Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

You don't know what that word means.

Discussion with you is useless until you address your problems.

Your one and two sentences directly refer to yourself, "You don't know what that word means. Discussion with you is useless until you address your problems".

You have been repeatedly asked to show the very weak and terribly evidence for your 60/40 probability in favor of HJ.,

Where is the very weak terrible evidence for HJ?

It does not exist.

You knew in advance of posting that there was no actual evidence for an HJ.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache and Craig

Yes, I did mess up who was who. My apologies.

 

[Belz...]

It does not exist.

Yes it does.

 

[Craig B]

<snip>

Read what I write and I'll read what you write.

 

[davefoc]

...

In your above example - the fact that, as you say, "somebody set down information about a person in a religious book", is not evidence that what he set down about that person was actually true. And the fact of whether the writer may or may not have, as you say, "meant it to be taken as non-fiction", is again not evidence that the writer was either correct in what he wrote or even telling the truth about what he wrote. What the author wrote is not in itself evidence of the truth of which he writes.

...

I am just not sure how to respond to this post because I'm not sure I understand your point. Evidence is not proof. Evidence might not be true although information known to be false would not constitute evidence and even if the evidence is true the premise it supports could be false. At the point in time the information underlying the evidence could be shown to be false the information that was evidence would cease to be evidence.*

Paul's letters are purported to be about an individual that if he existed would be the HJ. The fact that somebody wrote letters about an individual is evidence that the individual existed. The evidence from Paul's writing that an HJ existed is not strong. Paul's letters could have been forged in their entirety. Paul could have written truthfully but been wrong. Paul could have lied. And Paul's writings might have been misinterpreted. Nonetheless as I use the word, evidence, Paul's writings are evidence. If one could show that Paul's letters were forged or otherwise not probative about the HJ, Paul's letters would cease to be evidence.

Nobody has done that in these threads so Paul's letters are evidence based on what I mean by the word evidence. Now you might not like the way I and others use the word evidence. That is your right to define the words you use in the way you want. And if you want to define evidence in such a way that Paul's letters aren't evidence of an HJ that is fine. However, it is all a bit pointless to dispute that Paul's letters are evidence with me when based on how I use the word they clearly are unless your point is that you can prove that Paul's letters do not contain true information about a hypothetical HJ. I understand that you can present evidence that Paul's letters are not reliable sources of history. But I don't understand that you can prove that everything Paul wrote about the HJ and his buddies is false.


* This is not true in the legal context for the word, evidence. That which has been presented in court in support of one of the sides remains evidence whether it is true or not.

 

[The Norseman]

No worries.

Sorry to hear about the ADHD thing.

Cheers

Thank you, I do sincerely appreciate it. I'm doing my best, but sometimes the information in three active threads gets confusing to me.

When I say I'm earnestly asking a question, it isn't a fake or gotcha or deliberately baiting you or anyone and I'm glad that at least you will take that into consideration.

 

[The Norseman]

It is de nada, at least to me. Had you not stated such, I would have not had any notion that it might be the case. Also, I tend to skip over youtube links as well. Can't feature the timewasting of trudging through videos poorly expressing ideas which could easily be written in a post. They are mostly a waste of intertubes. (No offence Brainache, just too many wasted hours waiting for some point to be actually reached and being disappointed that I just don't click anymore. Happened long before I ever met you.)

ETA: And norseman, your avatar sports what used to be my common username in fora long ago.

And I thank you as well. Since my diagnosis was so recent, I'm still struggling to find ways to overcome this particular disability and continue to post and be active in threads on JREF as well as other boards.

Interesting news about my avatar! I had my portrait for a long while but then decided to change to something less personal. I lurve kittehs, so this was a natural choice for me.

 

[The Norseman]

Jesus was, according to any reasonable reading of the texts, a "subversive". His disturbance in the Temple during Passover was subversive. He told his men to arm themselves. He claimed in Pilate's presence to be King. (Pilate's alleged response at the time is incredible, but Pilate put "King" on the notice he attached to the cross.)

Along with Jesus of Nazareth, there was in custody at the same time a criminal arrested during an "insurrection". So one happened then. This person's name was Jesus Barabbas, which means "son of the father". Conclusion, because he was so evidently a rebel, the gospels split him off from the Nazarene; but in all probability they were originally the same person. Notice that the people are shouting for this rebel Jesus just as they were shouting hosanna - save us! - at the Nazarene a few days before.

The disciples say after Jesus' death that they thought he had come to "restore Israel". In Ch 5 of Acts, Gamaliel compares Jesus' companions with the rebels Judas of Galilee and Theudas, in a speech to the Sanhedrin.

For a more scholarly treatment of all this see some of the works of Hyam Maccoby, in particular Revolution in Judaea. See abridgement at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby.htm For an earlier treatment see Joel Carmichael The death of Jesus, 1963. Thomas Paine took the same view in Ch 3 Vol 1 of The Age of Reason.

I'd love a response to my earlier question if you could recall. I don't know now which thread it was in, but it was an honest question. You got prickly when IanS didn't answer your question, so it's only fair you answer mine.

Re: the highlighted -- any reasonable reading of the texts often result in different conclusions. How could you account for that (with the understanding that you're not a professional, but I find your lay opinion important nonetheless).

 

[The Norseman]

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.

By that reasoning I can say then that I am completely neutral on this issue and I'm 80/20 in favor of a mythical Jesus. Cool. I'll stick with that then.

 

[The Norseman]

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.

You're still making the mistake of thinking Jesus == Joe Smith. We have no written records by Jesus himself, but only from later people. Why couldn't the Xtian church as we know it have started with the writings of Paul? Why does there *have* to be a corporeal Jesus to start the Xtian church? Or, why is it *more likely* that Jesus was a corporeal person who started this particular branch of religion?

Also, it seems that people here and scholars do not apply the same criteria to other figures of history such as Zeus. Yes, yes, I know that figures such as Zeus have been talked about before. I'd love to know why they are dismissed as not ever existing but the same criteria applied to Jesus results in a different outcome (i.e., Jesus was real but Zeus et al never were).

 

[Belz...]

By that reasoning I can say then that I am completely neutral on this issue and I'm 80/20 in favor of a mythical Jesus. Cool. I'll stick with that then.

I'm sure you can tell the difference between 60 and 80.

 

[The Norseman]

This thread is moving fast, so as to not spam the thread any more, I'll do one more massive quote though I usually like keeping each poster separate to avoid confusion.


---------------------------------------------------------------

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

No. Brigham Young was passing on truths from Joe Smith as Luke was passing on truths from Paul. The writer of Paul clearly state that he got his info from a spiritual Jesus just as Joe Smith did.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Paul gives us lots of mundane information about Jesus eating and drinking and talking to people. He even says he has brothers.

All the supernatural stuff you mention is supposedly post-crucifixion.

The early gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as very human. It's the later stories that got carried away with the spiritual stuff.

Do you think it's reasonable to posit that Jesus was told in stories as a human to make the parables more accessible to other people? It occurred quite frequently in that time period so I understand.

----------------------------------------------------------

Many gods died and resurrected in history of religions. No one, as far as I am aware, with a death so infamous reserved to low-grade people.

How about mentioning all that is alike between Jesus and other god myths? Of course there will be some differences, that's not important.

Read the following comment I address to IanS. It is for you, also.

There is a certain thing and a wrong thing in what you say. The correct view is that if we have to look for a basis on which an alleged inventor of the Jesus myth could act, it would be found in the Hebrew tradition. We can dismiss the pagan mentality in which a god suffering punishment devoted to slaves or malefactors is unthinkable. This was a scandal to the Hellenic mentality, as seen in the objections of Celsus, for example.

How can we dismiss the pagan mentality? What's the reasoning for dismissing it?

But you are wrong to believe that Christians could find the figure of a crucified Messiah in Jewish thought of the age. You refer to Paul and the texts of Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53, which are the only ones in which the concept of a suffering servant of the Lord appears -IIRC. But you are wrong when you say that these texts speak about the Messiah. Neither Psalms nor Isaiah say anything about Messiah. Nor any cross. "Pierced hands and feet" has different translations and get different interpretations.

Then in all fairness it must be discarded for that reason and should not be used as evidence of anything either way. It's the same thing I asked about a few posts ago: how can scholars and historians use the same set of rules (the historical method) yet arrive at completely different results? And not only do they arrive at different results, but they're convinced that their interpretation is the most likely one. This seems to prompt apologists to try and go with the lowest common denominator of the Jesus figure to try and say that this LCD is the most likely one.

-------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing ambiguous about it. He uses the phrase several times throughout the corpus, and it never means anyone or anything else.

It doesn't mean Disciple, or Apostle or Long-Time Companion (although if it did mean any of those things, it still refers to a flesh and blood Jesus).

Jesus gave rules about Divorce, according to Paul.

How many ghosts do that?

Seeyalatermate.

The invisible pink unicorn gave rules about divorce according to me.

You seriously don't think that Paul just made stuff up regarding what someone else said? Don't you think it's likely that Paul used a Jesus figure to lend credence to his words and ministry?

---------------------------------------------------

He identifies James as a brother. And James is in another source (Matt 13:55) included in a list of the names of Jesus' four brothers, in a very literal context, where people in Jesus' home town are rejecting his pretensions to special status.

Also if it means, companion of Jesus in a general sense, it's odd that Paul never applies it to Peter, for example. Moreover if it's a title, it's a mightily honorific and authoritative one. Why then does Paul apply it to James with whom he had disputes on fundamental questions, and whom he disparages in Galatians 2? Because, perhaps, the expression was literally true.

We won't ever know and this particular issue of "the lord's brother" is so vague as to be worthless as evidence of a corporeal Jesus. As I pointed out earlier, Jesus could have been given siblings to bolster the parables he was claimed to have said.

What I find curious is that there is not even a whisper of these brothers ever again. They do not preach what their sibling Jesus said nor carry on his ministry after being crucified. Why didn't the brothers stand guard over Jesus' tomb for example?

Any thoughts on that?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure you can tell the difference between 60 and 80.

The numbers don't matter to the point I'm trying to make, but suit yourself.

 

[Brainache]

This thread is moving fast, so as to not spam the thread any more, I'll do one more massive quote though I usually like keeping each poster separate to avoid confusion.

OK. I'll just respond to your comments to me:

Do you think it's reasonable to posit that Jesus was told in stories as a human to make the parables more accessible to other people? It occurred quite frequently in that time period so I understand.

Did it?

Were stories normally told about spiritual beings as if they were flesh and blood contemporaries?

I haven't heard that.

The invisible pink unicorn gave rules about divorce according to me.

You seriously don't think that Paul just made stuff up regarding what someone else said? Don't you think it's likely that Paul used a Jesus figure to lend credence to his words and ministry?

The problem with that is that when he says that he is talking to people who are already familiar with this particular teaching of Jesus.

They already know Jesus' rule on Divorce and then Paul gives them his own version of it.

So those people have Jesus info from a different source than Paul. That's how I can say I don't think Paul invented Jesus.

We won't ever know and this particular issue of "the lord's brother" is so vague as to be worthless as evidence of a corporeal Jesus. As I pointed out earlier, Jesus could have been given siblings to bolster the parables he was claimed to have said.

What I find curious is that there is not even a whisper of these brothers ever again. They do not preach what their sibling Jesus said nor carry on his ministry after being crucified. Why didn't the brothers stand guard over Jesus' tomb for example?

Any thoughts on that?

Josephus mentions James. The early church fathers mention James and Simon. Thaddeus might be Theudas, also one of Jesus' brothers.

They were written out of the NT bit by bit, because they were an embarrassment to the Church of Rome because they were rebels.

 

[The Norseman]

OK. I'll just respond to your comments to me:

Thank you.

Did it?

Were stories normally told about spiritual beings as if they were flesh and blood contemporaries?

I haven't heard that.

Okay, that's cool. I may be mistaken; I'll do some research on it and try to post it in a timely manner. If things keep going so fast, I may not post it as it could be considered 'stale'. Unless most people wouldn't mind, that is.

The problem with that is that when he says that he is talking to people who are already familiar with this particular teaching of Jesus.

They already know Jesus' rule on Divorce and then Paul gives them his own version of it.

So those people have Jesus info from a different source than Paul. That's how I can say I don't think Paul invented Jesus.

Thank you for being direct. I have to say that's a good point I hadn't yet considered. You've given me more to think about.

Josephus mentions James. The early church fathers mention James and Simon. Thaddeus might be Theudas, also one of Jesus' brothers.

They were written out of the NT bit by bit, because they were an embarrassment to the Church of Rome because they were rebels.

The last still smacks of guesswork to me. Would you mind taking the historical method as in the wiki article and applying it to this point for me please? I understand you are not an expert or historian but I'm interested in your lay opinion. I don't mind if you would rather not for whatever reason.

 

[dejudge]

Paul's letters are purported to be about an individual that if he existed would be the HJ. The fact that somebody wrote letters about an individual is evidence that the individual existed.

Your statement is highly illogical.

Paul also wrote about God, Satan and Angels.

It is quite illogical to assume that characters named in the Bible are historical simply because some one wrote about them.

Plutarch wrote about Romulus as an individual, born of a woman and who had a human brother.

The evidence from Paul's writing that an HJ existed is not strong. Paul's letters could have been forged in their entirety. Paul could have written truthfully but been wrong. Paul could have lied. And Paul's writings might have been misinterpreted. Nonetheless as I use the word, evidence, Paul's writings are evidence. If one could show that Paul's letters were forged or otherwise not probative about the HJ, Paul's letters would cease to be evidence.

No, No, No!!! The Pauline Corpus cannot cease to be evidence. It will always be evidence from antiquity.

The Pauline letters can be evidence of forgeries or evidence of authenticity or a combination of both.

It is those who claim that there are authentic Pauline letters composed since the time of Claudius who have no supporting evidence.

You seem to have forgotten that even scholars have deduced that the Pauline Corpus was a product of multiple authors perhaps as much as SEVEN different authors.

The Pauline Corpus and the NT is evidence that forgeries and fiction were rampant in the history of the Church.

 

[Belz...]

The numbers don't matter to the point I'm trying to make, but suit yourself.

I understand your point but no one claimed that the number had to reach 100% in order to reach the "belief" status. But do you at least agree that beign 60% convinced of something isn't belief the way that 80% or 90% is ?

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is highly illogical.

Your post applies to yourself "Your statement is highly illogical."

 

[Foster Zygote]

I understand your point but no one claimed that the number had to reach 100% in order to reach the "belief" status. But do you at least agree that beign 60% convinced of something isn't belief the way that 80% or 90% is ?

Or look at it this way: If someone casts a six-sided die behind a screen so that you cannot see the result, you can be assured that the chances are five in six that the number showing is not a six. But if you say, "the result is most likely not a six", it doesn't indicate that you believe that the result is not a six.

 

[tsig]

By that reasoning I can say then that I am completely neutral on this issue and I'm 80/20 in favor of a mythical Jesus. Cool. I'll stick with that then.

Jesus was mythicaly historical?

 

[The Norseman]

I understand your point but no one claimed that the number had to reach 100% in order to reach the "belief" status. But do you at least agree that beign 60% convinced of something isn't belief the way that 80% or 90% is ?

Yes, I do agree with that.

Or look at it this way: If someone casts a six-sided die behind a screen so that you cannot see the result, you can be assured that the chances are five in six that the number showing is not a six. But if you say, "the result is most likely not a six", it doesn't indicate that you believe that the result is not a six.

Ah! The lightbulb just went on! We need a lightbulb smiley. Thank you, that was what I needed to understand properly.