Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[tsig]

Hjers seem to be fixed on the dichotomy that either there was an HJ or it had to be deliberately made up by someone. The possibility that it just developed naturally isn't even on the table.

Sure it is, if you can make a plausible argument for how that happened which takes into account everything we already know about the formation and spread of the Christian religion.

Go for it.

What have you got?

No one can tell if it's a good idea or not until we see the details, so don't be shy tsig, lay it on us...

QED.

 

[Craig B]

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!.”

I see. You are saying that people including me are avoiding giving honest answers, but you don't mean that they're not being honest in the answers they do give. Well, all I can say is that you should be more careful in choosing your words. Why don't you say "valid" or "reasonable" or something like that? Because when you write to a person that something is

an appeal for an honest genuine attempt to answer the question without the smokescreen of continual diversions

the person you are addressing will think you mean that previous answers have not been genuine or honest, but that they have instead been a smokescreen of diversions.

 

[Brainache]

QED.

Kind of light on details, wouldn't you say?

Who?

Where?

When?

What?

How?

All need to be answered fully.

 

[mijopaalmc]

QED.

 

[Craig B]

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.

dejudge, the question I asked was

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?

But you have not answered that question. You have just produced one of your usual observations. I repeat, why do you think these atheists are motivated by spite?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Kind of light on details, wouldn't you say?

Who?

Where?

When?

What?

How?

All need to be answered fully.

You're missing "Why?".

 

[Brainache]

You're missing "Why?".

That one is easy: The Prophet motive...

But yes, exactly why anyone would need to invent Jesus is a good question, given that there were lots of similar types.

Much simpler just to take an already existing one and use stories about him as your mouthpiece.

Then you avoid difficult questions like: "I was in Judea then, and there was no Teacher called Jesus. Did you just make him up?"

 

[tsig]

Kind of light on details, wouldn't you say? Who? Where? When? What? How? All need to be answered fully.

What part of "I don't know" do you fail to comprehend?

 

[Brainache]

What part of "I don't know" do you fail to comprehend?

The part where it has anything to do with our little side discussion about what is and is not on the table in the HJ debate. You said:

The possibility that it just developed naturally isn't even on the table.

I'm saying that it is on the table, but if you want to say that is the origin of Christianity then you have to get into the details. The current HJ Hypothesis is that it developed naturally from an Apocalyptic Jewish sect. What are you saying it developed naturally from? How did that happen? These are things that the HJ answers.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What part of "I don't know" do you fail to comprehend?

The part of "I don't know" that is a viable alternative the HJ hypothesis.

 

[dejudge]

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.

You seem to be implying that all false statements about any supposed character must mean the person is real.

Such a notion is highly without logic.

It is you who have no idea that there are myth characters for which there are false claims.

Jesus of Nazareth can be considered a figure of mythology because it was publicly documented and preached throughout the Roman Empire that he was born of a Ghost and God Creator and there is no known history of Jesus outside the Bible and Apologetics.

And further, everything about Jesus from conception to ascension is either fiction, historically bogus, or implausible like Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

I can only and will only argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person when YOU present evidence of his reality. There is no evidence at all for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You seem to be implying that all false statements about any supposed character must mean the person is real.

I'm not sure how you could infer anything as ridiculous as that. But given your track record, I'm not surprised that you did.

It is you who have no idea that there are myth characters for which there are false claims.

Of course there are. But it is also true that there are historical persons for whom the same is true. Thus, your argument that the magical claims about Jesus indicate that there could never have been a real person about whom fictions were constructed is shown to be false.

Jesus of Nazareth can be considered a figure of mythology because it was publicly documented and preached throughout the Roman Empire that he was born of a Ghost and God Creator and there is no known history of Jesus outside the Bible and Apologetics.

So Joseph Smith and Kim Jong-il are both figures of mythology, as is every human being for whom no historical record survives. That's the logical consequence of your "logic". You might ignore this fact, but the rest of us won't.

And further, everything about Jesus from conception to ascension is either fiction, historically bogus, or implausible like Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

As are the claims about Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni, or Kim Jong-il and his magical rectum. Do you dispute their existence as actual human beings?

I can only and will only argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person when YOU present evidence of his reality. There is no evidence at all for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Have fun in your simple world of false dichotomies.

 

[dejudge]

That one is easy: The Prophet motive...

But yes, exactly why anyone would need to invent Jesus is a good question, given that there were lots of similar types.

Much simpler just to take an already existing one and use stories about him as your mouthpiece.

Then you avoid difficult questions like: "I was in Judea then, and there was no Teacher called Jesus. Did you just make him up?"

Well, how did Paul the Pharisee manage to fool the Roman Empire into believing that a DEAD Teacher was the Son of God, the Lord and Savior of all mankind since 37-41 CE?

Authentic Pauline letters make absolutely no sense if Jesus was just a DEAD Teacher when Paul began to preach his Gospel [Remission of Sins by the Resurrection and the abolition of the Laws of the Jews ].

If Jesus was just a DEAD Teacher he was NOT the Christ.

If Jesus was just a DEAD Teacher and was a known Dead Teacher why is Paul saying this?

Galatians 5:2 KJV

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised , Christ shall profit you nothing.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Romans 10:9 KJV

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

People of antiquity must have known that Jesus was a Dead Teacher at the time of Paul's preaching and Epistles.

People who knew the Teacher who was dead must have known Paul was a monstrous Liar.

The entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically constipated if Jesus was a known Dead Teacher since 37-41 CE or since the time of King Aretas.

 

[Brainache]

Well, how did Paul the Pharisee manage to fool the Roman Empire into believing that a DEAD Teacher was the Son of God, the Lord and Savior of all mankind since 37-41 CE?

Authentic Pauline letters make absolutely no sense if Jesus was just a DEAD Teacher when Paul began to preach his Gospel [Remission of Sins by the Resurrection and the abolition of the Laws of the Jews ].

If Jesus was just a DEAD Teacher he was NOT the Christ.

If Jesus was just a DEAD Teacher and was a known Dead Teacher why is Paul saying this?

Galatians 5:2 KJV

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

Romans 10:9 KJV

People of antiquity must have known that Jesus was a Dead Teacher at the time of Paul's preaching and Epistles.

People who knew the Teacher who was dead must have known Paul was a monstrous Liar.

The entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically constipated if Jesus was a known Dead Teacher since 37-41 CE or since the time of King Aretas.

Are you familiar with the concept of "Religion"?

Paul taught about a flesh and blood Jesus who was crucified and arose as "The Christ".

Your arguments are wrong.

Try again.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well, how did Paul the Pharisee manage to fool the Roman Empire into believing that a DEAD Teacher was the Son of God, the Lord and Savior of all mankind since 37-41 CE?

How did Joseph Smith manage to fool people into believing that he had a message from God? It's called "religion". It doesn't have to make sense. In fact, it rarely does.

 

[Craig B]

... Authentic Pauline letters make absolutely no sense if Jesus was just a DEAD Teacher when Paul began to preach his Gospel [Remission of Sins by the Resurrection and the abolition of the Laws of the Jews].

Eh? If you're preaching remission of sins by resurrection, then you've GOT to have a DEAD teacher. Only DEAD people can be believed to be resurrected when they talk to people from the sky. Living people talk to you from the ground, and they don't need to be resurrected to do it either.

The entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically constipated if Jesus was a known Dead Teacher since 37-41 CE or since the time of King Aretas.

"Constipated"? I love it! By telling people he was getting messages from Jesus in the sky, Paul was trying to get the corpus's bowels moving again.

ETA You still haven't responded to my #485. Why do you attribute SPITE, rather than simple error, to the atheists who accept HJ?

 

[dejudge]

I'm not sure how you could infer anything as ridiculous as that. But given your track record, I'm not surprised that you did.

Well, just examine your own posts. Look at your very next statement.

It is you who have no idea that there are myth characters for which there are false claims.

Of course there are. But it is also true that there are historical persons for whom the same is true. Thus, your argument that the magical claims about Jesus indicate that there could never have been a real person about whom fictions were constructed is shown to be false.

You have confirmed that you are of the opinion that magical claims can never indicate that Jesus is a figure of mythology.

You have exposed your own logical fallacies.

You have no idea that one of the fundamental aspects of mythology is magic.

Jesus is all magic from conception to ascension.

The magical claims about Jesus are clear indications that Jesus was always known or believed to be a Divine Creature--the Son of God.

In fact, without the magical claims about Jesus of Nazareth we would know NOTHING about him.

Jesus of Nazareth is all magic and NO history----- the purest indication of mythology.

 

[dejudge]

Eh? If you're preaching remission of sins by resurrection, then you've GOT to have a DEAD teacher. Only DEAD people can be believed to be resurrected when they talk to people from the sky. Living people talk to you from the ground, and they don't need to be resurrected to do it either. "Constipated"? I love it! By telling people he was getting messages from Jesus in the sky, Paul was trying to get the corpus's bowels moving again.

Please, please, please!!! You make me laugh!! If the DEAD TEACHER resurrected on the Third day why didn't the resurrected DEAD Teacher continue to TEACH?

Come on Craig B!!!

The Entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically constipated if the DEAD TEACHER resurrected but never TAUGHT again.

You must have noticed we do not have any Epistles composed by the resurrected DEAD Teacher!!

 

[Brainache]

Please, please, please!!! You make me laugh!! If the DEAD TEACHER resurrected on the Third day why didn't the resurrected DEAD Teacher continue to TEACH?

Come on Craig B!!!

The Entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically constipated if the DEAD TEACHER resurrected but never TAUGHT again.

You must have noticed we do not have any Epistles composed by the resurrected DEAD Teacher!!

Um, because dead people don't really come back to life, no matter how much religious people want it to be true.

How is this confusing you?

 

[dejudge]

Are you familiar with the concept of "Religion"?

Paul taught about a flesh and blood Jesus who was crucified and arose as "The Christ".

Your arguments are wrong.

Try again.

What absolute gross mis-representation of the Pauline Corpus. You have no idea at all of the contents of the Pauline Corpus and no idea of apologetics interpretation of the Pauline Jesus.

No idea---you are hopelessly lost.

The Pauline Jesus was a Spirit. The Pauline Jesus was God's own Son. The Pauline Jesus was GOD incarnate.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Romans 8:3 KJV

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh..

Philippians 2

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God...

Virtually every single apologetic writer of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus to describe Jesus Christ claim Jesus was God's Son, God Creator, the Logos, and from the beginning BEFORE anything was made.

Ignatius mentioned Paul and claimed Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

Tertullian used the Pauline Corpus and claimed Jesus was God's Son without a human mother.

Origen used the Pauline writings and claimed Jesus was God's Son and was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Eusebius used the Pauline Corpus and claimed Jesus was Divine.