Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[davefoc]

...
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".

It is about here Darat if he were participating in this thread would make his point that religions are usually founded by a real guy blathering on about a fake guy (my apologies to Darat if I didn't get that right). Darat, I think, would agree there was one charismatic guy with regard to the formation of Christianity, but that guy was Paul who, if the pattern is met, is blathering about the made up guy Jesus.

And isn't it IanS who should be bringing up John Frum about now?

 

[IanS]

I do, and I complain further about Ian S's imputations about my honesty in his more recent post. This is no way to conduct the thoughtful and composed discourse that matters of this moment deserve.

You actually misquoted that (and I notice your quote also omitted the automatic arrow link too). Here is the full quote (below) -

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?

And what that above quote of my earlier post says in reply to your post, is that it’s very clearly referring to all the posts in these several current HJ threads where I am saying the diversions are an avoidance of anyone attempting to honestly answer the question of why there is no genuine credible evidence of Jesus. So that did not point specifically to you - it’s saying there has been a universal reluctance here on the HJ side to attempt an honest answer to that vital question of what is claimed to be genuine credible evidence of Jesus and why we still don’t have anyone posting any such evidence.

And then in the final highlighted sentence, I am just asking you if you can produce a genuine honest answer to that same question of what is claimed to be the evidence and why such evidence is never actually cited. It’s not accusing you (or even anyone here) of deliberately lying … it’s an appeal for an honest genuine attempt to answer the question without the smokescreen of continual diversions into who said what or what might have been meant by 4th century Christian copies of various things …


…. What in all honesty and genuine open enquiry do you (or anyone here) claim to be the genuine credible evidence of Jesus as a living 1st century human?

And please do not say “it’s the bible!.”

 

[Craig B]

Craigb
I have been unable to find in the Bible where a woman says to Jesus..... But you are Greek, it is said that the son of God comes from the Galilee area.
I can only think I dreamt it or my brain tricked me into wanting to see it. I have reread the four gosples and don't think it would be in any other of the books. Sorry

Don't worry. My memory often plays tricks on me and when I go back and look I find what I thought I remembered was wrong. It happens all the time. But you did the right thing, and went back and checked.

 

[IanS]

It is about here Darat if he were participating in this thread would make his point that religions are usually founded by a real guy blathering on about a fake guy (my apologies to Darat if I didn't get that right). Darat, I think, would agree there was one charismatic guy with regard to the formation of Christianity, but that guy was Paul who, if the pattern is met, is blathering about the made up guy Jesus.
And isn't it IanS who should be bringing up John Frum about now?

I think you will find it's Maximara who would be raising the example of John Frum (I know zero about Mr Frum) .

But if you are saying the likely real figure here is Paul, and the likely unreal figure here is Jesus (certainly the biblical Jesus as "unreal", and he's the only "Jesus" they ever wrote about), ie see highlight above, then I agree with you .

 

[mstricky]

Don't worry. My memory often plays tricks on me and when I go back and look I find what I thought I remembered was wrong. It happens all the time. But you did the right thing, and went back and checked.

I just told my husband and he looked puzzled and said he remembers me rushing into his room gushing about what I'd read in the bible, so I don't know what's going on with my brain!!! Wish I'd have photocopied it...... but maybe the copy would have been blank!!

 

[davefoc]

...
Have you seen this blog piece by Carrier?:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed it a bit and I certainly agree that if your goal is to engage a Christian believer about his beliefs that even hinting at the notion that an HJ didn't exist might eliminate any possibility of useful communication. The possibility that he would see you as an atheist loon advocating crazy notions is high I suspect and the probable fact is that most secular scholars that study the history of Christianity don't agree with you (especially in public). This means that in addition to putting forth an idea for which he is likely to judge you a loon you will also have put forth an idea that he will shoot down by reasoning that not only does he think the idea is looney, even atheists think the idea is looney.

 

[davefoc]

I think you will find it's Maximara who would be raising the example of John Frum (I know zero about Mr Frum) .

...

Sorry about that, you are right of course about Maximara.

I didn't buy into either argument at first, but they make a little more sense to me now. I don't think the argument is that because some religions can be shown to have had mythical founders that Christianity necessarily does. Rather I think the argument is because religions often have mythological founders, the founder of Christianity could be completely mythological as well. Although I think when Darat (who makes the argument much better than I just did) is making his argument he is really promoting the idea that the pattern supports his notion that the HJ didn't exist.

 

[dejudge]

I'm gonna have to second that. Even when I agree with what he may say, he is irritating enough for me to disagree just to spite him. The guy is simply cursed with a grating personality.

This is precisely what I am exposing. People here do not care about the evidence only spite.

It is most unimaginable that atheists here are using the Bible [God's Word] to argue that Jesus of Nazareth--God Creator--was a figure of history.

This must be the result of SPITE.

 

[Craig B]

This is precisely what I am exposing. People here do not care about the evidence only spite.

It is most unimaginable that atheists here are using the Bible [God's Word] to argue that Jesus of Nazareth--God Creator--was a figure of history.

This must be the result of SPITE.

Why do you say that, dejudge? The atheists don't believe they are using "God's Word" but even if they are doing something wrong, why attribute that to "SPITE" rather than mere error?

 

[I Ratant]

de misses the real point.
HJ could not be, if existent, any form of supernatural creature.
There are none of those.
So whichever phantasm is the source of the identity, is fiction, and who doesn't know that?

 

[dejudge]

Why do you say that, dejudge? The atheists don't believe they are using "God's Word" but even if they are doing something wrong, why attribute that to "SPITE" rather than mere error?

Atheists must know that the Bible is considered God's Word. When Young Earth Creationist use the Bible they are ridiculed for using God's Word as history yet some atheists now are directly relying on the same God's Word to argue that Jesus--God Creator--was really a figure of history.

In the NT, Jesus of Nazareth, God Creator, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate. Some atheists believe the Bible [God's Word] is truthful WITHOUT a shred of corroborative evidence which is exactly what Young Earth Creationists do.

Young Earth Creations believe God the Creator was baptized by John and Crucified under Pilate.

 

[Craig B]

Atheists must know <snip>

There are too many issues there for me to attempt a reply. If you want to compare atheists' attitude to the bible with that of creationists, well go ahead. Please also have a nice day.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Atheists must know that the Bible is considered God's Word.

Yes. We also know that Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel named Moroni.

When Young Earth Creationist use the Bible they are ridiculed for using God's Word as history yet some atheists now are directly relying on the same God's Word to argue that Jesus--God Creator--was really a figure of history.

There's a huge difference between regarding the Bible as a literal depiction of God's word and regarding it as a mythical work created by humans. The fact that you seem to think that examining religious writings for clues about the human origin and evolution of said religion is no different from adopting a literal acceptance of the mythology of those writings says more about your inability to understand simple logical concepts than you seem to realize.

In the NT, Jesus of Nazareth, God Creator, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate. Some atheists believe the Bible [God's Word] is truthful WITHOUT a shred of corroborative evidence which is exactly what Young Earth Creationists do.

What an incredibly inept argument. Young Earth Creationists regard the Bible as a source of the inspired word of God. Those arguing against you here, some of them atheists, regard the Bible as a source of what human authors thought about their religion. I'm rather stunned by your apparent inability to grasp this simple yet significant difference.

Young Earth Creations believe God the Creator was baptized by John and Crucified under Pilate.

And Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni while living in western New York. Rejecting the claim about an angel does not require rejecting the parts about him having lived in New York. Rejecting the claim that Jesus was God does not require rejecting the idea that he was endorsed by another apocalyptic rabbi named John and then executed by the Romans for sedition. It's simple logic.

 

[IanS]

I don't think the argument is that because some religions can be shown to have had mythical founders that Christianity necessarily does.

Sure. I agree with that. And I've said so here numerous times before. Though I get the feeling that some here think I have claimed that (I certainly never have).

Rather I think the argument is because religions often have mythological founders, the founder of Christianity could be completely mythological as well.

Yep. Though I think in this case, as far we know, Paul is the founder of a Christianity which claims Jesus as it's figurehead.

There may have been other apocalyptic Christians before Paul, but that does not mean they thought that someone named Jesus was the messiah. And moreover, we do not know of any earlier people who said that Jesus was the messiah ... afaik we first get that name from Paul.

 

[dejudge]

Yes. We also know that Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel named Moroni.

That's is extremely strange!! How come you don't know that authors of the NT claimed Jesus was the Son of a God and visited the disciples after the resurrection?

Mormons do not worship Joseph Smith, the author of the Mormon Bible ,as a God and it is the very same with the Jesus cult--they do not worship the so-called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude as Gods.

Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus the Son of God and the Angel Moroni in the Mormon Bible.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude wrote about Jesus the Son of God and the angel Gabriel.

The angel Moroni and Jesus the Son of God in the Mormon Bible did not start the Mormon religion--it was Joseph Smith around 1827.

The angel Gabriel and Jesus the Son of God in the Christian Bible did not start the Christian religion it was unknown authors sometime in the 2nd century.

Joseph Smith's stories in the Mormon Bible did not require a real Jesus and a real angel Moroni--just blind belief.

It is the very same thing with the stories in NT about Jesus the Son of God and the angel Gabriel in the 2nd century--a real Jesus and an angel Gabriel were not ever required--just blind Faith.

 

[Brainache]

That's is extremely strange!! How come you don't know that authors of the NT claimed Jesus was the Son of a God and visited the disciples after the resurrection?

Mormons do not worship Joseph Smith, the author of the Mormon Bible ,as a God and it is the very same with the Jesus cult--they do not worship the so-called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude as Gods.

Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus the Son of God and the Angel Moroni in the Mormon Bible.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude wrote about Jesus the Son of God and the angel Gabriel.

The angel Moroni and Jesus the Son of God in the Mormon Bible did not start the Mormon religion--it was Joseph Smith around 1827.

The angel Gabriel and Jesus the Son of God in the Christian Bible did not start the Christian religion it was unknown authors sometime in the 2nd century.

Joseph Smith's stories in the Mormon Bible did not require a real Jesus and a real angel Moroni--just blind belief.

It is the very same thing with the stories in NT about Jesus the Son of God and the angel Gabriel in the 2nd century--a real Jesus and an angel Gabriel were not ever required--just blind Faith.

You still haven't answered the question of what those Christians that Pliny tortured believed in.

Were they not worshipping Christ as a God early in the 2nd century?

 

[dejudge]

Joseph Smith is a perfect example of how religions are started and that they do not require any real historical figures to represent the angel Moroni and Jesus the son of God.

Once potential converts were predisposed to believe that angels and Gods exist then Joseph Smith made up stories about Jesus and the angel Moroni and people believed the stories were true.

We see the very same pattern in the NT--every author made up a different story about Jesus yet people still believe.

In fact, there were many cult leaders who made up stories about Sons of God and angels that could not possibly be figures of history .

For example, in the 2nd century, Marcion made up stories that the Son of God was a Phantom who came down directly from heaven to earth without birth and many believed Marcion just like many today believe Joseph Smith's made up stories.

Marcion's Son of God did not start Marcionism. It was Marcion.
Joseph Smith's Son of God did not start Mormonisn. It was Joseph Smith.

gMark's Son of God did not start a Christian cult. It was the author of gMark.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That's is extremely strange!! How come you don't know that authors of the NT claimed Jesus was the Son of a God and visited the disciples after the resurrection?

Mormons do not worship Joseph Smith, the author of the Mormon Bible ,as a God and it is the very same with the Jesus cult--they do not worship the so-called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude as Gods.

Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus the Son of God and the Angel Moroni in the Mormon Bible.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude wrote about Jesus the Son of God and the angel Gabriel.

The angel Moroni and Jesus the Son of God in the Mormon Bible did not start the Mormon religion--it was Joseph Smith around 1827.

The angel Gabriel and Jesus the Son of God in the Christian Bible did not start the Christian religion it was unknown authors sometime in the 2nd century.

Joseph Smith's stories in the Mormon Bible did not require a real Jesus and a real angel Moroni--just blind belief.

It is the very same thing with the stories in NT about Jesus the Son of God and the angel Gabriel in the 2nd century--a real Jesus and an angel Gabriel were not ever required--just blind Faith.

I can't tell if you are deliberately ignoring the fact that people can believe false things about a real person, or if you really aren't capable of understanding something so simple. Either way, it's just sad.

 

[mstricky]

I'm not getting any of this but at my age one does get confused. Are all the atheists on here saying they believe in a HJ? Is Dejudge religious? Aaarrrggghhh

 

[Hokulele]

If Paul was the originator of Christianity, where did all those supposed Christians he was persecuting before his conversion come from?

Granted, this assumes that Paul's claims of persecuting them is legitimate (which is debatable), but if you can assume Paul's claims that Jesus was a Messiah were an accurate representation of Paul's beliefs, then surely his claims regarding his previous employment are equally valid, no?