Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[The Norseman]

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.

Demolished? Well, again we'll have to agree to disagree. dejudge has posted time and again references to the bible and to non-biblical material to support his suppositions. Is that not evidence as an historian would view it?

He seems to have gotten a lot of people's dander up, including mine on occasion. It still is irrelevant to the points being made.

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.

I honestly don't see that. Anyone can and should challenge evidence proposed for something, in one's field of interest, regardless of professional standing or not. There are at least a few cases of non-professional people making huge contributions to science, for example. I don't know names off the top of my head, but if you doubt this particular assertion, that's okay.

But more specifically, I do not see tsig in any of these Jesus threads claiming or stating things as to present himself as that he knows as much as professionals do. So far, the only actual professional, degreed in his field, non-religious contemporary historian that's been quoted is Richard Carrier. Everyone else so far that I can recall has been a professional religious studies kinda guy. That makes me question whether or not they've approached the issue that presumes Jesus existed rather than presume that Jesus did not exist.

If you presume Jesus existed, it's easy to see that the slightest bit of mundane writing will support the supposition that Jesus existed. If you presume that Jesus did not exist, it's easy to see that there isn't enough evidence to arrive at a confidence level of 90% or more that there was a corporeal Jesus that is described in the bible.

I'll almost guarantee that if tsig or anyone posts a question about evidence in the SMMT subforum, they'd be given the actual evidence and most likely, polite and enthusiastic explanations of such. I've read probably a half-dozen threads regarding Jesus and his supposed historicity and have never once read anything like that as I just described.

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.

Thank you for your encouragement. I really try hard not to post in certain threads because I want to feel like I contribute but that I don't know enough to make comprehensive or sophisticated statements.

But yes, I also want to see how he utilizes his Bayesian method; he did state in his book that he desired all historians to adopt his method for everything historical. I'm skeptical of his method because of that, but I'll wait until I finish the book.

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.

Thousands of words by people we don't know writing in periods that weren't contemporaneous to Jesus for reasons that will never be clear to us 2000 years later. That doesn't give much confidence in a person's existence to me. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[dejudge]

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.

If the Bible is untruthful why are arguing about an historical Jesus using the very same untruthful Bible and do so WITHOUT corroboration.

The Bible is fiction, mythology, implausible and riddled with Fake authors.

I cannot accept the Bible as a historical source for a character which was publicly declared to be born of Ghost and was God Creator and do so without external corroboration.

 

[Craig B]

... this man never shows up again in the other books.

In Matthew an angel shows up and sits on the stone that secured the tomb. Yet another example of the more supernatural character of the later gospels, compared with Mark.

 

[dejudge]

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.

If the Bible is untruthful and you do not understand it why are arguing about an historical Jesus using the very same untruthful Bible and do so WITHOUT corroboration.

The Bible is fiction, mythology, implausible and riddled with Fake authors.

I cannot accept the Bible as a historical source for a character which was publicly declared to be born of Ghost and was God Creator and do so without external corroboration.

 

[Belz...]

I think you will find it's Maximara who would be raising the example of John Frum (I know zero about Mr Frum) .

But if you are saying the likely real figure here is Paul, and the likely unreal figure here is Jesus (certainly the biblical Jesus as "unreal", and he's the only "Jesus" they ever wrote about), ie see highlight above, then I agree with you .

Unless Jesus is the real figure and God is the unreal one.

 

[Belz...]

That's is extremely strange!! How come you don't know that authors of the NT claimed Jesus was the Son of a God and visited the disciples after the resurrection?

What's strange is that you've avoided all of Foster's point, including the one you quoted.

 

[Belz...]

But how can an atheist believe in an HJ?

You mean how can someone who doesn't believe in gods not let his personal beliefs blind him to the possibility that a flesh and blood human might have been the founder of one of the world's most important religions ?

What puzzles you about this, exactly ?

 

[Belz...]

there are myth characters for which there are false claims.

Of course there are.

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

You really should read the posts you reply to.

Jesus of Nazareth is all magic and NO history

A very real possibility. When are you planning to prove that ?

 

[sleepy_lioness]

So far, the only actual professional, degreed in his field, non-religious contemporary historian that's been quoted is Richard Carrier. Everyone else so far that I can recall has been a professional religious studies kinda guy. That makes me question whether or not they've approached the issue that presumes Jesus existed rather than presume that Jesus did not exist.

Did you miss my citation of Robin Lane Fox? He's an actual, proper ancient historian with a real proper recognized job in an actual, proper university (Oxford). Richard Carrier isn't a 'professional' historian. He has a PhD in ancient history but no actual academic job or current affiliation with any university, as far as I know.

 

[abaddon]

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

Yup. It matters not a whit that it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If the topic were Hello Kitty, it would still e wheeled in.

 

[Brainache]

Demolished? Well, again we'll have to agree to disagree. dejudge has posted time and again references to the bible and to non-biblical material to support his suppositions. Is that not evidence as an historian would view it?

Not taking them at face value the way he does, completely devoid of context. He shows no understanding of Jewish Theological tropes or early Christian beliefs. Plus he disregards every single historian's opinions on this subject, Richard Carrier included.

He seems to have gotten a lot of people's dander up, including mine on occasion. It still is irrelevant to the points being made.

So are dejudge's arguments about closet fundamentalists and the 100% mythical nature of the Bible.

I honestly don't see that. Anyone can and should challenge evidence proposed for something, in one's field of interest, regardless of professional standing or not. There are at least a few cases of non-professional people making huge contributions to science, for example. I don't know names off the top of my head, but if you doubt this particular assertion, that's okay.

But people doing that take the trouble to familiarise themselves with the Scholarship before they challenge it. Tsig seems totally unaware of any of the Historical research and bases her position on her own prejudice.

She can correct me on this by showing awareness of how Historians reach their conclusions. Saying: "they just take out the miracles", is nothing more than an admission of ignorance.

But more specifically, I do not see tsig in any of these Jesus threads claiming or stating things as to present himself as that he knows as much as professionals do. So far, the only actual professional, degreed in his field, non-religious contemporary historian that's been quoted is Richard Carrier. Everyone else so far that I can recall has been a professional religious studies kinda guy. That makes me question whether or not they've approached the issue that presumes Jesus existed rather than presume that Jesus did not exist.

Tsig is rejecting their work on the basis of nothing more than personal prejudice.

There have been other historians mentioned in these threads. We have even had actual Historians themselves posting here. None of them agree with the MJ idea.

And once again I will point out that being a Bible Scholar doesn't necessarily mean you can't think logically. I wish people would stop poisoning that well.

If you presume Jesus existed, it's easy to see that the slightest bit of mundane writing will support the supposition that Jesus existed. If you presume that Jesus did not exist, it's easy to see that there isn't enough evidence to arrive at a confidence level of 90% or more that there was a corporeal Jesus that is described in the bible.

How about we put our assumptions and presumptions aside, and look at what the texts can tell us. That is what Historians do.

I'll almost guarantee that if tsig or anyone posts a question about evidence in the SMMT subforum, they'd be given the actual evidence and most likely, polite and enthusiastic explanations of such. I've read probably a half-dozen threads regarding Jesus and his supposed historicity and have never once read anything like that as I just described.

It has been posted. You mustn't have been paying attention.

Thank you for your encouragement. I really try hard not to post in certain threads because I want to feel like I contribute but that I don't know enough to make comprehensive or sophisticated statements.

But yes, I also want to see how he utilizes his Bayesian method; he did state in his book that he desired all historians to adopt his method for everything historical. I'm skeptical of his method because of that, but I'll wait until I finish the book.

I'll be interested to see it.

Thousands of words by people we don't know writing in periods that weren't contemporaneous to Jesus for reasons that will never be clear to us 2000 years later. That doesn't give much confidence in a person's existence to me. Obviously, YMMV.

It is a lot more than we have for most ancient people who weren't Kings or something like that.

It's more than we have for all those Greek Philosophers combined. How often do you doubt the existence of Socrates or Pythagoras?

 

[Craig B]

Duplicate post deleted

 

[davefoc]

Now, there's a word not being used correctly. The Mythology in Mark is adulterated with lots of stuff about a family who think he's crazy, Disciples who don't understand his lessons and everyone is constantly being told to shut-up about it all.

Funny old world.

It is a funny old world. Even somebody like me that has pretty much written off all the Gospels as without any reliable information about an HJ still finds these little moments of plausibility in Mark interesting.

Is it possible that some truth leaked into Mark? Was the author constrained by oral stories making the rounds of the time? You didn't mention the tension between Peter and Paul that makes its way into the NT. For quite awhile I saw this as an indication that some truth had made it into the NT. Why would the authors insert these stories that seem to undercut the notion that there is a particular orthodoxy delivered from God and everybody else is wrong? Today, my theory about that is that the stories were made up to mirror the tension between the Hellenistic Jews and the Godfearer groups, but that is total speculation on my part. Maybe the stories are actually true or maybe they were made up for some other reason.

I have pretty much given up on trying to figure out what the truth is about the origins of Christianity. I think sometime around the time of Marcion there begins to some reliable data points about Christianity. It seems to be definitely underway. I am not sure what the evidence is for it, but Marcion's excommunication in 144 CE seems to a hard data point that Christianity had some kind of formalized bureaucracy and a significant number of followers by then.

Paul's letters probably date before then at least. Marcion's canon is dated to 120-130 ce and it is believed to have contained copies of most of Paul's letters and a version of the Gospel of Luke. But much before Marcion there is a lot of theorizing and no hard facts that I see. I think the theorizing might be broken down into two groups:
1. Marcion or one of the church fathers, perhaps Polycarp, made up Paul and wrote his letters. In this scenario Christianity starts some time after 100 CE. I don't think there is any hard data points to disprove this idea
2. Paul is real and his letters date from about 50 to 70 CE. He is either the prime player or one of the players involved in creating Christianity.

Neither of these theories rules out an HJ or proves that one existed. It is still conceivable that the people that made up the stories about Paul were working from oral stories that had snippets of truth about an HJ in them.

I would like to be proven wrong and find out that there is some hard evidence about what was going on with Christianity before 100CE but I don't think there is. The Christian Jews being kicked out of the synagogs story supposedly dates to about 90 CE and if that were true the origins of Christianity would need to date to considerably before that, but I've never found hard evidence that 90 CE is reliable or even that the Christian Jews were kicked out of the synagogs.

 

[abaddon]

If the Bible is untruthful and you do not understand it why are arguing about an historical Jesus using the very same untruthful Bible and do so WITHOUT corroboration.

The Bible is fiction, mythology, implausible and riddled with Fake authors.

I cannot accept the Bible as a historical source for a character which was publicly declared to be born of Ghost and was God Creator and do so without external corroboration.

The bible is most certainly untrue in parts. However the bible is also factually correct in parts.

Your failure is in your insistence that it be entirely true, or entirely false. This is the epitome of the false dichotomy.

I suggest that your position be nominated as the first case study of such odd beliefs.

 

[dejudge]

Neither of these theories rules out an HJ or proves that one existed. It is still conceivable that the people that made up the stories about Paul were working from oral stories that had snippets of truth about an HJ in them.

The fact that people are arguing whether or not there is a HJ means that nothing is ruled out.

What is certain is that there is NO mention of Jesus of Nazareth by non-apologetics. The HJ argument is unsustainable--there is NO evidence.

All we have are hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings about a character that was born of a Ghost , was God Creator, that walked on the sea, transfigured and ascended.

That character called Jesus as described is a myth.

There is evidence for a mythological Jesus but none for HJ.

An argument can only be sustained with evidence.

The HJ argument is dead until new evidence surfaces.

 

[Craig B]

... All we have are hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings about a character that was born of a Ghost , was God Creator, that walked on the sea, transfigured and ascended.

Dear God, you've repeated it yet again! No, there are other things in the hundreds of manuscripts too. So that's not "all we have".

 

[Belz...]

Is it just me, or do most of the mythicists' arguments boil down to saying "Nuh-uh!" in the face of historical scholarship?

To be fair, they do have some points. But many of them seem to be arguing against a strawman, namely that Jesus definitely existed, not probably existed.

 

[dejudge]

The bible is most certainly untrue in parts. However the bible is also factually correct in parts.

Your failure is in your insistence that it be entirely true, or entirely false. This is the epitome of the false dichotomy.

I suggest that your position be nominated as the first case study of such odd beliefs.

You have assumed you know the true parts WITHOUT corroboration.

I cannot accept the Bible is true based on your assumptions.

There is corroboration in non-apologetic sources for King Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas, Tiberius and John the Baptist but none for Jesus of Nazareth , the disciples and Paul.

I will consider that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were 2nd century invented characters until new evidence surfaces.

 

[The Norseman]

Did you miss my citation of Robin Lane Fox? He's an actual, proper ancient historian with a real proper recognized job in an actual, proper university (Oxford). Richard Carrier isn't a 'professional' historian. He has a PhD in ancient history but no actual academic job or current affiliation with any university, as far as I know.

Thank you for that; yes, I did miss your citation of Robin Fox.

 

[dejudge]

Dear God, you've repeated it yet again! No, there are other things in the hundreds of manuscripts too. So that's not "all we have".

Why are you afraid of the evidence that show that the Jesus character was a figure of mythology?

You repeat your logical fallacies from the Myth Makers of HJ but get annoyed when you see the evidence that Jesus was a figure of Jewish, Roman/Greek mythology.

By the way, the stories about Jesus in the Entire gMark from baptism to the resurrection is either total total fiction or could not have happened.

We can go through each miracle in gMark one by one and see that they just could not have happened as described.