Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Craig B]

tsig, May I return to your question?

Why do you think some things in the bible are true?

The answer is that some things in the Bible are a) plausible and b) attested by history or demonstrated by archaeology. The Bible speaks of the Jews being exiled to Babylon after a defeat. That certainly happened.

Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem, his capture of King Jeconiah, his appointment of Zedekiah in his place, and the plundering of the city in 597 BCE as described in 2 Kings in the Bible are confirmed by a passage in the Babylonian Chronicles:293 "In the seventh year, in the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against the City of Judah and on the ninth day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice and taking heavy tribute brought it back to Babylon."

Tablets describing ration orders for a captive King of Judah, identified with King Jeconiah, have been discovered during excavations in Babylon, in the royal archives of Nebuchadnezzar. One of the tablets refers to food rations for "Ya’u-kīnu, king of the land of Yahudu" and five royal princes, his sons.

As we have also seen, King Aretas, mentioned by Paul, really did exist, really did rule Damascus, and really had a governor there because his capital was elsewhere.

 

[Craig B]

What part of did you miss?

It's always fascinating exchanging ideas with you, tsig.

 

[IanS]

. The fact that somebody wrote letters about an individual is evidence that the individual existed.

* 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.

Re. the highlight - NO! No, it most definitely is NOT evidence that the individual existed.

It's only evidence that somebody wrote to claim that the individual existed. It's absolutely not at all "evidence that the individual actually did exist".

I'm amazed that you, almost of all people here, would write something as mistaken as that.

I'll try to give you an example to explain clearly why that sort of testimony is certainly not itself evidence of it’s own claim -

- suppose I am asked to give evidence as a witness in court, and I say that I saw the defendant shoot the victim outside Victoria train station in London. Is that evidence that the defendant did indeed shoot the victim?

Answer, NO! It is NOT! That witness testimony is NOT evidence that the defendant really did shoot the victim.

Why is that not actually evidence of the shooting? OK, consider this -

- the next witness after me, is the governor of a prison in Australia, and he produces prison records and film, showing that in fact the defendant was in prison 5000 miles away in Australia at the time of the shooting, and hence I could not possibly have seen the defendant shoot that victim …

… my testimony was untrue. It was offered before the jury as if it was “evidence” of what I claimed, but it was actually untrue and NOT the evidence that I claimed it to be. It was NOT evidence to show the defendant did ever shoot anyone.

In the biblical accounts, eg in Paul’s letters (if they were your example), the fact that the author (“Paul”) says Jesus existed, is NOT evidence that he really did exist … it is not evidence that what the author writes is actually true. As with the untrue witness in the shooting trial, in Paul’s writing and the gospel writing, that is only evidence of the authors writing about peoples religious beliefs about Jesus, but it is most certainly NOT itself evidence at all that Jesus did actually exist.

Testimony like that (eg Paul’s letters and the written gospels) can contain real evidence of the truth of their claims, providing the testimony includes information which can be independently confirmed by external means other than the mere claims themselves, for example if the testimony contained details of the early life of Jesus which could be confirmed by archaeological means or by cross checking against reliable independent contemporary historians of the time. But without that genuine supporting “evidence”, the mere testimony itself is most definitely NOT evidence that it’s own claims are true.

 

[Brainache]

It is like the Book of Mormon? It is so obvious to you that the bible was composed all at once by a single charlatan as part of an obvious scam, that you don't need to provide any evidence to demonstrate this? A bare assertion will suffice, will it? No it won't! As to my attitude to the gospels; I have indicated that at #486 and elsewhere by discussing the gradual development of increased supernatural elements in the gospels; and I also wrote: Comment on that if you will, or say WHY you think the Bible is like the Book of Mormon. In fact the bible contains historical material, some of which may well not be entirely false. It is an important source of information on the history of the Ancient Near East.

The Book of Mormon came out of the head of a liar and scammer, and the society it describes never existed. The bible not merely describes, but is the product of, a society which is indeed known to have existed as a historical reality.

You have asked me a question, which is have tried to answer. Now please return the favour by telling me, in sufficient detail to support your argument, why in point of possible authenticity of material the bible resembles the Book of Mormon.

Great post Craig B.

It's always fascinating exchanging ideas with you, tsig.

Such a stimulating conversationalist.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am afraid that you cannot say that "the result is most likely not a six" if someone cast a six-sided dice.

You might want to take Probability and Statistics 101.

If your choices are "six" and "not a six", then which result is most likely?

It is a one in six probability that any number on the dice will be the top number.

Thank you for stating the obvious. What is your point?

Is it not also true that there is a five in six chance of rolling a number other than six?

If one states that it is more likely that the result is "not a six" than a "six", is that not a true statement? Is knowing that it is more likely not a six equivalent to believing that it is not a six?

 

[Brainache]

You might want to take Probability and Statistics 101.

If your choices are "six" and "not a six", then which result is most likely?


Thank you for stating the obvious. What is your point?

Is it not also true that there is a five in six chance of rolling a number other than six?

If one states that it is more likely that the result is "not a six" than a "six", is that not a true statement. Is knowing that it is more likely not a six equivalent to believing that it is not a six?

Uh oh, logic.

I bet that's some kind of fallacy (with an exclamation mark)!

 

[dejudge]

I don't know what Jesus threads you've been looking at but it is a mainstay of the Jesus threads I've participated in. People ask for evidence all the time and people provide the evidence that they believe supports the premise that an HJ existed.

I don't know what threads you have been looking at but people who argue for an historical Jesus will always tell you what they believe about HJ without ever supplying any corroborative evidence.

Examine the last 10,000 posts of Brainache, Belz, Craig B, and any poster who argues for an HJ--one thing is always missing--evidence from antiquity for THEIR HJ.

Please provide the evidence that HJers use to argue that there was an HJ.

The closest thing available to contemporaneous writings with a early Jesus sect are the works of Paul.

Your assertion about the works of Paul reminds me of HJers. It is Chinese Whispers or rumors that the Pauline writings are early.

There is evidence that the Pauline writings were unknown by apologetics up to at least 180 CE.

Please, provide the evidence that any Pauline letter was written before 180 CE.

 

[Belz...]

Re. the highlight - NO! No, it most definitely is NOT evidence that the individual existed.

Then you are using a definition of the word that no one else is using.

It's only evidence that somebody wrote to claim that the individual existed.

No actually it's pretty much proof that someoe wrote it.

 

[Belz...]

You might want to take Probability and Statistics 101.

If your choices are "six" and "not a six", then which result is most likely?

The die is a myth !

 

[Belz...]

Examine the last 10,000 posts of Brainache, Belz, Craig B, and any poster who argues for an HJ--one thing is always missing--evidence from antiquity for THEIR HJ.

You keep asking for evidence of B) from people who argue A).

 

[tsig]

It is like the Book of Mormon? It is so obvious to you that the bible was composed all at once by a single charlatan as part of an obvious scam, that you don't need to provide any evidence to demonstrate this? A bare assertion will suffice, will it? No it won't! As to my attitude to the gospels; I have indicated that at #486 and elsewhere by discussing the gradual development of increased supernatural elements in the gospels; and I also wrote: Comment on that if you will, or say WHY you think the Bible is like the Book of Mormon. In fact the bible contains historical material, some of which may well not be entirely false. It is an important source of information on the history of the Ancient Near East.

The Book of Mormon came out of the head of a liar and scammer, and the society it describes never existed. The bible not merely describes, but is the product of, a society which is indeed known to have existed as a historical reality.

You have asked me a question, which is have tried to answer. Now please return the favour by telling me, in sufficient detail to support your argument, why in point of possible authenticity of material the bible resembles the Book of Mormon.

They are both supposed to be the word of god transmitted through a human agency whether one person made up the stories of many did makes no difference.

The bible is a product of early church not the early Christians.

 

[dejudge]

You keep asking for evidence of B) from people who argue A).

I asked you for evidence from antiquity for your 60-40 HJ and you have refused to do so.

Belz, what and where is the terrible and very weak evidence from antiquity that is in your 60% HJ?

You admitted the evidence for your 60-40 HJ was Terrible and very weak but still refuse to show exactly where you got the evidence.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The die is a myth !

Die myth, die!

Which, of course, is German for, "The myth, the!".

 

[Craig B]

Die myth, die!

Which, of course, is German for, "The myth, the!".

It's masculine, so der Mythos der!

 

[IanS]

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.

.

Just using you above quote as a reference to my earlier exchange with David Mo re. OT prophecy about the suffering of the messiah - below is what Wikipedia says about this so-called “suffering Servant” in the book of Isaiah-53 and how that relates to what Paul and later Gospel writers may have thought about Jesus. But also, see below that the quote in red from Paul‘s letter to Galatians and what he says there about “being hung on a tree! -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_53

Isaiah 53, taken from the Book of Isaiah, is the last of the four Songs of the Suffering Servant, and tells the story of a "Man of Sorrows" or "God's Suffering Servant".Many Christians believe the "Man of Sorrows" or the "Suffering Servant" to be a reference to the prophecy of the Ministry of Jesus, which became a common theme in medieval and later Christian art. The passage of 'Isaiah 53' is known for its interpretation and use by Christian Theologians and Missionaries, many of whom identify the servant to be Christ Jesus.Many Christians view the entire chapter, and particularly this passage to refer to the Passion of Christ as well as the absolution of sins believed to be made possible by his sacrificial death.[1]“He was taken from prison and from judgment:…
…and who shall declare his generation?…
… for he was cut off out of the land of the living:… … for the transgression of my people was he stricken.…” (53:8 KJV)[2]



What we can see from the above is that (apparently) not only do many Christians today interpret those suffering passages as referring in prophecy to the figure who Paul named as “Jesus”, but that more importantly, Paul’s letters do of course repeatedly say that he obtained his information about Jesus from no man, but instead entirely from what he believed to be written in that OT scripture such as the above (and from his visions of the supernatural).


Also, in respect of what Paul thought was written in OT scripture, check this out from Paul's letter to Galatians 3.13-14 -

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3:13&version=KJV

3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
3.14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.



There in 3.13/14 Paul appears to be quite directly saying that he believed it “was written” (he presumably can only mean OT scripture), that Jesus (his “Christ”) was crucified in confirmation of what he thought was an OT passage saying “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” , ie that passage from Paul Gal.-3-13/14 appears to have Paul telling his readers that “it is written” that what has become the curse of the Jewish people will be redeemed by the ultimate suffering of the messiah being “hung on a tree”.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's masculine, so der Mythos der!

You mean Sideshow Bob lied? (Or is it "lerd"? I'm so confused!)

 

[mijopaalmc]

You mean Sideshow Bob lied? (Or is it "lerd"? I'm so confused!)

No, Lieder.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, Lieder.

Wait, so it's set to music?

 

[Belz...]

I asked you for evidence from antiquity for your 60-40 HJ and you have refused to do so.

You are lying. I've already answered that multiple times, and you ignored my answers each time.

 

[David Mo]

OK, well that is wrong. For the reason I explained before. To repeat - iirc, you can find in the OT, prophecies that the coming messiah will be rejected by his own people (ie by fellow Jews), and will pass unappreciated and unrecognised as the true messiah by his own people (ie the Jewish nation as a whole). So that is the first part of the explanation, where in fact the letters of Paul himself do say that "according to scripture" Jesus will be betrayed in this way by his own Jewish people.

And then further, again iirc (and I gave the OT refs to all of this before;- you can find them very easily from Wikipedia and Bible Gateway), there are various passages in the OT which could very easily have been interpreted by Paul and the earliest gospel writers to mean that this prophesised rejection and persecution of Jesus, would end in the death of Jesus, and quite possibly even nailed to a "tree" or "cross" in a form of crucifixion. For example, there is the famous passage which talks of the messiah saying something to the effect of his feet and hands having been "pierced" or pinned like the "Bite of a Lion" ... and I think there is even one OT passage that talks of someone who might be the messiah being "hung on a tree", which is apparently a reference to one of several forms of crucifixion (though as I have stressed several times here in the past concerning that very specific passage about being hung on a tree, do NOT quote me on that because I cannot now easily find that particular reference).

David - you need to be careful with what you say above. Look at the highlight in what I wrote (above) - I did not say that the OT makes it clear that such prophecies are definitely about the expected messiah (though iirc, I think many of them are, or can appear to be).

You also need to be careful. If you didn’t want to say that there are prophecies about a Messiah crucified and rejected by the Jews in the Old Testament -or easily interpretable as-, then you wrote just the opposite.

And this is exactly the basis of my argument. It is (highly) unlikely that a Jew(s) in Palestine or the Diaspora had invented a Messiah crucified by Romans from two or three biblical passages that didn’t say anything of a crucified -or persecuted- Messiah neither about the Romans, but only about some suffering individual as scapegoat of Israel sins or similar.

I’m sorry but this is difficult to understand. It is easier to think about an intent to justify post evento a real and disturbing event: a religious leader crucified by Romans.