Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Craig B]

... Mark also identifies another James who was supposedly among the inner group of Simon Peter, James and his brother, John. All three apparently survive Jesus, and would plausibly be the nucleus (and maybe the entirety of the permnanent membership) of the "church in Judea" which Paul had persecuted. If so, then James might plausibly be called a "brother of the Lord" in an obvious figurative sense, along with John and Simon Peter.

I think you're quoting from my #933.

It is not at all odd that Peter wouldn't be described that way ...

Have you not just said he might plausibly have been called that?

since Peter has a commission from Jesus and God, to be for the Jews what Paul is to the nations. "Brother of the Lord" would be a reduction in rank. At least one other person besides James has the title, however, since brothers, plural, travel with women.

I know, but that person is not named and for all we know Paul may be referring to Jesus' blood brothers James, Joses, Simeon and Judas, mentioned in Matthew Ch 13. The objection: they are not recorded as having been disciples, holds little water. Neither was James. Indeed it was Jesus' brothers who considered him insane in Mark 3. If Jesus was, as he believed, King of the Jews, then his family would be regarded by his followers as a Royal Family, on the model of the Davidic dynasty.

 

[Brainache]

...
Brainache


Matthew copies from Mark on point, with improvements. Mark portrays anonymous people asking one another questions. There is no answer provided in the text. The answer may be no, or the author simply doesn't know anymore than we do in what sense somebody named James may be a "brother of the Lord." "Mark" has a pattern and practice of laying out alternatives for the various incidents and circumstances he discusses.

Mark also identifies another James who was supposedly among the inner group of Simon Peter, James and his brother, John. All three apparently survive Jesus, and would plausibly be the nucleus (and maybe the entirety of the permnanent membership) of the "church in Judea" which Paul had persecuted. If so, then James might plausibly be called a "brother of the Lord" in an obvious figurative sense, along with John and Simon Peter.

It is not at all odd that Peter wouldn't be described that way, since Peter has a commission from Jesus and God, to be for the Jews what Paul is to the nations. "Brother of the Lord" would be a reduction in rank. At least one other person besides James has the title, however, since brothers, plural, travel with women.

This reply should really be directed towards Craig B. I'll take a stab at it though:

So you are saying that being an evangelist to the Jews was a lower ranked position than being an evangelist to the Gentiles? Or, not being an evangelist at all is a higher rank?

Why the separation between Apostles, Brothers, and Cephas? More ranks and titles?

Or, familial and other types of relations?

I think it is a straightforward familial relation in the early gospel, subsequently redacted in the interests of the Virgin Mary Cult.

 

[Craig B]

I think it is a straightforward familial relation in the early gospel, subsequently redacted in the interests of the Virgin Mary Cult.

Yes, one of Matthew's sources knows nothing about the Virgin birth. Apart from the list of Jesus' brothers, we have at the end of Jesus' genealogy

1: ... 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

so it's Joseph's family tree. The original uncontaminated source must have regarded Joseph as Jesus' biological father. As does John in referring to Jesus twice as "son of Joseph", and Paul with his "seed of David". Joseph is stated to have been of that lineage - most improbably to be sure - and it is used for the purpose of grafting on the Bethlehem story in Luke.

 

[IanS]

Yes or no, Ian.

That's what I said right off the bat. This is getting ridiculous.

.

Then if you do mean that your "leaning" has reached what you described as "60-40 convinced" that Jesus was real, then that is most definitely a statement by you that you do believe Jesus was indeed real.

If you wanted to say that you had no firm opinion, then you should have said 50-50 (if you wanted to put such numbers on it).

 

[IanS]

I'd agree that you need corroborating evidence to reach a more definite conclusion, but to call it not evidence is to misunderstand the meaning of the word.

I did not call it "not evidence". I said it is not evidence to show that Jesus was a real human person of that time.

It's evidence of peoples 1st century religious beliefs. It's evidence that that the authors continuously wrote untrue claims about Jesus. It's evidence that none of those authors can be trusted in what they wrote about Jesus ... but it's NOT evidence of Jesus as a living person of that time.

 

[Craig B]

I did not call it "not evidence". I said it is not evidence to show that Jesus was a real human person of that time.

It's evidence of peoples 1st century religious beliefs. It's evidence that that the authors continuously wrote untrue claims about Jesus. It's evidence that none of those authors can be trusted in what they wrote about Jesus ... but it's NOT evidence of Jesus as a living person of that time.

Oh, yes it is. Not incontrovertible evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

 

[Belz...]

Then if you do mean that your "leaning" has reached what you described as "60-40 convinced" that Jesus was real, then that is most definitely a statement by you that you do believe Jesus was indeed real.

So that gets right back to what I was saying: the presence of numbers confuses you.

ETA: I don't get why you don't simply take me at my word. I lean towards the HJ theory, but I don't accept it as true or believe it. Why is that so difficult ? Why must you fit me within a category of your own making ?

I did not call it "not evidence". I said it is not evidence to show that Jesus was a real human person of that time.

Yes, that's entirely different.

 

[IanS]

Oh, yes it is. Not incontrovertible evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

No evidence is really “incontrovertible“. There is no such thing as literal certainty of anything.

But if you truly think that biblical writing of preaching pericopes, from people who never knew Jesus in any real sense at all, and who packed all their writing wall-to-wall with what have turned out to be entirely untrue fictional claims about this unknown Jesus, who they believed to be the Son of God long predicted by their divinely inspired infallible Old Testament ... then there is something very wrong indeed with your understanding of what credible evidence of any claim really is.

The bible is simply not a credible source of claims about peoples 1st century superstitious religious belief in the supernatural.

 

[IanS]

So that gets right back to what I was saying: the presence of numbers confuses you.

No, you are confusing yourself. If you say you are "convinced 60-40" that Jesus was real, then that is literally a statement of your belief in Jesus.

If you really meant that you don’t actually know and can’t clearly decide, then you should have said 50-50 (if you wanted to put any such numbers on it).

 

[Belz...]

No, you are confusing yourself. If you say you are "convinced 60-40" that Jesus was real, then that is literally a statement of your belief in Jesus.

No it's not. I think I know my own thoughts better than you.

Have a nice day.

 

[IanS]

No it's not. I think I know my own thoughts better than you.

Have a nice day.

No. You said that I was confused about it. And I am saying in reply, it's you who is confused.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

So you are saying that being an evangelist to the Jews was a lower ranked position than being an evangelist to the Gentiles?

No, I am saying that Paul's ranking method gives top marks to holding a commission from God through the risen Jesus. Paul and Peter did, to Paul's apparent satisfaction. There is no obvious need for Paul to say more about Peter's status within the movement - they are of equal rank and not in one another's chain of command.

Why the separation between Apostles, Brothers, and Cephas? More ranks and titles?

When Apostle with a portfolio is all you've got, then Apostle with a portfolio matters. However, Paul seems not to be in a position to deny that James and John are also players, and that all three made nice with Paul (eventually).

Or, familial and other types of relations?

The Gospels suggest that the family would have the same problem that Paul does: not being early adopters of the good news. I can see them playing for a schism within the supposed "churches of Judea" (we see something like that in living Islam), but any details are lost to us, since only Paul's mandate, the Nations, has Christian adherents within the last 19 centuries.

I think it is a straightforward familial relation in the early gospel, subsequently redacted in the interests of the Virgin Mary Cult.

Could be, of course, but the basic problem is that "brother" has so many possible interpretations. I affirmatively believe that Paul's James is the biological brother of John, and that Rocky and the Thunder Brohtres are as Mark depicts them, the most susceptible to episodes of anomalous cognition among the twelve handsome assistants, unknown to Jesus before their audition.

 

[dejudge]

But given that there is no evidence of the worship of a Celestial Jesus, a HJ is the most parsimonious explanation for the formation of Christianity.

Is there evidence that I'm unaware of?

Where is the supporting evidence for your speculation of an HJ? You are aware that there is no evidence for your HJ.

A mythological Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation for the formation of Christianity.

1. Given that there is no evidence at all of a human Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God by Jews and Roman citizens since the time of Pilate a mythological Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation for the formation of Christianity.


2. Given that there are hundreds of direct evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was described as the product of a Ghost and a Virgin, was God Creator, who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended a mythological Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation for the formation of Christianity.

3. Given that Christian writers themselves publicly argued that their Jesus of Nazareth had no human father and was God from the beginning a mythological Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation for the formation of Christianity.

4. Given that all the stories of Jesus are not eyewitness accounts, filled with discrepancies, contradictions, and historical problems attributed to Fake pre 70 CE authors a mythological Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation for the formation of Christianity.

5. Given that the Resurrection of Jesus is a fundamental part of the Christian religion in antiquity--[without the resurrection there would be no Remission of Sins and No Faith] a mythological Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation for the formation of Christianity.

You must be aware of the evidence for Myth Jesus.


Aristides' Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them..

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

 

[dejudge]

You are unable to understand simple concepts: 60-40% is the result of the weakness of the evidence. If it were stronger, I'd be more convinced. What part of this extremely simple fact eludes you ?

You have already admitted that you merely guessed your 60/40 probability. With your admitted TERRIBLE and very weak evidence which is really non-existent it is virtually impossible to claim there is a 60/40 probability for the existence of Jesus.

Your 60/40 probability in favor of an HJ exposes your blatant CALLOUS misrepresentation of the non-existent data for HJ.

That is your lie. Either that, or you do not understand evidence.

Your statement refers directly to you, "That is your lie. Either that, or you do not understand evidence.

Your 60/40 probability for HJ is based on no existing data.

 

[Belz...]

No. You said that I was confused about it. And I am saying in reply, it's you who is confused.

A very nice day.

 

[Belz...]

You have already admitted that you merely guessed your 60/40 probability.

"Admited" ? I said so from the get-go.

With your admitted TERRIBLE and very weak evidence which is really non-existent it is virtually impossible to claim there is a 60/40 probability for the existence of Jesus.

I said it is very weak. But it is a lie to say it is non-existence. Until you own your lie, it is impossible to discuss this with you further.

Your 60/40 probability in favor of an HJ exposes your blatant CALLOUS misrepresentation of the non-existent data for HJ.

I have already addressed this. Your inability to debate like an adult is not my problem.

Your statement refers directly to you, "That is your lie. Either that, or you do not understand evidence.

QED.

 

[Craig B]

... The bible is simply not a credible source of claims about peoples 1st century superstitious religious belief in the supernatural.

A source, not of information, but of claims? This is gibberish.

 

[dejudge]

I said it is very weak. But it is a lie to say it is non-existence. Until you own your lie, it is impossible to discuss this with you further.

That is the precise fallacy. You have never identified the very weak and terrible evidence because it does not exist.

Where is the terrible and very weak evidence for HJ of Nazareth?

Is it in the Bible?

The Bible clearly states Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, was God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Where is the very weak and terrible evidence?

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder, Pliny the younger??

You cannot answer because it does not exist.

 

[Belz...]

That is the precise fallacy.

You don't know what that word means.

Discussion with you is useless until you address your problems.

 

[IanS]

A source, not of information, but of claims? This is gibberish.

It's not gibberish to describe these stories as claims rather than “information“. The anonymous gospel writers did not themselves know anything about Jesus. They were (apparently) reporting stories that had been told by other unnamed unknown people. But even those unnamed people were (apparently) not personal disciples of Jesus either.

So what the gospel authors were writing about in their stories of Jesus, was only what they had heard about Jesus, as a set of tales told about a legendary figure of the past by anonymous informants who were presumed to have got the stories from some other people who were presumed somewhere in that chain of anonymous sources to have included people who were thought to have actually once known Jesus.

That's a chain of anonymous people making claims about Jesus, which were at some stage written down by authors who did not themselves know what truth if any was in any of the chain of legendary story telling.

Those stories are not "information" though. Because the stories continuously claim impossible supernatural deeds. It is not "information" about Jesus to say he walked on water or raised the dead etc. That is a fictional claim ... not "information".

The same really applies to the letters of Paul. Because he did not know Jesus either. Paul was making claims about Jesus rising from the dead, because he thought that was foretold by inerrant OT scripture. But that is not "information" about Jesus ... it's not actual "information" to say he was seen after rising from the dead ... that's a claim which is now known to be untrue fiction ... it was part of Paul’s theological beliefs about God and his messiah.