsequently merged and mythologised to provide fuel for the later invented ramblings of the Holey Babble.

That seems at least plausible, but cannot be proven either way, were I honest. As you correctly observe, it is my guess. Not an unreasonable one, yet not one I am particularly wedded to either. It just seems to me not an unreasonable guess given the political environment of the time.

Almost the only possibly reliable evidence for the existence an HJ are Paul's writings, but nobody can prove when they were written, by whom they were written and whether the author was sufficiently honest and informed to have at least some facts buried within them that would prove the existence of an HJ.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I think, Paul's writings are just enough evidence to support a guess that an HJ existed, but without any external corroboration that can never be more than a guess. Find an historian that refers to Paul, find letters from Paul's correspondents or find some sort of external corroboration for Paul and then you might have something that could provide credibility to Paul's story. Without that all that is possible is a guess. And if your guess is that an HJ didn't exist, I think you might be right . If you think you can know that an HJ didn't exist I think you are wrong.

Paul. Right. Have a fit. Fall off camel. Hallucinate. Invent new religion. Nuff said. Can't even tell at this remove if it was even his idea or some other opportunist.

I stand on my stated indifference. If HJ is proven, so what? If HJ is disproven, so what?

Far more interesting to me are the antiquities and archaeology of the region, which are themselves fascinating. That such discoveries might throw hand grenades among the faithful is, to me at least, irrelevant. Just look at the recent discovery of a burial shroud comtemporary with the suppose SoT. Fascinating find, but boy were the faithful annoyed to find actual evidence that the ToS was not how burials of the time worked.

 

[I Ratant]

Our modern history has documented any number of religions with their true origins and shows us the originators, and we can see how the "word" is enhanced by time and retelling.
That is a handy guide to looking back into the murk of history, where the people were the same; same goals, same ideas, same ways to make a living... and pretty much conclude that all religions have a very secular origin.
Covered over with faith and belief, but it's still one charismatic guy with a mental issue and a gift of gab hornswoggling the immediate crowds. And the other swifties that latch on to the creator, and spread the "word".

 

[dejudge]

Another HJ thread. Who would have thought.
For me this one starts out as less interesting than most. Every myth in the opening list is not one that the secular people around here that have argued that an HJ might have existed believes. Even if every myth in that list was false an HJ still might have existed.

Even if there was no supernatural myth in the NT about Jesus of Nazareth the character could still be a made up fiction character.

You seem to have forgotten that Jesus of Nazareth is not documented in any non-apologetic writing except for forgeries and fiction in Josephus.

 

[abaddon]

Even if there was no supernatural myth in the NT about Jesus of Nazareth the character could still be a made up fiction character.

Or could be based on an amalgam of the various agitators and subsequently exaggerated. Either way who cares?

You seem to have forgotten that Jesus of Nazareth is not documented in any non-apologetic writing except for forgeries and fiction in Josephus.

Oops. "Jesus of Nazareth"? Really?

Anyone who knows anything about that knows that it is garbage.