Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[tsig]

Tsig. Here is what I said. 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.

Joe Smith = Paul

JC = Moroni.


Just as Joe was passing on the truths from Moroni Paul was passing on truths from Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Here's my correction of your post: reverse everything you said, and you'll be right.

60-40 means I'm not convinced at all. I'm not just leaving open the possibility: I don't know, but I'm leaning more to one side.

Here, let's remove the 60-40 thing. No numbers. What do you do with this:

"I don't know, but I lean more to the HJ side."

Do I "believe" that Jesus existed ?

 

[Craig B]

Joe Smith = Paul

JC = Moroni.


Just as Joe was passing on the truths from Moroni Paul was passing on truths from Jesus.

No. Just as Paul was passing on truths from Jesus, Brigham Young was passing on truths from Joseph Smith.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

I don't know how to state it any more simply. Regarding one proposition as more likely than the other is not the same as believing that said proposition is true. This is one of the most fundamental concepts in any sort of critical thinking methodology, including science. As a juror, I can form the provisional opinion that it is more likely than not that a defendant committed the crime of which he is accused, yet have enough doubt that I cannot believe him to be guilty. If I used your logic as a juror, I would vote to convict a man who might be innocent.

 

[David Mo]

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

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

John 3:16 KJV

Galatians 2:20 KJV

Note that the cross only appears in one fragment you quote and metaphorically. Paul applies it to himself. And the crucifixion was the central point of my argument.

About the emotional state of the early Christians, frankly, I know nothing. But Paul recognizes that his belief is crazy ("foolish"). The apologists often overlook this frank statement, of course.

If you want you can try to search other quotes that have to do with what I said. I do not mind waiting.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No. Just as Paul was passing on truths from Jesus, Brigham Young was passing on truths from Joseph Smith.

Only if Brigham Young had never known Joseph Smith in life and claimed to have met him in a spiritual vision years after he was murdered by the mob in Carthage, Illinois.

 

[Craig B]

Only if Brigham Young had never known Joseph Smith in life and claimed to have met him in a spiritual vision years after he was murdered by the mob in Carthage, Illinois.

Why not? If Joe Smith could translate gold plates by putting stones in his hat, I'm sure merely being dead wouldn't stop him having a chat with Brigham, if that's what he felt like doing.

 

[IanS]

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.

OK, well that is the difference between the two sides here then. You think the spread of a story is evidence that the story is actually true.

And by the way, in a court of law when they talk about "giving evidence", that is a shorthand phrase for "testimony offered as evidence of what the witness claims to be true" ... the testimony it is NOT necessarily evidence at all of that which he/she claims to be true ... it is just testimony offered as "evidence" of the claim.

The spread of Christianity is most definitely NOT evidence that Jesus was ever a real person. But the fact that you and others here seriously think that is evidence of living human Jesus, just shows that all these arguments about a HJ probably stem from the fact that you actually have absolutely no idea what it really means to say you have “evidence" of something

 

[tsig]

No. Just as Paul was passing on truths from Jesus, Brigham Young was passing on truths from Joseph Smith.

Brigham knew Joe personally so unless you want to claim that Paul and Jesus were good friends your comparison is false.

 

[Craig B]

OK, well that is the difference between the two sides here then. You think the spread of a story is evidence that the story is actually true.

And by the way, in a court of law when they talk about "giving evidence", that is a shorthand phrase for "testimony offered as evidence of what the witness claims to be true" ... the testimony it is NOT necessarily evidence at all of that which he/she claims to be true ... it is just testimony offered as "evidence" of the claim.

The spread of Christianity is most definitely NOT evidence that Jesus was ever a real person. But the fact that you and others here seriously think that is evidence of living human Jesus, just shows that all these arguments about a HJ probably stem from the fact that you actually have absolutely no idea what it really means to say you have “evidence" of something

I have absolutely no idea why you think such contributions as this will convince anyone of anything. But of course you may write whatever you please.

 

[dejudge]

..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.

Your statement is false. As soon as you give numbers for your probability then you presented a mathematical resolution for the probability of the existence of Jesus.

Plus, you have already contradicted yourself since you have admitted you are not convinced that there was an HJ and that the evidence is terrible and very weak.

A 60-40 probability for HJ shows you believe Jesus was likely a figure--that is you are more convince than not that Jesus existed as a human being.

It is clear to me that that invented your 64-40 figure for the probability of the existence because you really have no real evidence from antiquity.

In reality, the evidence is not terrible and weak but it does not exist and was not known to exist.

Where is the terrible and very weak evidence??

It is not in the Bible, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder or Pliny the younger.

Even the terrible and very weak evidence is a Myth.

Everything we hear about Jesus is a Myth.

 

[Belz...]

OK, well that is the difference between the two sides here then. You think the spread of a story is evidence that the story is actually true.

I suppose there's no point in again telling you that you're wrong about that, right ?

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is false. As soon as you give numbers for your probability then you presented a mathematical resolution for the probability of the existence of Jesus.

So when someone asks you the odds of your favourite football team winning the game, and you say 70%, this is somehow a mathematical resolution ? Don't you understand how people speak ?

Plus, you have already contradicted yourself since you have admitted you are not convinced that there was an HJ and that the evidence is terrible and very weak.

Dejudge: THAT IS NOT A CONTRADICTION. You simply don't understand English.

A 60-40 probability for HJ shows you believe Jesus was likely a figure--that is you are more convince than not that Jesus existed as a human being.

I believe it's likely, yes. Why does that then confuse you into thinking that I believe in Jesus ?

It is clear to me that that invented your 64-40 figure

I'll say: I said I was 60% convinced; what else could it be but an invention based on my own opinion ?

In reality, the evidence is not terrible and weak but it does not exist and was not known to exist.

So you lied when you agreed that it was weak ? Now you want to say that it didn't exist. You don't even know your own opinion.

Where is the terrible and very weak evidence??

I already answered that, but you don't read people's posts except to catch the snippets that appeal to your bias.

Everything we hear about Jesus is a Myth.

You keep telling yourself that. My atheism doesn't hinge on the non-existence of an illiterate madman.

 

[IanS]

When I wave my hand at someone, it's symbolic for "hello". Symbolism isn't supernatural.
All of them. None of them is supernatural.
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.

Re. the highlights - I did not say they were supernatural. I said that the bread and wine story may have come from the DSS Essene's, and we had precisely that discussion here before, many pages back. It's symbolic of religious beliefs about sacrifice unto a supernatural God in the heavens.

As far as what you called "parables" are concerned - which ones, what do they say? If they are talking about words believed at that time to be of great messianic wisdom and insight etc., then that is how I previously described them.

What do you claim is any evidence of Jesus as living human? That is the only relevant question here (the rest is smokescreen of continuous prevarication and avoidance).

 

[IanS]

I suppose there's no point in again telling you that you're wrong about that, right ?

Not if you are going to claim that the existence of story is evidence that the story is true, then no!

 

[dejudge]

Note that the cross only appears in one fragment you quote and metaphorically. Paul applies it to himself. And the crucifixion was the central point of my argument.

About the emotional state of the early Christians, frankly, I know nothing. But Paul recognizes that his belief is crazy ("foolish"). The apologists often overlook this frank statement, of course.

If you want you can try to search other quotes that have to do with what I said. I do not mind waiting.

I have shown that you do not understand the story of Jesus and that it is simply wholly erroneous that "Early Christian writers made big efforts to reinterpret or simply deny this death".

Please, the very Pauline writings mentioned the death of Jesus in all Epistles.

Paul claimed he was ONLY interested in the CRUCIFIXION of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 2:2 KJV

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified .

The Killing of Jesus was God's Greatest Love to mankind.

God SACRICIFIED his OWN Son to save the Whole World.

Jesus MUST be the Son of God in order for the Gospel to make Sense.

God must allow his OWN SON to be KILLED to show his LOVE to mankind.

Essentially, Jesus MUST be a Myth.

 

[dejudge]

So when someone asks you the odds of your favourite football team winning the game, and you say 70%, this is somehow a mathematical resolution ? Don't you understand how people speak ?

I never claimed it was 70% probable my favorite football team would win a game. I have no data to do so.

Where did you get the data for your 60-40 probability? You invented the data??

Dejudge: THAT IS NOT A CONTRADICTION. You simply don't understand English.

You do not understand English, Maths and Probability.

I'll say: I said I was 60% convinced; what else could it be but an invention based on my own opinion ?

You invented the 60% probability because you used NO actual data. You cannot show that data because there is none.

So you lied when you agreed that it was weak ? Now you want to say that it didn't exist. You don't even know your own opinion.

What?? You are the one who lied when you claimed everyone agreed the evidence is terrible and that it was weak when you really had no evidence and knew in advance of posting that you had none and had never seen any.

Where is the Terrible and Weak evidence for Jesus of Nazareth? It is not in the Bible, the DSS, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder and Pliny the younger.

 

[IanS]

I don't know how to state it any more simply. Regarding one proposition as more likely than the other is not the same as believing that said proposition is true. This is one of the most fundamental concepts in any sort of critical thinking methodology, including science. As a juror, I can form the provisional opinion that it is more likely than not that a defendant committed the crime of which he is accused, yet have enough doubt that I cannot believe him to be guilty. If I used your logic as a juror, I would vote to convict a man who might be innocent.

Not true (re the highlighted), and that's why jurors are mandated to reach their opinion only on the basis of being "beyond all reasonable doubt".

On the overall claim that you are trying to make, you are wrong. If someone says that on balance, ie greater than 50-50, they believe something is true (eg the existence of Jesus). Then that is a statement of positive belief.

The fact that they may say that the belief is only very weakly held, and that they think it's only slightly less likely that the belief is untrue, does not change their decision of overall belief in the proposition. It only means that their qualifying remark expresses very considerable doubt about their expressed position of belief. But overall, their judgement is still one of saying they do believe the proposition is true.

If you said 50-50, then that would not be a belief expressed in either direction. That’s' a shorthand statement of saying you cannot decide whether the proposition is more likely to be true or less likely to be true - you think either position is equally likely.

But saying you are 60-40 in believing that Jesus was real, is literally, in proper use of English language, a statement expressing belief that Jesus was real. You could add the word "probably" if you wanted to, and say "Jesus was probably real", but that's actually an unnecessary/redundant elaboration, because the uncertainty expressed by the addition of that word "probably" must always be present whether you state it or not, because there is literally no such thing as absolute certainty, ie there must always be room for some doubt in anything and everything.

So, in summary - if you say you believe 60-40 that Jesus was real, then it’s a statement saying you do believe (overall) that Jesus was indeed real. The statement includes considerable room for doubt, as any meaningful statement always must (because 100% certainty is physically impossible, eg according to QM), but the statement overall is literally and precisely a statement saying that your conclusion is that he was real.

 

[Belz...]

Not if you are going to claim that the existence of story is evidence that the story is true, then no!

Key word, here: IF. No one is doing that. Stop beating up that strawman.

I did not say they were supernatural.

Great, then it has nothing to do with what I said. I named things that were mundane in the gospels, so that stands.

 

[Belz...]

I never claimed it was 70% probable my favorite football team would win a game. I have no data to do so.

Gosh, you're a champion at missing the point: you COULD say you think it's 70% probable, and that wouldn't be the result of a formula.

Where did you get the data for your 60-40 probability? You invented the data??

What "data" ? I said I was 60% convinced. It's my opinion.

You do not understand English, Maths and Probability.

Mirror arguments stopped being convincing during grade school, for me.

You invented the 60% probability because you used NO actual data. You cannot show that data because there is none.

I've answered this many times already. It's not my fault you don't read posts.

What??

Yes. You've been caught. You lose.

You are the one who lied when you claimed everyone agreed the evidence is terrible and that it was weak when you really had no evidence and knew in advance of posting that you had none and had never seen any.

That's another lie. Two by you, now.

Where is the Terrible and Weak evidence for Jesus of Nazareth?

I've answered this many times already. It's not my fault you don't read posts.