Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

don't think that is dejudge's argument all. His argument is that the only description you actually have is the biblical description of Jesus. All other descriptions derive entirely from that biblical writing. But as I just explained above - that biblical writing is simply not credible because (a)it describes a figure now known to be physically impossible and quite certainly fiction, and (b)there is zero evidence of any other less supernatural 1st century messiah named Jesus.

The description of Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible is extremely important whether or not it is fiction because it tells us what people of antiquity believed was true.

What is known today as fiction or implausible about Jesus was actually believed to be true and believed to have really happened in at least the 2nd century.

The fact that virtually everything about Jesus of Nazareth is either fiction or could not have happened, from conception to ascension, are major clues that the Belief in the Jesus story did NOT require an actual person.

If Jesus did exist he would have been known as a human being yet in the Bible it is claimed Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Holy Ghost and God Creator.

People of antiquity BELIEVED Jesus was the Son of God and Creator based on the hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and apologetic writings that have been recovered.

It can be logical deduced using the abundance of evidence in the existing manuscript, Codices and apologetic writings that the Jesus character is a figure of Belief --an eschatological concept--a figure of theology-- a figure based on mythology---never history.


Essentially, one would not expect to find any historical evidence for Jesus, would not expect to find any apologetic writings dated by paleography to any time before c 70 CE and would not expect to find any non-apologetic source to claim to have seen Jesus of Nazareth or heard of him.

This is exactly what has happened.

The existing recovered evidence points to a 2nd century origin of the Jesus story and cult.

Effectively, the HJ argument is completely unsustainable and based entirely on imagination.

 

[tsig]

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.

There you go assuming that someone had to deliberately invent Jesus. You are aware that myths arise without a group inventing them?



Accept the HJ or reject History is no more acceptable than Accept Jesus or reject salvation.

 

[Craig B]

The existing recovered evidence points to a 2nd century origin of the Jesus story and cult.

No! All ancient works are forgeries, as Jean Hardouin showed in the seventeenth century. They were

manufactured by monks of the 13th century, under the direction of a certain Severus Archontius. He denied the genuineness of most ancient works of art, coins and inscriptions, and declared that the New Testament was originally written in Latin ... Hardouin also declared that all the councils supposed to have taken place before the council of Trent were fictitious.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all attest that the Jews expected and predicted Jewish Messianic rulers at around c 66 CE--not 33 CE.

Could you please provide some evidence for this claim?

There have been a number of people who claimed to be, or were claimed by others to be, the messiah prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists. Here are a few from just the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE:

Judas Maccabeus - 167-160 BCE
Simon of Peraea - around 4 BCE
Athronges - around 4-2 BCE
Judas of Galilee - 6 CE
Menahem ben Judah - Son or grandson of Judas of Galilee
Theudas - 44-46 CE
John of Gischala - 70 CE

 

[Craig B]

There you go assuming that someone had to deliberately invent Jesus. You are aware that myths arise without a group inventing them?

Oh, it's a "myth" now, is it? Previously it was to be compared with Harry Potter. That is not a "myth", but consciously composed fiction. That's what I was addressing, not "myth" which is a far more complex entity.

Who said anything about a group, anyway? But yes, myth can develop naturally without a "group". Fiction on the other hand - like Harry Potter - DOES need a group, or as in that case, a single author, to bring it into being.

 

[zugzwang]

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.

In fact, ironically, scholars such as Vermes use the various miracles to place Jesus within the Sitz im Leben of 1st century charismatic Judaism. This does not mean that this portrayal of Jesus is of a real human, but it does seem to indicate the good fit of the portrayal with the role of preacher, healer, messianic claimant, as found at that time. In other words, sociologically, Jesus fits the historical context, in so far as this is known; he is not out of kilter.

But I guess this could also be argued for a mythical Jesus, since if such a figure were constructed, it would presumably be hewn partly out of the legendary materials of that time.

I think one of the arguments against the Doherty-type mythicism, is that his notions of 'middle Platonism'and the sub-lunar world, are not found in 1st century Jewish sects - however the nimble mythicist can retort that MJ did not emerge from 1st century Judaism, but from so-called 'mystery cults'.

But is this an example of 'entia sunt multiplicanda'? In other words, the mythicist has to start multiplying entities like fury - we need an origin in Middle Platonism; then we need some kind of religious sect which followed that; then we need to explain why there is no record of such sects, or of mystery cults in general; then we need to explain why this stuff is not on the radar of modern scholarship - maybe because they are all historicist Christians? There seem to be an awful lot of ifs here.

The mythicists also seem to be travelling sometimes in the opposite direction to modern scholarship - thus, a phrase such as 'son of God' is taken now by many scholars to indicate a pious Jew, not a divine being. But some mythicists seem to follow the Christian view!

 

[realpaladin]

[scratch that, wrong thread]

 

[dejudge]

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all attest that the Jews expected and predicted Jewish Messianic rulers at around c 66 CE--not 33 CE.

Could you please provide some evidence for this claim?

I am surprised that you are not aware of Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Tacitus Histories 5 and Suetonius "Lives of the 12 Caesars.

The escalation of the Jewish War against the Romans was directly related to a long held established prediction of Jewish Messianic rulers around c 66 CE--Not 33 CE.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

Suetonius Life of Vepasian

5 There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world.

This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted and after killing their governor, they routed the consular ruler of Syria as well, when he came to the rescue, and took one of his eagles.

Tacitus' Histories 5

...... in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.

These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by disasters to believe the truth.

It would appear that the Jews have been relying on supposed prophecies in Hebrew Scripture that Jewish Messianic rulers would EMERGE and rule the world c 66 CE--NOT 33 CE.

There have been a number of people who claimed to be, or were claimed by others to be, the messiah prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists. Here are a few from just the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE:

Judas Maccabeus - 167-160 BCE
Simon of Peraea - around 4 BCE
Athronges - around 4-2 BCE
Judas of Galilee - 6 CE
Menahem ben Judah - Son or grandson of Judas of Galilee
Theudas - 44-46 CE
John of Gischala - 70 CE

Can you provide the evidence for your claims? I cannot find anything at all in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius that those you mentioned were claimed to be or were claimed by others to be the messiah prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists.

 

[I Ratant]

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

.
Any good tale spinner knows to include the real world in the story. When the audience hears about Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar and Moses, knowing that two of the three existed adds credence to the third.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am surprised that you are not aware of Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Tacitus Histories 5 and Suetonius "Lives of the 12 Caesars.

The escalation of the Jewish War against the Romans was directly related to a long held established prediction of Jewish Messianic rulers around c 66 CE--Not 33 CE.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4

Suetonius Life of Vepasian


Tacitus' Histories 5

It would appear that the Jews have been relying on supposed prophecies in Hebrew Scripture that Jewish Messianic rulers would EMERGE and rule the world c 66 CE--NOT 33 CE.

Your reading comprehension is still lacking. Nowhere in those writings does it specifically state that a messiah was not expected sooner that about 66 CE. Yes, apocalyptic Jews were expecting a messiah around the time of the First Jewish–Roman War, but then they'd been expecting a messiah for some time up to that point, and they continued expecting one for many centuries after. I'm afraid that your argument that Jesus could not have been an apocalyptic rabbi because the Jews weren't expecting one until 66 CE is not supported by facts.

Can you provide the evidence for your claims? I cannot find anything at all in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius that those you mentioned were claimed to be or were claimed by others to be the messiah prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists.

Josephus refers to Simon of Peraea and Athronges as men who declared themselves to be kings. He also refers to Judas of Galilee, Menahem ben Judah, and John of Gischala as major leaders in the First Jewish-Roman War, the event that you refer to in support of your assertion that apocalyptic Jews expected the messiah in 66 CE. He may not have specifically referred to any of them as claiming to be "the messiah", but then he, Suetonius and Tacitus never actually refer to a "messiah" in any of the quotes that you cite.

 

[dejudge]

Your reading comprehension is still lacking. Nowhere in those writings does it specifically state that a messiah was not expected sooner that about 66 CE. Yes, apocalyptic Jews were expecting a messiah around the time of the First Jewish–Roman War, but then they'd been expecting a messiah for some time up to that point, and they continued expecting one for many centuries after. I'm afraid that your argument that Jesus could not have been an apocalyptic rabbi because the Jews weren't expecting one until 66 CE is not supported by facts.

I asked you for the sources of antiquity that mentioned the names you provided which state that they were or believed to be messiahs prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists.

You have utterly failed to mention the sources of antiquity and the names of the Jewish apocalypticists.

You have nothing but your imagination.

Josephus refers to Simon of Peraea and Athronges as men who declared themselves to be kings. He also refers to Judas of Galilee, Menahem ben Judah, and John of Gischala as major leaders in the First Jewish-Roman War, the event that you refer to in support of your assertion that apocalyptic Jews expected the messiah in 66 CE. He may not have specifically referred to any of them as claiming to be "the messiah", but then he, Suetonius and Tacitus never actually refer to a "messiah" in any of the quotes that you cite.

You are compounding your problem. You never had any supporting evidence for your claims about prophesied messiahs.

You actually claimed and named persons who were or believed to be Messiahs prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists but now is claiming that Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius did not even mention or refer to a "messiah" in the quotes I cited.

You knew in advance of posting that you had no source at all that mentioned persons who were or believe to be messiahs prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists.

If Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius did not mention prophesied Jewish messiahs or messianic rulers who would emerge c 66 CE KINDLY tell us who mentioned your Jewish Apocalypticists and prophesied messiahs?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I asked you for the sources of antiquity that mentioned the names you provided which state that they were or believed to be messiahs prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists.

You have utterly failed to mention the sources of antiquity and the names of the Jewish apocalypticists.

You have nothing but your imagination.

You are compounding your problem. You never had any supporting evidence for your claims about prophesied messiahs.

You actually claimed and named persons who were or believed to be Messiahs prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists but now is claiming that Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius did not even mention or refer to a "messiah" in the quotes I cited.

You knew in advance of posting that you had no source at all that mentioned persons who were or believe to be messiahs prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists.

If Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius did not mention prophesied Jewish messiahs or messianic rulers who would emerge c 66 CE KINDLY tell us who mentioned your Jewish Apocalypticists and prophesied messiahs?

What is this near religious reverence you have for Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius? Were they omniscient? Did they know all that happened in the Roman Empire and report it with perfect precision? You do know what "messiah" means, don't you?

The apocalyptic Jewish movement is a subject covered by many historians. The idea that there were claimed messiahs for generations prior to the First Jewish-Roman War comes not from me, but from academia. If you claim that they are wrong then it is up to you to prove it.

If you are claiming that there is scholarly opinion that apocalyptic Jews had, by at latest the early 1st Century, determined a date for the predicted arrival of a king to reestablish the sovereignty of Israel, and that furthermore they had set this date at 66 CE, and that this is why no one would have followed an apocalyptic rabbi at the time Jesus is said to have lived because he was "a few decades too early", then you are going to have to cite said scholarly opinion.

 

[maximara]

Yes, I'm getting that way of thinking, I always thought the whole thing is Greek mythology as Mithra/dionysus were born on the 25th Dec and were reserected. There are others too but I can't remember their names....... I'm getting old

The whole December 25th thing is an effective read herring anyhow:

"Born on December 25

The December 25 date was by Emperor decree to compete with the popular Sol Invictus worship and first appears on a Roman calendar in 334 CE. Luke tells us that shepherds were tending their sheep in the fields when Jesus was born, something that shepherds did June until November.

In fact, before the decree there was much debate regarding when Jesus was born. Tertullian (c 160–220 CE) and Hippolytus (c 170-235 CE) said March 25; Clement (c 150-215 CE) said May 20, some were saying January 6 (the birthday of Osiris), and still others pointed to the Essenes whose couples had sex in December so their child would be born September (the holy month of Atonement). ("Born on December 25th" Jesus Police (Internet Archive))

This means any argument that Jesus was a myth based on the December 25 date is doomed from the start because that part of the story isn't even in the Bible and didn't appear until well into the 4th century."

 

[abaddon]

The whole December 25th thing is an effective read herring anyhow:

"Born on December 25

The December 25 date was by Emperor decree to compete with the popular Sol Invictus worship and first appears on a Roman calendar in 334 CE. Luke tells us that shepherds were tending their sheep in the fields when Jesus was born, something that shepherds did June until November.

In fact, before the decree there was much debate regarding when Jesus was born. Tertullian (c 160–220 CE) and Hippolytus (c 170-235 CE) said March 25; Clement (c 150-215 CE) said May 20, some were saying January 6 (the birthday of Osiris), and still others pointed to the Essenes whose couples had sex in December so their child would be born September (the holy month of Atonement). ("Born on December 25th" Jesus Police (Internet Archive))

This means any argument that Jesus was a myth based on the December 25 date is doomed from the start because that part of the story isn't even in the Bible and didn't appear until well into the 4th century."

You admit Christians just made stuff up on the fly to suit the political times? OK.

 

[mstricky]

Now I see the light

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ViuNs6LL8Lk

 

[dejudge]

What is this near religious reverence you have for Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius? Were they omniscient? Did they know all that happened in the Roman Empire and report it with perfect precision? You do know what "messiah" means, don't you?

The apocalyptic Jewish movement is a subject covered by many historians. The idea that there were claimed messiahs for generations prior to the First Jewish-Roman War comes not from me, but from academia. If you claim that they are wrong then it is up to you to prove it.

If you are claiming that there is scholarly opinion that apocalyptic Jews had, by at latest the early 1st Century, determined a date for the predicted arrival of a king to reestablish the sovereignty of Israel, and that furthermore they had set this date at 66 CE, and that this is why no one would have followed an apocalyptic rabbi at the time Jesus is said to have lived because he was "a few decades too early", then you are going to have to cite said scholarly opinion.

Again, where are your sources for persons who were or believed to be Messiahs prophesied by Jewish Apocalypticists.

Which Jewish Apocalypticists claimed Simon was a prophesied Jewish Messiah??

 

[David Mo]

(…) 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.

(…)

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.

There are neither independent nor direct testimonies of almost all philosophers quoted by Sextus Empiricus and nobody doubts of their existence. That’s why your main objection seems to be: “discredited by being filled with manifestly untrue fictional claims in virtually every sentence where they ever mention Jesus”.

This is literally wrong. Many reports of the Gospels fit well with a normal person and aren’t “manifestly untrue”. A Jewish prophet could live in Galilea in the first Century and be crucified by Romans. There is nothing unbelievable in this.

Perhaps you intend to disqualify the whole Gospels on the grounds that they include a wide collection of mythical elements. But this is not a strong argument, because many historical characters have been adorned with mythological features and, however, they were really historical.

The last criticism would override only some points, when the evangelist is doing apology of his Master or is putting in front his personal theology. Gonzalo Puente Ojea (http://www.laicismo.org/listado.php?tg=1477), who was the historian I quoted -and forgotten to name-, agree on this point. But he adds:

Nobody assumes artificially 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.

This is a criterion for admit some events narrated in the Gospels as presumably historical. Especially the death by crucifixion of a man called Jesus mythologized by his disciples. What do you think of this criterion and its application to the problem of Jesus’ existence as a man? I’m interested in your answer to this question.

 

[David Mo]

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

Schliemann was an archaeologist quite disastrous who was frequently wrong and destroyed part of the site of Troy, but had a correct intuition: that the Troy that was mentioned in the Iliad was in that location. For a time this discovery was rejected by more competent archaeologists than Schliemann was on the basis that they could not believe something that was said in a mythological poem. Obviously they were wrong.

The same thing could happen with those who deny the possible existence of Jesus because the Gospels are mythological. What we ought to discuss are the reasons that can lead some historians, who are not necessarily believers, to think that Jesus really existed and not deny them a priori. This would be wrong, as shown by the case of Schliemann.

 

[eight bits]

Just a note on the timing of the Messiah, End of Days, Armageddon, etc.

It's always time for God to intervene in history once again, as the Good Book says that he did in days gone by. The Gospels and Paul provide excellent reasons for Jews living in Judea under Pontius Pilate's mandate to think they were living in such a time:

~ John the Baptist (attested as a real and popular religious man by the sainted Josephus, in whom we place our trust) may well have said that now would be a good time.

~ Anybody at all who can combine the twin talents of easily hallucinating and provoking hallucinations in others is well on their way to high religious esteem, tzedek for sure, and why not Messiah? Faith healing, dramatic "exorcism," and good recall of selected scriptural passages round out the picture. Throw in a spot of luck in noticing that a widow's son is twitching on his stretcher before anybody else does, and you're the man. You only have to do that once. People will talk. If the guy is here now, then now must be the right time.

~ Suppose there was a dated long-term prophecy (That's mighty remarkable in Jewish tradition; it should be easy to link to it). If Jesus was alive in the 30's, and was the special favorite of God, then why wouldn't he be still alive in the 60's? In retrospect, we know that he is supposed to have died under Pontiius Pilate, but until it happened, who the hell would know that beforehand?

~ Let's give credit where credit is due. Paul introduced an extraordinary innovation in Jewish thinking. From Paul's time through today, the Christian belief is that Jesus is still alive. Literally, physcially and now incorruptably alive. He is as alive as you are, except he now has a body that takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Probably his foreskin has grown back.

Paul's Jesus is, at this very moment, in the process of pursuing the Messianic mission. Paul thought Jesus would be more prompt, but obviously, Paul had little experience in governing the world, and so sorely underestimated the logistics involved. No matter. It is happening right now. Paul was right about that, even if he was impatient. Who can blame him, really?

BTW, this is also the position of Islam (well, maybe not the foreskin part). So, just about the whole faith-based constituency for a historical Jesus teaches that not only was there a historical Jesus, but there is right now a historical Jesus. And this has been true of the belief system as far back as we can trace.

So, even if everybody knew that the Messiah would return in 66, so what? Jesus was alive and well in 66, according to those who believed in him, and according to those who believe in him today as the One Promised to the Jews. We can thumb wrestle about whether the story was made up, but we should be able to agree on what the story is and always has been.

 

[tsig]

There are neither independent nor direct testimonies of almost all philosophers quoted by Sextus Empiricus and nobody doubts of their existence. That’s why your main objection seems to be: “discredited by being filled with manifestly untrue fictional claims in virtually every sentence where they ever mention Jesus”.

This is literally wrong. Many reports of the Gospels fit well with a normal person and aren’t “manifestly untrue”. A Jewish prophet could live in Galilea in the first Century and be crucified by Romans. There is nothing unbelievable in this.

Perhaps you intend to disqualify the whole Gospels on the grounds that they include a wide collection of mythical elements. But this is not a strong argument, because many historical characters have been adorned with mythological features and, however, they were really historical.

The last criticism would override only some points, when the evangelist is doing apology of his Master or is putting in front his personal theology. Gonzalo Puente Ojea (http://www.laicismo.org/listado.php?tg=1477), who was the historian I quoted -and forgotten to name-, agree on this point. But he adds:



This is a criterion for admit some events narrated in the Gospels as presumably historical. Especially the death by crucifixion of a man called Jesus mythologized by his disciples. What do you think of this criterion and its application to the problem of Jesus’ existence as a man? I’m interested in your answer to this question.

Could you give another example of a Jewish prophet crucified by the Romans?