Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[tsig]

I'm quick on the draw? What do you mean by that?

It's patently clear that dejudge has stated many times that he believes that Jesus is an invented character -- a myth.

tsig has never once stated that position. tsig has said numerous times that we don't know one way or another. I'm now going to make a guess and say that tsig usually asks the HJers for evidence because the null hypothesis is that "Jesus did not exist" and which it simply takes evidence to overcome the null. According to many people, there really isn't enough evidence to say "Jesus existed".

It's absurd for you to claim that they are making the same or similar statements.

Sorry.

As far as honest debate goes, there's plenty of dishonesty on "your side" as well. Maybe you'd get farther by policing "your side" rather than "the other side" and the debate can continue more politely.

Sorry.

Thank you very much, how "I don't know" gets twisted into being an evolution denier, ect. ect. is beyond me.

It seems that many do not read what is posted but what they wish had been posted.

I quit responding to B because the insults and dishonesty were becoming annoying and I don't like mustard.

 

[abaddon]

The original claim was that there was a Consensus of opinion among Historians that an HJ existed. When names were produced they proved to be Christian theologians not Historians so the original claim is still not proved. Then you took up the claim.



(caps in the original)

Yep. That should very much give one pause for thought. In fact, it is one of the reasons that I am not in lockstep.

As far as I am concerned, it does not amount to a hill of beans. Is it plausible that some dude existed 2000 years ago? Sure.

Is it plausible that some other dudes made up stuff about that guy 100-150 years later in order to gain political power? Sure.

After that point, you could make up anything you like, and they clearly did.

 

[tsig]

Yep. That should very much give one pause for thought. In fact, it is one of the reasons that I am not in lockstep.

As far as I am concerned, it does not amount to a hill of beans. Is it plausible that some dude existed 2000 years ago? Sure.

Is it plausible that some other dudes made up stuff about that guy 100-150 years later in order to gain political power? Sure.

After that point, you could make up anything you like, and they clearly did.

The existence of HJ does not matter to me, what has drawn my attention has been the reaction of the HJers for a simple request for evidence.

In my experience when people wax wroth, spout insults and get defensive it's because they have no evidence.

 

[Craig B]

You have not demonstrated that Jesus was not a figure of mythology and you have no evidence for an HJ of Nazareth.

Some of the evidence that Jesus was a figure of mythology has been pointed out to you multiple times. <snip things that have indeed been pointed out a vast number of times>

Yes, but it has been pointed out an equal multiplicity of times that the things you cite indicate merely that the figure if Jesus became the centre of mythological stories, as did for example the certainly historical Alexander, and that Jesus was believed, and is believed, to have been "fully human" in addition to other beliefs about him. Repeating yourself multiple times is no substitute for addressing the above points.

 

[abaddon]

The existence of HJ does not matter to me, what has drawn my attention has been the reaction of the HJers for a simple request for evidence.

In my experience when people wax wroth, spout insults and get defensive it's because they have no evidence.

Depends what you do with it. It seems not implausible to me that one or more crackpots existed, had some kind of bogus anointing and got nailed. Nothing supernatural there.

 

[Brainache]

I'm quick on the draw? What do you mean by that?

That you were very quick to attack me, but I haven't done anything to provoke you. We have had several exchanges in these threads, I don't recall insulting or belittling you.

It's patently clear that dejudge has stated many times that he believes that Jesus is an invented character -- a myth.

tsig has never once stated that position. tsig has said numerous times that we don't know one way or another. I'm now going to make a guess and say that tsig usually asks the HJers for evidence because the null hypothesis is that "Jesus did not exist" and which it simply takes evidence to overcome the null. According to many people, there really isn't enough evidence to say "Jesus existed".

It's absurd for you to claim that they are making the same or similar statements.

They both ignore the historical method in favour of their personal bias, is what I meant. They both use the same methodology to arrive at their positions. Which basically seems to be: "stick fingers in ears and make nonsense noises to avoid facts penetrating brain"

Sorry.

As far as honest debate goes, there's plenty of dishonesty on "your side" as well. Maybe you'd get farther by policing "your side" rather than "the other side" and the debate can continue more politely.

Sorry.

Please show me the dishonest HJ arguments.

I haven't seen any of those. I see the MJ crowd lying about people's arguments...

Thank you very much, how "I don't know" gets twisted into being an evolution denier, ect. ect. is beyond me.

It seems that many do not read what is posted but what they wish had been posted.

I quit responding to B because the insults and dishonesty were becoming annoying and I don't like mustard.

...Constantly.

 

[dejudge]

In American English, what the man told the women to do was to get lost. It means to absent onself without delay.

No, No, No!!!! Please, your statement is utterly erroneous. They were not told to get lost.

I am having great difficulty with your post because you seem to have no interest in showing what is written but what you imagine.

This is what is found in the New AMERICAN Standard Bible.

Mark 16 NAS

5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe ; and they were amazed.

6 And he said to them, "Do not be amazed ; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen[/b] ; He is not here ; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.

7 "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you to Galilee ; there you will see Him, just as He told you.' "

8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

 

[dejudge]

Why should I? Only crackpots believe mythology is real, IMO.

Your post is absolutely fascinating. Do you realize you are referring to HJers?

HJers believe Jesus of Nazareth was real when he was a figure of mythology born of a Ghost and God Creator who walked on sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

 

[Craig B]

Your post is absolutely fascinating. Do you realize you are referring to HJers?

HJers believe Jesus of Nazareth was real when he was a figure of mythology born of a Ghost and God Creator who walked on sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

As often as you say it, you will receive the response: these are stories that may be attached to real persons, as myths were attached to the real Alexander. And, for the nth time, these mythical elements become more numerous as we proceed from earlier to later gospels.

 

[abaddon]

Your post is absolutely fascinating. Do you realize you are referring to HJers?

HJers believe Jesus of Nazareth was real when he was a figure of mythology born of a Ghost and God Creator who walked on sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

2,000 years ago there was some bloke. Couple of hundred years later, some other blokes made up a bunch of stuff about him.

Hardly a supernatural claim.

 

[The Norseman]

That you were very quick to attack me, but I haven't done anything to provoke you. We have had several exchanges in these threads, I don't recall insulting or belittling you.

Alright. I came across as being harsh and for that I apologize. It was not my intent to act that way toward you or anyone.

They both ignore the historical method in favour of their personal bias, is what I meant. They both use the same methodology to arrive at their positions. Which basically seems to be: "stick fingers in ears and make nonsense noises to avoid facts penetrating brain"

Again, I disagree. You may not agree with their points and you may have what you consider to be better evidence which makes all other positions untenable, but you cannot in all honesty say that dejudge has not provided evidence to back up his assertions; I'm reading the link provided regarding the historical method and I'd like if you could point out where dejudge isn't following which steps.

tsig is, again by my guess, is following the null hypothesis; he is in no way putting forth a personal bias, unless it's a bias in favor of evidence. That should be every single one of our own biases.

Ether or both of those posters can clarify if I'm mis-stating their positions.

I am reading Carrier's Proving History and will post more regarding his own set of heuristics and rules about how he arrived at the extremely unlikely idea of an HJ. I'd like to compare and contrast the historical method you put forth and Carrier's. I think it'd be interesting to see if all these historians who believe an HJ existed, were following the same set of rules; and if they were how come they believe in a vastly different "historical Jesus"?

Please show me the dishonest HJ arguments.

Any post that says that there is an abundance of evidence regarding Jesus or that there is a greater than 50 to 60 percent chance of there being a single HJ.

I haven't seen any of those. I see the MJ crowd lying about people's arguments...

Heh. Okay.

 

[abaddon]

As often as you say it, you will receive the response: these are stories that may be attached to real persons, as myths were attached to the real Alexander. And, for the nth time, these mythical elements become more numerous as we proceed from earlier to later gospels.

Sigh. Yes. Dejudge is simply taking a binary view. All true or all false.

No shades of grey allowed.

LOL. Actually, even if all supernatural elements are specifically excluded, and only the mundane is allowed, still no shades of grey.

 

[dejudge]

Sigh. Yes. Dejudge is simply taking a binary view. All true or all false.

No shades of grey allowed.

LOL. Actually, even if all supernatural elements are specifically excluded, and only the mundane is allowed, still no shades of grey.

Again, it is completely illogical to assume that the mundane are historical accounts. Fiction can be mundane.

If you read Plutarch's Romulus you will lots of mundane accounts but it does not matter because Romulus was figure of mythology.

Plus, Romulus , although considered a myth, appears far more mundane that Jesus of Nazareth born of a Ghost and God Creator.

 

[abaddon]

Again, it is completely illogical to assume that the mundane are historical accounts. Fiction can be mundane.

Troy. Please explain.

If you read Plutarch's Romulus you will lots of mundane accounts but it does not matter because Romulus was figure of mythology.

Plus, Romulus , although considered a myth, appears far more mundane that Jesus of Nazareth born of a Ghost and God Creator.

Derail noted. I have not reported it, but if you continue this baloney derail I will. Be told.

 

[Brainache]

Alright. I came across as being harsh and for that I apologize. It was not my intent to act that way toward you or anyone.

OK.

Again, I disagree. You may not agree with their points and you may have what you consider to be better evidence which makes all other positions untenable, but you cannot in all honesty say that dejudge has not provided evidence to back up his assertions; I'm reading the link provided regarding the historical method and I'd like if you could point out where dejudge isn't following which steps.

Dejudge has indeed not provided any evidence for his preposterous assertions.

Tim Callahan, CraigB, JaysonR etc have demolished every single assertion dejudge has made. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention.

tsig is, again by my guess, is following the null hypothesis; he is in no way putting forth a personal bias, unless it's a bias in favor of evidence. That should be every single one of our own biases.

The problem is though, that in a subject which requires a lot of knowledge and training, the null hypothesis is to go with expert opinion. Not just to assume that one knows as much as them, without even bothering to familiarise oneself with the subject, which is what tsig is doing.

Ether or both of those posters can clarify if I'm mis-stating their positions.

I doubt that.

I am reading Carrier's Proving History and will post more regarding his own set of heuristics and rules about how he arrived at the extremely unlikely idea of an HJ. I'd like to compare and contrast the historical method you put forth and Carrier's. I think it'd be interesting to see if all these historians who believe an HJ existed, were following the same set of rules; and if they were how come they believe in a vastly different "historical Jesus"?

I'll be interested to see that.

You might be able to explain to me why he has so much confidence in a method which gives him an answer of anywhere between 1 in 3, and 1 in 12,000 chances of Jesus being Historical.

If he can get that sort of difference just by varying his own subjective evaluations of the evidence, how useful is this Bayesian method? It doesn't look significantly different from guessing to me.

Any post that says that there is an abundance of evidence regarding Jesus or that there is a greater than 50 to 60 percent chance of there being a single HJ.
...

Compared to most people from ancient history, we do have lots of stuff on Jesus. Most ancient people that we know of are just a name and occupation, if that. We have books about Jesus. Thousands of words, as opposed to the usual handful which is normally the case in Ancient History.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge has indeed not provided any evidence for his preposterous assertions.

Your statement is absolutely false--utter nonsense.

Tim Callahan, CraigB, JaysonR etc have demolished every single assertion dejudge has made. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention.

Your statement is utterly false. You have not been paying attention or else you would not have made such a statement.

Tim Callahan and Craig B cannot make any progress with their lack of knowledge and JaysonR is in capable of presenting any date for the Pauline Corpus.

My position cannot be challenged that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century between c 115-138 CE and the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was unknown and fabricated no earlier than c 180 CE.


Plus, it cannot be challenged that all Bible Scholars and Historians who argue for an Historical Jesus are Myth Makers since they have no evidence.

Every new HJ makes all other HJs into myths.

Jesus the Zealot makes Jesus the Apocalyptic into a myth.

Jesus the Cynic makes Jesus the Zealot a myth.

Academia is being inundated by Myth Makers.

 

[Craig B]

Plus, Romulus , although considered a myth, appears far more mundane that Jesus of Nazareth born of a Ghost and God Creator.

You're just going to go on repeating that endlessly aren't you?

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

The American idiom to get lost has been defined for you. I have described Mark 16: 1-8 using the term, while you apparently would not. That's nice to know. Thank you for sharing.

We are nevertheless in agreement about the text itself, if not how it might be described in idiomatic American English. Jesus' rising is not depicted in Mark. A man says that Jesus has risen, but does not explain what he means by that, how the man would know what happened, what the man is doing in the otherwise empty tomb, or who the man is. A man speaking is not a supernatural event.

I believe that what the man said is untruthful, unless he was simply describing what was required of those who emptied the tomb in order to get the corpse out the opening.. I don't know what the author believed about that. What I know is that the book was eventually included in an anthology along with other books which are more fancifully emphatic about what Jesus supposedly did, although this man never shows up again in the other books.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is absolutely false--utter nonsense.


Your statement is utterly false. You have not been paying attention or else you would not have made such a statement.

Tim Callahan and Craig B cannot make any progress with their lack of knowledge and JaysonR is in capable of presenting any date for the Pauline Corpus.

My position cannot be challenged that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century between c 115-138 CE and the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was unknown and fabricated no earlier than c 180 CE.


Plus, it cannot be challenged that all Bible Scholars and Historians who argue for an Historical Jesus are Myth Makers since they have no evidence.

Every new HJ makes all other HJs into myths.

Jesus the Zealot makes Jesus the Apocalyptic into a myth.

Jesus the Cynic makes Jesus the Zealot a myth.

Academia is being inundated by Myth Makers.

This makes me laugh.

Apparently it looks like an argument to you.

How funny.

 

[Belz...]

You are wasting your time talking to me because I really don't care what you write when you have no evidence to support your supposition.

Well if I ever needed proof that you don't read other people's posts, there it is. Where was Ratant making a supposition ?