Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

You've been shown this before, why do you need to see it again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

See that is the Historical Method used by Historians to reach conclusions about history.

What method do you use to determine the evidence?

There is not a shred of evidence for an HJ of Nazareth.

The historical method when applied to the NT will not help the argument for an Historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Based on the criteria of the Historical method those who argue for an HJ of Nazareth could not have applied it.

HJ of Nazareth is a product of imagination or the Bible.

 

[dejudge]

What a simplistic dichotomy: assume either that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God about Jesus the Christ, or assume that it is entirely fictional and that no elements of real events or personages might exist within its texts.

I do not assume the Bible is fictional I show you the fiction that Jesus was born of a Ghost, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Now, did you not assume that it is ENTIRELY fictional that Jesus was born of a Ghost, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended?

Did you not assume other parts are not fictional?

Your HJ argument is ENTIRELY based on assumptions.

 

[abaddon]

There is not a shred of evidence for an HJ of Nazareth.

The historical method when applied to the NT will not help the argument for an Historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Based on the criteria of the Historical method those who argue for an HJ of Nazareth could not have applied it.

HJ of Nazareth is a product of imagination or the Bible.

Some itinerant preacher wandered around Judea, maybe more than one. Doesn't seem implausible to me.

One or more raised their head sufficiently above the parapet to draw the attention of the Roman authorities. Doesn't seem implausible to me.

One or more of said preachers was executed for fomenting discontent among the populace. Doesn't seem implausible to me.

Some yahoos decades later tacked on some mythology to said preachers. Doesn't seem implausible to me.

Bible as written? Now that's implausible. Yet it is this very book of fairy tales which you use to support your arguments, such as they are.

 

[David Mo]

A "hint" or an "indication"? That's getting very subjective, and open to interpretation and personal belief. Isn't it?

We don't accept that sort of thing as in any way dependable or definitive in any objective academic discipline, do we? Certainly not in science. And afaik, history talks about "evidence" too, not merely what people think might be hints or indications.

What do you think would be a “hint”? perhaps the fact that people wrote about him in a bible? Would that be a “hint”? Because that would be a “hint” which was entirely devoid of any evidence, but absolutely filled with untruths.

Would the bible writing be an “indication”? Because, again, that is writing which is manifestly filled with all manner of fictional beliefs about their expected messiah.

I think we really do need to deal in something that can reasonably be called genuine evidence of that which is claimed (i.e. a living human Jesus, identifiable as the person said to be the messiah in the bible), independent evidence which is not from thoroughly discredited untrue biblical sources, and something which can be cross-checked or verified to at least some extent by additional credible sources of the time (ie not just one author who makes some unverifiable claims).

IOW, the sort of evidence that afaik we do actually have for numerous other historical figures, such as Roman emperors, Egyptian pharaohs, all sorts of Kings and Queens, etc.

If you require to Ancient History the same degree of objectivity and evidence as the natural sciences get you have broken down Ancient History.

The Ancient History usually works with a lower degree of evidence. It is so especially when historian has to handle ancient texts without archaeological confirmation. For example: Thucydides is the unique source for many events of Peloponnese War. That’s why we accept his narrative but with some precaution. In many cases the historian has to decide between similar degrees of possibility of alternatives. In others he has only indications in one sense.

Of course Thucydides is more reliable that “Mark”, if any reliability is to be attributed to the evangelists. Hermeneutics and textual criticism have elaborated some methods for evaluation of texts. Even current confessional historians -the most competent of them at least- don’t think that the Gospel stories are evident per se. I’m very critical with exegetical efforts to find the “historical Jesus” - I think this is mission impossible- but there is a wide gap between these historians and pure theologians playing to be historians. No one affirms that evangelists' word is simply true. We need to work it to find some indication of truth. If we can.

In the item we are now discussing I find some justification to do it. I translate some words of an atheist historian. He has written some committed texts as Elogio del ateísmo (“In praise of atheism”) and more than a dozen criticizing the “orthodox” religious interpretation of Jesus.

No one artificially assumes data or evidences that harm one's own interests, unless there is a written or oral tradition impossible to “overlook”, in which case it only remains the unsafe recourse to remodel or reinterpret "misrepresenting" his genuine sense.

The many cases in that the evangelists are forced to remodel contradictory traditions are indications of the existence of a “heterodox” and not mythical Jesus, a messianic prophet crucified by the Romans.

I think this position is disputable but not negligible as a Sunday sermon. Confuse both says nothing in our favour.

 

[IanS]

Like they always say: the evidence is somewhere else, in some magic thread, its there really, believe me! Trust me! Its there! I'll spend 500 paragraphs telling you about how it's there, instead of the few words I could actually type as evidence.

Indeed. That is exactly what has happened throughout all the many thousands of posts in all these HJ threads ...

... we are repeatedly told that there is very good evidence of Jesus (hence the claim that almost all academic scholars are quite sure he did exist) ...

... and yet not a single person in any of these threads has ever been able to cite even the most sub-atomic sized spec of any such evidence.

The claimed evidence is absolutely never produced.

Eventually if you press them enough, people end up saying that their evidence is the bible! That’s it lol. IOW - Jesus existed because it says so in the bible!

 

[Craig B]

... Eventually if you press them enough, people end up saying that their evidence is the bible! That’s it lol. IOW - Jesus existed because it says so in the bible!

LOL yet again. I'm sure you're capable of understanding this, so I'll say it once more. If there was no NT, then there would be no Jesus, of course. It happens, however, that there is an NT, and it says various things about Jesus. People have to explain where this collection of books came from, and they want to know where the stories contained in the books came from. You do understand that, don't you?

Now lots of the stories are impossible, so they must have been made up from pure imagination, or from exaggerated accounts of real events. But other statements look mundane or possible. So people ask themselves: could there be any historical truth underlying these stories?

They are NOT saying, these stories must be true because they're in the Bible. They're saying, in spite of them being in a devotional collection of works which is known to contain impossible accounts of events, is it nevertheless possible that some of the statements contained in it are founded on historical fact?

Now, you may very well say, no, they're not, and that's just fine and dandy. But what you are not entitled to say is what you and dejudge say repetitively and incessantly: that people who conclude that there may well be some truth in some statements in the NT do so because they are Bible believers and therefore they are obliged to accept that Jesus is a virgin born ghost begotten creator god who walked for miles over water. No matter how often you and dejudge say that, it is not so. Have you understood that?

 

[pakeha]

...Actually, no, the case for a historical Jesus is not based on the Bible. It's based on a bunch of sources of anthropological and historical information, of which the Bible is one.

Also, you're trying to equate believing exactly what the Bible says with believing that both its inaccuracies and it accuracies, along with its internal and external contradictions, can all be informative in that wider context of other evidence & documents. They're two different things.

That's really interesting, Delvo.
Could you post up those sources, please?

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

I hope there isn't a test...

If there is, you'll do just fine.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.toc.html

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!

With all respect, one could find London by reading Harry Potter, so I-m not convinced by the comparison.
Also, isn't that tale of Schliemann's discovery ever so slightly coloured by legend-making publicity?
Discovery of Troy^WP

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.

"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."
That's an interesting point of view, zuzwang.
Are those scholars bible study professors or historians?
I find the definitions of scholar tend to get muddy when we refer to the study of Christian literature.

 

[IanS]

If you require to Ancient History the same degree of objectivity and evidence as the natural sciences get you have broken down Ancient History.

The Ancient History usually works with a lower degree of evidence. It is so especially when historian has to handle ancient texts without archaeological confirmation. For example: Thucydides is the unique source for many events of Peloponnese War. That’s why we accept his narrative but with some precaution. In many cases the historian has to decide between similar degrees of possibility of alternatives. In others he has only indications in one sense.

Of course Thucydides is more reliable that “Mark”, if any reliability is to be attributed to the evangelists. Hermeneutics and textual criticism have elaborated some methods for evaluation of texts. Even current confessional historians -the most competent of them at least- don’t think that the Gospel stories are evident per se. I’m very critical with exegetical efforts to find the “historical Jesus” - I think this is mission impossible- but there is a wide gap between these historians and pure theologians playing to be historians. No one affirms that evangelists' word is simply true. We need to work it to find some indication of truth. If we can.

In the item we are now discussing I find some justification to do it. I translate some words of an atheist historian. He has written some committed texts as Elogio del ateísmo (“In praise of atheism”) and more than a dozen criticizing the “orthodox” religious interpretation of Jesus.



The many cases in that the evangelists are forced to remodel contradictory traditions are indications of the existence of a “heterodox” and not mythical Jesus, a messianic prophet crucified by the Romans.

I think this position is disputable but not negligible as a Sunday sermon. Confuse both says nothing in our favour.

David - as I think you do know (from my experience of your posts in that endless Turin Shroud thread) :- in science what passes as "evidence" is of a hugely high standard; often requiring all manner of extremely precise experimental measurements, multiple independent confirmation, statistical analysis, multiple cross-checking by various esoteric advanced instrumental methods (often in different labs in different countries), and very often also an extremely precise and rigorous mathematical "proof" as part of the final hypothesis or theory. But nobody here is asking for anything remotely like that in the case of any investigation in History (or the ancient history of Jesus).

All that is being asked for, is at least some of the sort of evidence that is regularly given for numerous other figures in ancient history - Roman Emperors, Egyptian Pharaohs, all sort of Kings and Queens etc.

And yet, in the case of Jesus - which is probably the most important case in all of ancient history - it appears there is no such objective evidence at all.

There are no genuine independent contemporary accounts of Jesus. There is not one single verifiable account of any eye-witness who ever saw this person at all. The only descriptions we have of him are the biblical descriptions alone. And those biblical descriptions are unarguably and repeatedly discredited by being filled with manifestly untrue fictional claims in virtually every sentence where they ever mention Jesus.

The bible cannot by any stretch of any educated impartial persons imagination, be used as credible objective evidential writing about Jesus.

And the huge problem is - there is no other source of any mention of Jesus except for the bible.

And finally on that point - the usual answer to that from the pro-HJ people is to say that Jesus was not important enough to leave any such evidence in his own lifetime. That may or may not be true. But that is zero help to the case of Jesus simply say that although we have no evidence, that perhaps we should not expect to find any. That still amounts to zero evidence, and is of no support at all for the pro-HJ case.

 

[Craig B]

... With all respect, one could find London by reading Harry Potter.

So London exists, even though HP is fictional! The fiction contains an accurate geographical datum. The gods of the Iliad are fictional, yet Troy exists.

 

[tsig]

David - as I think you do know (from my experience of your posts in that endless Turin Shroud thread) :- in science what passes as "evidence" is of a hugely high standard; often requiring all manner of extremely precise experimental measurements, multiple independent confirmation, statistical analysis, multiple cross-checking by various esoteric advanced instrumental methods (often in different labs in different countries), and very often also an extremely precise and rigorous mathematical "proof" as part of the final hypothesis or theory. But nobody here is asking for anything remotely like that in the case of any investigation in History (or the ancient history of Jesus).

All that is being asked for, is at least some of the sort of evidence that is regularly given for numerous other figures in ancient history - Roman Emperors, Egyptian Pharaohs, all sort of Kings and Queens etc.

And yet, in the case of Jesus - which is probably the most important case in all of ancient history - it appears there is no such objective evidence at all.

There are no genuine independent contemporary accounts of Jesus. There is not one single verifiable account of any eye-witness who ever saw this person at all. The only descriptions we have of him are the biblical descriptions alone. And those biblical descriptions are unarguably and repeatedly discredited by being filled with manifestly untrue fictional claims in virtually every sentence where they ever mention Jesus.

The bible cannot by any stretch of any educated impartial persons imagination, be used as credible objective evidential writing about Jesus.

And the huge problem is - there is no other source of any mention of Jesus except for the bible.

And finally on that point - the usual answer to that from the pro-HJ people is to say that Jesus was not important enough to leave any such evidence in his own lifetime. That may or may not be true. But that is zero help to the case of Jesus simply say that although we have no evidence, that perhaps we should not expect to find any. That still amounts to zero evidence, and is of no support at all for the pro-HJ case.

By using the "Historical Method"* I can prove that the lack of mention of Jesus is exactly what we would expect if Jesus was an itinerant preacher so the lack of evidence becomes evidence.

*eliminate all those embarrassing miracles then compare the gospels to each other.

 

[Brainache]

By using the "Historical Method"* I can prove that the lack of mention of Jesus is exactly what we would expect if Jesus was an itinerant preacher so the lack of evidence becomes evidence.

*eliminate all those embarrassing miracles then compare the gospels to each other.

Apart from all the religious books. yes. Who else but religious people write about these guys?

I wonder how many there were that we've never even heard of...

ETA: Your understanding of the Historical method is wrong.

 

[Craig B]

By using the "Historical Method"* I can prove that the lack of mention of Jesus is exactly what we would expect if Jesus was an itinerant preacher so the lack of evidence becomes evidence.

*eliminate all those embarrassing miracles then compare the gospels to each other.

Who has indicated that lack of evidence IS evidence? Removing impossible things and then comparing the various accounts seems like a reasonable proceeding to me, and I have explained why. The incredible elements, already to be sure present in Mark, are progressively reinforced in the later Synoptics and John, often in disparate forms, as if concocted separately by different sources, which doubtless is the case. Thus to compare the gospel accounts is not merely a valid procedure, but an essential one.

It also removes some of the embarrassing miracles, like a soap powder in a TV ad removing stains from underwear. The miracle birth stories, absent in Mark, appear in quite different forms in Matthew and Luke. So, at least one is false. Therefore false stories about Jesus' birth are in the Gospels, and there is no reason to give credence to any if them.

 

[tsig]

Who has indicated that lack of evidence IS evidence? Removing impossible things and then comparing the various accounts seems like a reasonable proceeding to me, and I have explained why. The incredible elements, already to be sure present in Mark, are progressively reinforced in the later Synoptics and John, often in disparate forms, as if concocted separately by different sources, which doubtless is the case. Thus to compare the gospel accounts is not merely a valid procedure, but an essential one.

It also removes some of the embarrassing miracles, like a soap powder in a TV ad removing stains from underwear. The miracle birth stories, absent in Mark, appear in quite different forms in Matthew and Luke. So, at least one is false. Therefore false stories about Jesus' birth are in the Gospels, and there is no reason to give credence to any if them.

If you take all of the miracles out of the Harry Potter books they become books about an ordinary English schoolboy therefore HP exists.

ETA: If I find one fly in a bowl of soup I won't eat it, I certainly wouldn't chuck out a whole swarm of them then declare the rest of the bowl good to eat.

 

[pakeha]

So London exists, even though HP is fictional! The fiction contains an accurate geographical datum. The gods of the Iliad are fictional, yet Troy exists.

Yes, fiction often contains accurate data.
How do we confirm the data found embedded in the fiction is accurate or relevant?

 

[Brainache]

If you take all of the miracles out of the Harry Potter books they become books about an ordinary English schoolboy therefore HP exists.

ETA: If I find one fly in a bowl of soup I won't eat it, I certainly wouldn't chuck out a whole swarm of them then declare the rest of the bowl good to eat.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but the historical method isn't just: "take all of the miracles out", that isn't how they do it at all.

Books can be interesting, you know.

 

[tsig]

Yes, fiction often contains accurate data.
How do we confirm the data found embedded in the fiction is accurate or relevant?

Here's how the Jesus Seminar did it:

The Fellows used a voting system to evaluate the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. For certain high-profile passages the votes were embodied in beads, the color of which represented the degree of confidence that a saying or act was or was not authentic:

Red beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)
Pink beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)
Grey beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)
Black beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage—it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)

A confidence value was determined from the voting using a weighted average of the points given for each bead; the text was color-coded from red to black (with the same significance as the bead colors) according to the outcome of the voting.[25]



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


Knowing it was a collective opinion instead of an individual opinion just really warms the cockles 'o me heart.



ETA: there should have ben a white one indicating the whole thing was false (-2)

 

[Brainache]

Here's how the Jesus Seminar did it:

No it wasn't. That was them trying to determine the first layer of Jesus sayings and disagreeing.

They weren't trying to determine the historicity of Jesus with that vote.

You have been in these debates long enough to know that dishonest arguments like that will only damage your credibility.

Oh, wait...

Nevermind.

 

[Craig B]

If you take all of the miracles out of the Harry Potter books they become books about an ordinary English schoolboy therefore HP exists.

ETA: If I find one fly in a bowl of soup I won't eat it, I certainly wouldn't chuck out a whole swarm of them then declare the rest of the bowl good to eat.

You're not going to address my point about the development of different materials in the Gospels, are you? You're going to treat the whole of the Gospel material as a single work consciously designed as fiction, aren't you? A new idea, the one about the flies, as if part of the substance contaminates the rest. You have proved that the Gospels are not a uniform divinely inspired source of truth, but neither I not anyone else here is arguing such a thing.

Therefore examining the Gospel material is equivalent to examining medieval Welsh and English texts to determine if there is any possibility of historical substance to the Arthur stories. But you've put an end to that. All we've got to say now is: The stories give Arthur a magic sword. There isn't such a thing. Therefore Arthur never existed. End of story.

 

[pakeha]

Here's how the Jesus Seminar did it:...
Knowing it was a collective opinion instead of an individual opinion just really warms the cockles 'o me heart. ...

If I recall correctly, Stone is a proponent of this approach, though it seems it's no longer in fashion to concur with Crossan's conclusions.
"Crossan’s authentic Jesus sayings are likened to autumn leaves floating in a puddle. There is more water than leaves, and after stirring up the water, “When he likes the emerging Rorschach pattern, he takes a snap show, and that is the ‘historical rain puddle’” (p.134)"

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/explor...tive-eschatology-by-john-dominic-crossan.html

...Therefore examining the Gospel material is equivalent to examining medieval Welsh and English texts to determine if there is any possibility of historical substance to the Arthur stories. But you've put an end to that. All we've got to say now is: The stories give Arthur a magic sword. There isn't such a thing. Therefore Arthur never existed. End of story.

I can see your point, Craig B.
Just how many points of similarity would you need to declare any person to be the source of the Arthurian Cycles?
And how many for a plausible source for the NT Jesus?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I do not assume the Bible is fictional I show you the fiction that Jesus was born of a Ghost, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

We get that, yes. You keep repeating it as though it is some sort of revelation.

By the way, why do you keep repeating the same patent phrase over and over again when a much simpler reference to "the supernatural" or "the mythical" would suffice? Overly aggrandized descriptions are generally the habit of posters like arthur webb and Yrreg.

Now, did you not assume that it is ENTIRELY fictional that Jesus was born of a Ghost, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended?

I do assume such, because there has never been any physical evidence of creator gods, resurrection from death, Heaven, etcetera.

Did you not assume other parts are not fictional?

No, I did not. Please attempt to read for comprehension. I have speculated that it is plausible that a number of non-supernatural claims made in the Bible are based on an historical person's life.

Your HJ argument is ENTIRELY based on assumptions.

No, it is based in part on the fact that people can make up fictional, even impossible stories about real people. You still won't directly address the fact that obviously false claims have been attached to the lives of people like Joseph Smith and Kim Jong-il.