Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

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

Romans 8:3 KJV

Philippians 2

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.

Yes, a lot of people agreed with Paul's Theology about the man Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead as Christ Jesus.

See it doesn't work unless he was a man, before he became "The Christ", because otherwise he didn't die in the first place.

This is all extremely basic.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, a lot of people agreed with Paul's Theology about the man Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead as Christ Jesus.

See it doesn't work unless he was a man, before he became "The Christ", because otherwise he didn't die in the first place.

This is all extremely basic.

Another gross mis-representation of the Pauline Corpus. You have it upside down or back to front.

Do you not know that Chrysostom wrote Homilies on the Pauline Corpus??

Please read them before you post again.

You have no idea at all, just nothing of the Pauline Corpus.

You are hopeless.

The Pauline Jesus is God's own Son.

 

[Craig B]

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!!

I can see I'm only going to get vituperative repetitions of your original remarks and that my points will not be addressed. But please at least now answer my question about SPITE referred to in my last post, and in #485.

 

[Brainache]

Another gross mis-representation of the Pauline Corpus. You have it upside down or back to front.

Do you not know that Chrysostom wrote Homilies on the Pauline Corpus??

Please read them before you post again.

You have no idea at all, just nothing of the Pauline Corpus.

You are hopeless.

The Pauline Jesus is God's own Son.

What has what Chrysostom got to do with what Paul wrote?

I'm quite familiar with Paul's Theology.

You are wrong and these arguments of yours just don't work.

Haven't you noticed?

 

[Craig B]

Do you not know that Chrysostom wrote Homilies on the Pauline Corpus??

Please read them before you post again.

Brainache has to read the Homilies of Chrysostom before he posts again?

 

[Brainache]

Brainache has to read the Homilies of Chrysostom before he posts again?

I hope there isn't a test...

 

[dejudge]

What has what Chrysostom got to do with what Paul wrote?

I'm quite familiar with Paul's Theology.

You are wrong and these arguments of yours just don't work.

Haven't you noticed?

What?? What did you say?? What have YOU to do with what Paul wrote?

It is just absurd that in the 21st century you have an opinion on the Pauline writings but Chrysostom's Homilies in the 4th century are irrelevant.

What absurdity!!

You have no idea of what you are talking about.

Please, Chrysostom is evidence of what was believed in the 4th century and must be taken into account when analyzing the Pauline Corpus.

 

[Brainache]

What?? What did you say?? What have YOU to do with what Paul wrote?

It is just absurd that in the 21st century you have an opinion on the Pauline writings but Chrysostom's Homilies in the 4th century are irrelevant.

What absurdity!!

You have no idea of what you are talking about.

Please, Chrysostom is evidence of what was believed in the 4th century and must be taken into account when analyzing the Pauline Corpus.

I'm not all that interested in what people believed in the 4th century. I'm interested in the 1st century. Why would 4th century beliefs help me to know what 1st century beliefs were?

That you think he had a clearer picture of things in the 4h century than we do now is absurd.

When your arguments are this bad, it should come as no surprise that you haven't convinced anyone to agree with you. It's not because we are stubborn, it's because your arguments are completely unconvincing.

You have to get new ones. These are no good.

 

[maximara]

Two millennia from now, how much corroboration of the existence of Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro and Augusto Pinochet do you suppose there will be compared to, say, you or I?

The flaw in that comparison is how likely are we to have interacted with Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro or Augusto Pinochet?

Remember if we take the NT as history Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin trial, was defended by Pilate, and personally met Herod Antipas as a part of Pilate's efforts. In essence we have something akin to a military case involving two state governors one of whom also tried to reverse the case in the regular courts...how likely is the record of such a case getting lost?

 

[NekoTheCat]

I can see I'm only going to get vituperative repetitions of your original remarks and that my points will not be addressed. But please at least now answer my question about SPITE referred to in my last post, and in #485.

I really think you are expecting far too much here. I mean really, think about what you are asking... It's one of the big reasons why I've basically given up on responding to things in this thread. Well, that and exams taking up my time.

 

[Brainache]

The flaw in that comparison is how likely are we to have interacted with Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro or Augusto Pinochet?

Remember if we take the NT as history Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin trial, was defended by Pilate, and personally met Herod Antipas as a part of Pilate's efforts. In essence we have something akin to a military case involving two state governors one of whom also tried to reverse the case in the regular courts...how likely is the record of such a case getting lost?

Pretty good when you have an entire country reduced to rubble.

How much paperwork do think would survive, especially considering the first thing the Zealots did when they took over was to burn all the records so that the rich couldn't call in debts?

Maybe they should have backed up the hard drive...

 

[NekoTheCat]

Pretty good when you have an entire country reduced to rubble.

How much paperwork do think would survive, especially considering the first thing the Zealots did when they took over was to burn all the records so that the rich couldn't call in debts?

Maybe they should have backed up the hard drive...

Why are we assuming the things highlighted are necessarily true? Weren't those largely things in... Mathew if I'm not mistaken? I feel as if half the people here arguing are continuing to see the Bible as some sort of unity where the authors all pretty much agree as opposed to a collection of, in many ways, different stories with things taken out, placed in and altered to fit various narratives.

 

[Brainache]

Why are we assuming the things highlighted are necessarily true? Weren't those largely things in... Mathew if I'm not mistaken? I feel as if half the people here arguing are continuing to see the Bible as some sort of unity where the authors all pretty much agree as opposed to a collection of, in many ways, different stories with things taken out, placed in and altered to fit various narratives.

Well, yes. I think it unlikely that there was any trial by Pilate or the Sanhedrin.

I was just responding the point Maximara was making about what happened to the paperwork.

If there had been a trial with stenographers and everything, I doubt any paperwork would have survived anyway.

 

[David Mo]

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.

I suppose you will find "unimaginable" that someone can use a mythical poem to find a real town. His name was Heinrich Schliemann and the mythical poem, the Iliad, tells the story of Troy, a real town! Unimaginable!

 

[Craig B]

I suppose you will find "unimaginable" that someone can use a mythical poem to find a real town. His name was Heinrich Schliemann and the mythical poem, the Iliad, tells the story of Troy, a real town! Unimaginable!

So Schliemann believed in the Gods too.

In the literary Trojan War of the Iliad, the Olympic gods, goddesses, and demigods fight and play great roles in human warfare. ... the Classical-era historian Herodotus says that Homer, and his contemporary, the poet Hesiod, were the first artists to name and describe their [the Gods'] appearance and characters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad

 

[IanS]

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

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.

Not at all. Look carefully at my words which you just quoted above - it is very clearly addressed to pro-HJ posters here in general “en masse”, and saying that they are indulging in all sorts of evasive side issues, inc. a great deal of very obvious insulting name-calling, but not making any honest attempt to address the central question, which is the question of why nobody can cite any genuine credible evidence of Jesus as a living human in the first century.

That is the only question that matters. And it’s not an honest attempt to answer that question when pro-HJ people here spend literally thousands of posts (accross a number of HJ threads now) avoiding that question and trying instead to debate details of what words were written or not written by 6th century Christian copyists (the copies are mainly 6th century and later), about their religious beliefs in a messiah none of them could possibly have ever met, and where the messiah beliefs have been conclusively shown to have been taken from what was in any case written many centuries before in the ancient Hebrew OT.

The central question here can only be - what is the evidence that is said to show that Jesus was a living human person in the 1st century.

So far the only attempted answer to that has been for pro-HJ people to say that the evidence is what is said in the bible. And that is a blatantly absurd claim. If that’s the only evidence, then we are talking purely and entirely about 2000 year old superstitious faith beliefs, and not about any genuine objective evidence of anything at all.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

The objection is to your posturing about anybody else's honesty in a controversy that is, and can only be, a matter of personal opinion. Your trademark question has been answered truthfully, repeatedly and by many posters.

Ian has the last word on what is credible for Ian. There is no genuine evidence of a historical Jesus, as Ian defines genuine.

Points taken. Thank you, sir. May I have another?

 

[David Mo]

So Schliemann believed in the Gods too.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad

Even more, since the gods walked on the walls of Troy, the heroes did supernatural exploits in Troy, some were born from gods and godnesses and they talked with ghosts... Troy never existed!

Archaeologists will be desolate to know this. What the hell were they excavating?

 

[zugzwang]

Ian

The objection is to your posturing about anybody else's honesty in a controversy that is, and can only be, a matter of personal opinion. Your trademark question has been answered truthfully, repeatedly and by many posters.

Ian has the last word on what is credible for Ian. There is no genuine evidence of a historical Jesus, as Ian defines genuine.

Points taken. Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Yes, the question as to 'genuine evidence' is phrased within which methodology? One surely has to make this explicit, since for example, the notion of 'evidence' has a different significance in different methods.

As far as I can see, some scholars using historical method do state that there is (weak) evidence for HJ - for example, the Biblical documents. OK, someone else negates that, and says that that isn't genuine evidence, but then we need to know the methodological framework for that denial, don't we, if it's not historical method?

I used to teach literary criticism, and we would ask students to give evidence for their critiques, but this cannot be construed as scientific evidence, or historical method-type evidence. So you have to make the framework explicit, or its terms and conditions are meaningless.

 

[IanS]

Ian

The objection is to your posturing about anybody else's honesty in a controversy that is, and can only be, a matter of personal opinion. Your trademark question has been answered truthfully, repeatedly and by many posters.

Ian has the last word on what is credible for Ian. There is no genuine evidence of a historical Jesus, as Ian defines genuine.

Points taken. Thank you, sir. May I have another?

It's not about any individuals honesty or dishonesty in what they have specifically said. It's not an accusation of Craig, You, or anyone here on the pro-HJ side specifically lying (though some on the HJ side have clearly been more constructive, polite & reasonable than others, eg Tim Callaghan, Foster Zygote). The complaint is that it is not honestly addressing the question of evidence (for Jesus), to engage in endless debates about Julius Caesar, ideas that miracles were normal events, what Josephus was said to have known from 11th century copies, endless diversion about who said what, calls for dictionary definitions of the word "evidence", and 100 other diversionary issues that have been debated to death in these threads. None of that is a genuine honest attempt to say what genuine credible evidence exists for Jesus, or to explain or admit that none of it (apparently) truly is evidence of Jesus.

You now want to debate my use of the words "credible" and "genuine", and we have had that diversionary discussion from you several times before. Where I already explained that by using those adjectives I am trying to pre-empt pro-HJ people claiming for example that obviously untrustworthy biblical copyist writing is itself evidence of Jesus, because that claim is neither "credible", nor is what is what it cites from the bible "genuinely" evidence of Jesus.

That sort of claimed "evidence", is at best evidence of peoples 1st century religious beliefs. But it is most definitely not evidence that the beliefs were ever true - it is not evidence of Jesus. On the contrary what is abundantly shown in the biblical "evidence", is that their beliefs were certainly untrue because they are now known to be physically impossible.

IOW - it is not credible to cite such completely flawed and unreliable preaching as is contained in the bible, as credible genuine evidence to show that Jesus was indeed a real person. That biblical writing is proven fiction in its descriptions of Jesus, it is not remotely independent in any way at all, and it is not credible as in any way a historical account of Jesus (or much of anything else).

But if you disagree with that, then you should tell us what you think truly is the evidence showing that Jesus was indeed known in the 1st century as a real human person.

So what is the evidence to show that Jesus was a real human 1st century person?