Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[IanS]

Eating bread with people, and making parables and sermons isn't supernatural.

The bread and wine is religious symbolism of ultimate sacrifice unto God, isn't it? It's intended as preaching a vital message of messianic sacrifice & suffering which needs to be made by the faithful when they truly follow the path of righteousness unto Yahweh.

That, by the way, also appears as a religious ritual from 200 years before in the Dead Sea Scrolls of that exact same region, and with almost the identical apocalyptic messiah belief which Paul later adopted following his vision.

Which parables and sermons are you talking about? Which ones do you claim are not part of the preaching of wisdom and insight to the otherwise uncomprehending disciples/others?

Yes, indeed. And in the absence of conclusive evidence, what is the question we have ? We can say "we don't know", but then what ? You still seem to be failing, like dejudge, to see the difference between the two claims and the two situations. Would you be happy with this history timeline :

-2500: We dont know
-2200: We dont know
-2000: We dont know
-1800: We dont know
-1700: We dont know
-1500: We dont know
-1200: We dont know
-1000: We dont know
-700: We dont know
-500: We dont know
-200: We dont know
-48: Julius Caesar probably crossed the Rubicon
-0: We dont know

?

No! To spell it out yet again - you have said that you believe it’s more likely than not that Jesus existed. OK, fine … so what evidence of Jesus did you use to arrive at that conclusion? What do you think is the evidence of his existence? …. Or are you not actually using evidence?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Who are you talking about? You give no quote and no name.

Who is it that you think has said here that "probability" is the same as "certainty"?

Look two posts above mine, where the following response is given:

Really? Could you quote me saying that I believe Jesus is a figure of history?

About 3 minutes have elapsed and you have already forgotten you said Jesus probably existed.

Yes we're all agreed on that. But the question is: is the legend based on a real person and, if so, to what degree. I say "probably", but that's about all I can say, and I don't even say it with any confidence.

You pay very little attention to what you yourself post. You believe Jesus existed.

It's pretty clear that dejudge either cannot discern that "probably" does not connote certainty, or he is being deliberately obtuse.

The problem with anyone here saying they think it's "probably" true that Jesus existed, is - what evidence are they basing that belief on?

The history of the spread of Christianity, so far as it is known to us.

 

[Craig B]

... And the fatal problem here is that the bible, as our only source of any such evidence for Jesus, is certainly NOT a credible source of any of the claims it makes in describing Jesus. That biblical writing is completely discredited by it’s own constant claims of the impossible. That is simply not a trustworthy reliable source of anything remotely worthy of the adjective “evidence”.

That is THE problem in all of this - our only evidential source is not trustworthy in any measure at all.

Do you intend to comment on my #786, where I discuss this point, or will you just ignore it and keep repeating the same stuff dejudge has been giving us, hundreds and hundreds of times?

 

[IanS]

You know, I said the same thing a few months ago, and we are both right for saying it. However, that's irrelevant to what's being claimed, namely that it's a likely, and perhaps the most likely, explanation for the birth of Christianity. I don't see you tackling that one.

The word "Christianity", and the worship of a "Christ", only means the worshiping belief in the messiah prophesised since at least 500BC in the Jewish OT. That is not necessarily anything to do with anyone named "Jesus".

That messianic "Christ" belief had been in existence for at least 500 years before Paul ever produced the name "Jesus".

So that is the explanation of what later became called "Christianity".

And as far as Paul is concerned as the very first known person to mention Jesus and to talk about an earlier sect who believed things which Paul later came to believe about the messiah after his vision of the risen "Christ" - Paul's view of the messianic Jewish OT theology was very similar to what the Essene writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls had already written about as far back as over 200 years before Paul ...

... the difference with that view, was that unlike earlier OT messianic beliefs, the DSS view was that the "messiah" would be an apocalyptic figure sent specifically from Yahweh to warn the faithful to prepare immediately for imminent "end times". That was the same belief which Paul says he adopted after his vision, except Paul, saying that he was consulting the OT, added his belief that the messiah was someone of the past called "Yehoshua" who had been persecuted unto death according to what Paul says he believed was written in the OT.

 

[Craig B]

... Paul, saying that he was consulting the OT, added his belief that the messiah was someone of the past called "Yehoshua" who had been persecuted unto death according to what Paul says he believed was written in the OT.

Can you give us your sources for that, please?

By the way, could you also remind me, if you have already told us, whether you think any of the Pauline Corpus is authentic and early, or do you agree with those who consider all these works to be late second-century forgeries?

 

[IanS]

Look two posts above mine, where the following response is given:


It's pretty clear that dejudge either cannot discern that "probably" does not connote certainty, or he is being deliberately obtuse.

Well you can say that in your opinion it was something called "obtuse". But it is not what you just claimed it was, a "synonym" for "certainty", is it?

It's actually a perfectly reasonable & correct statement from dejudge - - Belz told him that he is 60-40 in favour of believing Jesus was real. That's a statement saying he believes Jesus was in fact real. And iirc that's precisely what dejudge just said.

The history of the spread of Christianity, so far as it is known to us.

What? You are saying that the fact that Christianity survived and spread is evidence that Jesus was indeed real?? Come on, you cannot be serious (in the words of Mr McEnroe).

 

[dejudge]

I’m claiming for a critical review of the Gospels. My question is if it is possible to extract information from the Gospels about some facts. I’m arguing it is possible to the item of the existence of Jesus at least. I apply my own version of the difficulty rule: we have an indication of a fact when this fact disturbs the ideological outlook of the narrator. Crucifixion was an infamous death. No inventor of a god (or “ghost”, as you name him) would have invented this especial kind of death for his invented god. It was reserved to slaves, killers, bandits and subversives. Early Christian writers made big efforts to reinterpret or simply deny this death. This is an indication that this death really happened to some individual named Jesus or otherwise and was the point of departure of the Gospel narrative.

You are merely re-inventing a Myth.

We have "hundreds" of stories where Jesus the Son of God PREDICTED he would be delivered up by the Jews, that he would be killed and resurrect on the third day.

It is completely erroneous that Christians made big efforts to reinterpret or simply deny this death.

Please, identify your sources for such a thing because it was the complete opposite.

Christian writers appear to be extremely happy to write that Jesus DIED for OUR Sins and was Raised from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures

The death of Jesus in the NT is the fundamental event, the basis of the Christian religion--Salvation by Sacrifice.

I am afraid that you do not understand the Christian religion at all.

The Death of Jesus was God's Love to mankind.

The Killing of Jesus was the Greatest Love story

John 15:13 KJV

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 3:16 KJV

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

 

[Craig B]

... What? You are saying that the fact that Christianity survived and spread is evidence that Jesus was indeed real?? Come on, you cannot be serious (in the words of Mr McEnroe).

if I may speak for myself here. Yes, it is evidence that Jesus is real. The survival and spread of a doctrine containing factual statements is evidence that the factual statements are true. But, wait for it: it is not incontrovertible evidence. So they may still not be true. But it is still evidence.

Consider a court of law. Evidence is presented. But it may still be that the accused is not guilty. Fine. Does that mean the evidence is not evidence? No, it means that there is countervailing evidence that outweighs it. This may not be in accordance with the Gospel according to McEnroe, but that's just too bad.

 

[Belz...]

The bread and wine is religious symbolism of ultimate sacrifice unto God, isn't it?

When I wave my hand at someone, it's symbolic for "hello". Symbolism isn't supernatural.

Which parables and sermons are you talking about?

All of them. None of them is supernatural.

No! To spell it out yet again - you have said that you believe it’s more likely than not that Jesus existed. OK, fine … so what evidence of Jesus did you use to arrive at that conclusion?

I've answered this question several times already, as have others. I am not giving you the benefit of the doubt that you missed those answers.

 

[Belz...]

The word "Christianity", and the worship of a "Christ", only means the worshiping belief in the messiah prophesised since at least 500BC in the Jewish OT. That is not necessarily anything to do with anyone named "Jesus".

Ok, but why would Paul feel the need to discuss his own Christ with other groups as if they worshipped the same Christ if they didn't ?

And as far as Paul is concerned as the very first known person to mention Jesus and to talk about an earlier sect who believed things which Paul later came to believe about the messiah after his vision of the risen "Christ" - Paul's view of the messianic Jewish OT theology was very similar to what the Essene writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls had already written about as far back as over 200 years before Paul ...

Sauce for the goose, Ian: Where's your evidence that Paul is the first to mention Jesus ?

Belz told him that he is 60-40 in favour of believing Jesus was real. That's a statement saying he believes Jesus was in fact real.

I said I was 60-40 convinced. It's not a mathematical result, just a figure of speech illustrating that I think it's more likely. That says nothing about my beliefs. I have none, as far as this topic is concerned, which is something I've said many times over. Dejudge's "interpretation" of my post is dishonest.

 

[tsig]

if I may speak for myself here. Yes, it is evidence that Jesus is real. The survival and spread of a doctrine containing factual statements is evidence that the factual statements are true. But, wait for it: it is not incontrovertible evidence. So they may still not be true. But it is still evidence.

Consider a court of law. Evidence is presented. But it may still be that the accused is not guilty. Fine. Does that mean the evidence is not evidence? No, it means that there is countervailing evidence that outweighs it. This may not be in accordance with the Gospel according to McEnroe, but that's just too bad.

Then the survival and growth of Mormonism means that the angel Moroni was real.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's actually a perfectly reasonable & correct statement from dejudge - - Belz told him that he is 60-40 in favour of believing Jesus was real. That's a statement saying he believes Jesus was in fact real. And iirc that's precisely what dejudge just said.

I'm sorry, but you're just as misguided as dejudge regarding the concept of probability (not to mention, apparently, "obtuse"). Belz...'s statement clearly indicates that he has not ruled out the possibility that Jesus never existed as a real person. In fact, he estimates a 40% chance that this is the case. I've already posted the following quote twice, but it's worth repeating a third time:

"People educated in [the critical habit of thought] ...are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain." - William Graham Sumner

In other words, Belz... doesn't believe that Jesus existed, nor does he believe that Jesus did not exist. This is because there isn't enough evidence to say with certainty that Jesus did or did not exist. But, with the evidence that is available, one can form an opinion about whether one or the other proposition is more or less likely than the other. That's why I used the example of a juror considering the evidence against a defendant. In a court trial, the jurors are not supposed to find a defendant guilty just because they think he might have committed the crime. They are only supposed to convict if they are logically certain, based on the evidence presented, that the defendant committed the act with which he has been charged. Short of that, they are expected to acquit. Just because a juror votes "not guilty", it doesn't mean that he/she is certain of the defendant innocence. In fact, he/she could think there's a good chance that the defendant did commit the crime. But, if uncertain, they are expected to acquit.

It's like encountering someone who claims that evolution is a violation of entropy: there's no point debating the details of evolution by natural selection with such a person until he/she acquires a basic understanding of thermodynamics. Similarly, I see no point debating the degrees of probability of plausible histories with someone who does not yet understand that acknowledging the possibility of an event is not the same as declaring it true.

What? You are saying that the fact that Christianity survived and spread is evidence that Jesus was indeed real?? Come on, you cannot be serious (in the words of Mr McEnroe).

You seem to be conflating "evidence" with "proof". One possible explanation for the existence of the Jesus movement beginning in the mid to late 1st Century is that a religious figure was executed by the Romans for sedition, and his narrative appropriated by many others who changed the story to suit their own theological convictions. This possibility is lent support by certain awkward narrative elements that can be traced to the earliest textual witnesses; elements that can be explained as retrofitting the elements of a real Jesus' life and death into a new narrative. This doesn't mean that it is certain that this is what happened, but it is a plausible explanation that can't be ruled out. So if you are demanding proof that Jesus certainly existed, you might want to provide proof that Jesus was mythical. Otherwise, understand that historical subjects often involve degrees of probability, not dichotomous certainties.

 

[tsig]

Ok, but why would Paul feel the need to discuss his own Christ with other groups as if they worshipped the same Christ if they didn't ?



Sauce for the goose, Ian: Where's your evidence that Paul is the first to mention Jesus ?



I said I was 60-40 convinced. It's not a mathematical result, just a figure of speech illustrating that I think it's more likely. That says nothing about my beliefs. I have none, as far as this topic is concerned, which is something I've said many times over. Dejudge's "interpretation" of my post is dishonest.

You have no beliefs on the topic yet at the same time think it more likely than not.

 

[Belz...]

You have no beliefs on the topic yet at the same time think it more likely than not.

Indeed.

Is that confusing ?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Then the survival and growth of Mormonism means that the angel Moroni was real.

Not in the slightest reasonable sense.

But the existence of Mormonism is evidence of the existence of Joseph Smith.

Mormonism was created in the recent past in a culture that was far more literate than the Roman Empire in the 1st Century, so we have ample independent evidence of the life of Joseph Smith, including court records of his trial for defrauding people with his supernatural claims. But if he'd lived at a time when the vast majority of the populace was illiterate and there was no printed material other than the meager production capacity possible by the few who could actually write or simply copy texts, then someone two millennia later might be having the same arguments regarding the existence of Joseph Smith.

 

[Craig B]

Then the survival and growth of Mormonism means that the angel Moroni was real.

Tsig. Here is what I said.

if I may speak for myself here. Yes, it is evidence that Jesus is real. The survival and spread of a doctrine containing factual statements is evidence that the factual statements are true. But, wait for it: it is not incontrovertible evidence. So they may still not be true. But it is still evidence.

Not that it proves Jesus was real. OK?

Also, my example does not suggest that the angel Gabriel is real, does it? We're talking about evidence of the existence of a human preacher. Not of the supernatural entities he talks about. That requires evidence of quite another order, which is entirely lacking.

So you should have written: Then the survival and growth of Mormonism is evidence that Joseph Smith was real. That's what my example would state, if applied to Mormonism.

ETA FosterZ our posts crossed. Thanks.

 

[IanS]

Can you give us your sources for that, please?
By the way, could you also remind me, if you have already told us, whether you think any of the Pauline Corpus is authentic and early, or do you agree with those who consider all these works to be late second-century forgeries?

Re the highlighted question - Yes sure, take a look in Paul's letters. He is very clearly saying all of that. We have discussed all of those passages to death in these threads many times before. There is no need for me to give you chapter and verse on it yet again … just look at what is said in the letters.

I have no idea who wrote any original letters attributed under the name "Paul", if that's what you mean? Do you know who wrote them?

Afaik, we only have copies written by Christian worshipers a century or more after Paul was thought to have died. As to any date for any originals ... who knows?

Do you intend to comment on my #786, where I discuss this point, or will you just ignore it and keep repeating the same stuff dejudge has been giving us, hundreds and hundreds of times?

No, I just took a look at it, and it’s stacked full of all sorts of un-evidenced assumptions. So that’s not really worth me wasting further time on. We have had all of that many times before in any case.

 

[IanS]

I'm sorry, but you're just as misguided as dejudge regarding the concept of probability (not to mention, apparently, "obtuse"). Belz...'s statement clearly indicates that he has not ruled out the possibility that Jesus never existed as a real person. In fact, he estimates a 40% chance that this is the case. I've already posted the following quote twice, but it's worth repeating a third time:

"People educated in [the critical habit of thought] ...are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain." - William Graham Sumner

In other words, Belz... doesn't believe that Jesus existed, nor does he believe that Jesus did not exist. This is because there isn't enough evidence to say with certainty that Jesus did or did not exist. But, with the evidence that is available, one can form an opinion about whether one or the other proposition is more or less likely than the other. That's why I used the example of a juror considering the evidence against a defendant. In a court trial, the jurors are not supposed to find a defendant guilty just because they think he might have committed the crime. They are only supposed to convict if they are logically certain, based on the evidence presented, that the defendant committed the act with which he has been charged. Short of that, they are expected to acquit. Just because a juror votes "not guilty", it doesn't mean that he/she is certain of the defendant innocence. In fact, he/she could think there's a good chance that the defendant did commit the crime. But, if uncertain, they are expected to acquit.

It's like encountering someone who claims that evolution is a violation of entropy: there's no point debating the details of evolution by natural selection with such a person until he/she acquires a basic understanding of thermodynamics. Similarly, I see no point debating the degrees of probability of plausible histories with someone who does not yet understand that acknowledging the possibility of an event is not the same as declaring it true.


You seem to be conflating "evidence" with "proof". One possible explanation for the existence of the Jesus movement beginning in the mid to late 1st Century is that a religious figure was executed by the Romans for sedition, and his narrative appropriated by many others who changed the story to suit their own theological convictions. This possibility is lent support by certain awkward narrative elements that can be traced to the earliest textual witnesses; elements that can be explained as retrofitting the elements of a real Jesus' life and death into a new narrative. This doesn't mean that it is certain that this is what happened, but it is a plausible explanation that can't be ruled out. So if you are demanding proof that Jesus certainly existed, you might want to provide proof that Jesus was mythical. Otherwise, understand that historical subjects often involve degrees of probability, not dichotomous certainties.

No, I'm certainly not confusing evidence with proof.

And I think it's you who is confused over the meaning of Belz saying he thinks it's a 60-40 likelihood that Jesus exists. What that sort of statement means (whether he meant to say this or not) is that he thinks he did exist, but he accepts a reasonable possibility that he is wrong in that belief. That sort of 60-40 does NOT mean, "I don't know" ... it means "I think he did ... but I accept my belief might easily be wrong". It's stating, on balance of his considerations, an overall position of belief.

 

[Craig B]

There is no need for me to give you chapter and verse on it yet again … just look at what is said in the letters.

Where did you give chapter and verse before, then?

I have no idea who wrote any original letters attributed under the name "Paul", if that's what you mean?

That's what I mean.

Do you know who wrote them?

I am of the opinion that some were written by Paul, and others by other people, whose names I don't know. I merely asked for your opinion on this. You refer to Paul. Do you think any of this material was written by Paul, or do you agree with dejudge that it is all fiction concocted a century later?

No, I just took a look at it, and it’s stacked full of all sorts of un-evidenced assumptions. So that’s not really worth me wasting further time on. We have had all of that many times before in any case.

I see. Everything is now very clear. Thank you. However, given this dismissive response to my request for sources for your statements, it is remarkable that you can describe my #786 as unevidenced. In any case it consists of statements seeking mere comments from you, which you may give or not as you please.

May I also state that you are becoming unnecessarily abrasive, to put it mildly. These threads are intended for an exchange of ideas, but you seem to prefer disparagement to discussion. That is a pity. It's negative and uninformative.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Indeed.

Is that confusing ?

Take, for example, the possibility of extraterrestrial life: I don't know if life evolved anywhere other than on Earth. I neither believe in ET life, nor believe in no ET life. But based on what be know of astrophysics and biochemistry, it seems likely to me that life is rather common throughout the universe. But, I can't rule out the possibility that it is something so staggeringly unlikely that Earth is the only example of a life-bearing world in the universe. I think that it is likely that life exists in many more places than just the Earth. But I don't believe in ET life.

To claim certainty would be to deny the possibility that the universe can surprise me. That would be a very unscientific assumption to make.