Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[eight bits]

pipelineaudio

Ok, so if thats what's meant as an HJ, then fine, sure there are hundreds of them. However, I think that the HJ crowd actually argues further that THIS jesus was the basis for the gospel stories.

All that would confidently disitinguish THIS Jesus ("TJ") from many other people like him is that Paul thought he saw TJ's ghost. So, that's what it mostly comes down to, I think. Was Paul correct in talking about a real man, who died violently before Paul ever met him, but who had surviving associates who, Paul says, had also seen TJ's ghost?

I end up 60-40 that there was a real guy whose ghost Paul thought he saw, one specific guy from among the many who were arguably like him. Sixty-forty isn't that strong a commitment, but it's the way I'd bet at even odds. I'm not sure that that makes me part of any crowd. There are people who are way more confident than I am, and many of those who are comparably (un)confident have different ideas about why.

 

[dejudge]

The earliest gospel (Mark) has been dated by Scholars to just after 70 CE, so thats about 40 years, not 100.

He's too Jewish to be all Greek, sorry.

Scholars could not have dated the Gospel of Mark to just after 70 CE not even paleographers with an actual recovered manuscripts can date a writing to a specific year whose author is unknown and contents are almost all fiction.

Plus, using paleography there are margin of errors of 50 years or more.

Some Scholars have speculated without any evidence, using copies of copies of copies, that gMark was written c 70 CE but such speculation has no real weight.

It is most laughable that some want to date the Gospels yet do not state their Margin of Error.

The author of gMark is unknown and the story itself not an eyewitness account.

The fundamental internal clues to date gMark shortly after c 70 CE are missing.

The first apologetic source to mention gMark was Irenaeus supposedly c 180 CE.

 

[dejudge]

pipelineaudio


All that would confidently disitinguish THIS Jesus ("TJ") from many other people like him is that Paul thought he saw TJ's ghost. So, that's what it mostly comes down to, I think. Was Paul correct in talking about a real man, who died violently before Paul ever met him, but who had surviving associates who, Paul says, had also seen TJ's ghost?

Your claim is a fallacy. In the Pauline Corpus it is clearly stated that Jesus was the Last Adam--a Life giving Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45 NAS

So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

Your claim is a fallacy.

You didn't quote a claim of mine.

 

[pakeha]

...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. ...

And they'd be wrong.
It's a reference to George Clooney.

Wait, so it's set to music?

Oh yes, and formed part of the soundtrack to Oh, Brother, where art thou?

 

[Foster Zygote]

What really happened??

Who knows? All we can do is speculate about possible explanations.

Why do you assume something happened?

Well something happened, or we wouldn't be talking about the origins of Christianity today. And I'm not assuming anything. I'm speculating about what might have happened. Why do you assume something didn't happen?

Why can't you see the blatant clues that nothing really happened?

You're simply spouting the same old fallacy. The fact that people made up supernatural claims about a religious figure isn't evidence that the figure is mythical. In fact, supernatural claims are de rigueur for religious figures. If Jesus cannot have been an historical personage because people made supernatural claims about him, then Joseph Smith cannot have been an historical personage for the same reason.


By the way, which is more likely: a die coming up six, or not six?

 

[dejudge]

Who knows? All we can do is speculate about possible explanations.

Why are you speculating? There is nothing to speculate. Jesus is who he is in the Bible until new evidence is found.

Does not the Bible state clearly that Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost, that he is the Logos, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended?

Jesus is a mythological character.

The Jesus stories are Ghost stories believed and propagated by the ILLITERATE.

In antiquity, Ghosts were Figures of History.

In fact, based on the Gospel, if one blasphemes a Ghost which was Holy then there is no forgiveness at all on earth or in heaven..

Matthew 12:31-32 KJV

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come .

Well something happened, or we wouldn't be talking about the origins of Christianity today. And I'm not assuming anything. I'm speculating about what might have happened. Why do you assume something didn't happen?

Your statement is contradictory. Speculation is synonymous with assumptions. You have already exclaimed "Who knows?". You really have nothing to contribute and is just inventing stories.

By the way, who do you want to believe what you are inventing from your imagination? Christians and Atheists?

You're simply spouting the same old fallacy. The fact that people made up supernatural claims about a religious figure isn't evidence that the figure is mythical. In fact, supernatural claims are de rigueur for religious figures. If Jesus cannot have been an historical personage because people made supernatural claims about him, then Joseph Smith cannot have been an historical personage for the same reason.

You just present another logical fallacy. The evidence for the existence or non-existence of Joseph Smith has nothing whatsoever to do with the inquiry about the character called Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

It is highly illogical to assume that if Jesus did not exist that Joseph Smith also did not.

You seem to have forgotten that Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus in the Mormon Bible.

The Jesus character in the Mormon Bible was not the physical founder of the Mormon religion.

The authors of the Jesus character are the founders of the cult NOT the characters in the story.

How in the world could the Son of a Ghost start a religion?

How could the Angel Moroni start a religion?

Like Joseph Smith, The originators of the story of the Son of a God born of a Ghost started a Jesus cult.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why are you speculating? There is nothing to speculate.

There's plenty to speculate about. We are all engaged in speculation regarding the origins of Christianity.

Jesus is who he is in the Bible until new evidence is found.

That's a really dumb argument.

Does not the Bible state clearly that Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost, that he is the Logos, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended?

Why are you stuck on this stupid argument? Do you think that we don't realize how religion works? Do you think so simplistically that you can't separate the ways religions are really started from the ways that their followers think they started?

Jesus is a mythological character.

Jesus Christ, who walked on water, raised people from the dead, and rose from the dead himself is most certainly an imaginary construct. But then, so is the Kim Jong-il who scored 300 his first time bowling.

The Jesus stories are Ghost stories believed and propagated by the ILLITERATE.

No ****. But guess what? People still believe in ghosts today. And many of those ghosts are said to be the spirits of people who actually lived. So, again, people make up superstitious stories about real people. So just pointing out that people made up stories about Jesus of Nazareth doesn't prove that he could not have existed.

In antiquity, Ghosts were Figures of History.

You mean like Anne Boleyn and Sarah Winchester?

In fact, based on the Gospel, if one blasphemes a Ghost which was Holy then there is no forgiveness at all on earth or in heaven..

Matthew 12:31-32 KJV

What does this have to do with the subject?

Your statement is contradictory. Speculation is synonymous with assumptions.

No it isn't. Speculation is the contemplation or consideration of some subject. An assumption is something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.

You have already exclaimed "Who knows?". You really have nothing to contribute and is just inventing stories.

I've contributed far more than you have. Admitting that the answer to an intriguing question is presently unknowable is not a statement of disinterest. If an exobiologist answered a question about whether life exists on other worlds with "who knows?", would you conclude that he had nothing to contribute to scientific speculation regarding the subject? If he pointed out all the good reasons to think that the universe might be teeming with life, but admitted that he could not prove its presence, would you declare that he was inventing stories?

By the way, who do you want to believe what you are inventing from your imagination? Christians and Atheists?

I'm sorry, but that question is so poorly constructed that I'm not sure what you are asking?

You just present another logical fallacy. The evidence for the existence or non-existence of Joseph Smith has nothing whatsoever to do with the inquiry about the character called Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

Actually, it has everything to do with your oft repeated tactic of pointing to the supernatural stories about Jesus as evidence against there having been a real person at the genesis of the religion. You keep saying things like "Jesus is said to have walked on water", which is true. But then Joseph Smith was said to have encountered an angel and translated an ancient sacred text from golden plates. The fact that we can see the origin of such mythical stories about a real person in fairly recent history destroys your "argument" based on protestations such as "Does not the Bible state clearly that Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost, that he is the Logos, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended?".

It is highly illogical to assume that if Jesus did not exist that Joseph Smith also did not.

You can't even understand the argument. I'm not saying that Jesus couldn't have been mythical because Joseph Smith was real. I'm saying that the fact that Joseph Smith was real demonstrates that Jesus could have been a real man about whom supernatural stories were concocted.

You seem to have forgotten that Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus in the Mormon Bible.

The Jesus character in the Mormon Bible was not the physical founder of the Mormon religion.

The authors of the Jesus character are the founders of the cult NOT the characters in the story.

How in the world could the Son of a Ghost start a religion?

How could the Angel Moroni start a religion?

Like Joseph Smith, The originators of the story of the Son of a God born of a Ghost started a Jesus cult.

You can't even understand the arguments being presented to you. The above is just random non sequiturs. You keep insulting the intellect of others, yet you have no idea how inept your own arguments are. Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

 

[Brainache]

...
The Jesus stories are Ghost stories believed and propagated by the ILLITERATE...

Just to clarify here; are you saying that the bible stories were written and copied by "illiterate" people?

It's a MIRACLE!!!

The illiterate can write and copy documents by the power of the Lord! Hallelujah!

 

[Craig B]

Scholars could not have dated the Gospel of Mark to just after 70 CE not even paleographers with an actual recovered manuscripts can date a writing to a specific year whose author is unknown and contents are almost all fiction.

Plus, using paleography there are margin of errors of 50 years or more.

Some Scholars have speculated without any evidence, using copies of copies of copies, that gMark was written c 70 CE but such speculation has no real weight.

The fundamental internal clues to date gMark shortly after c 70 CE are missing.

The first apologetic source to mention gMark was Irenaeus supposedly c 180 CE.

This is all nonsense. Who claims to have a pre-70 AD manuscript datable by palaeography? Nobody. Who dates Mark by counting copies of copies? Nobody. So why mention these things? More of your obfuscation.

Markan dates (right or wrong) are derived by internal evidence provided by the wording of the text. This is discussed in many places, e.g. http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm. Why do you not mention this? Because it is not your custom to refer to real evidence, but to depend on irrelevance and mere vehemence of assertion to sustain your case.

Other readers may not have noticed the subtle shift in dejudge's doctrine displayed in his post above. Mark is now "almost" all fiction. This is designed, no doubt, to counter any opponent who might try to refute dejudge by referring to something in Mark that appears to be true. But if it was as dejudge claims, concocted as an intentional pack of lies all at once (it is an undifferentiated literary unit) around 180 AD, then every single part of it, not "almost" all of it, must be complete fiction.

 

[Craig B]

... The Jesus stories are Ghost stories believed and propagated by the ILLITERATE.

In antiquity, Ghosts were Figures of History.

In fact, based on the Gospel, if one blasphemes a Ghost which was Holy then there is no forgiveness at all on earth or in heaven..
Matthew 12:31-32 KJV ...

How in the world could the Son of a Ghost start a religion?

Like Joseph Smith, The originators of the story of the Son of a God born of a Ghost started a Jesus cult.

I wonder if you understand the meaning of the expression "ghost" as in "Holy Ghost". The word at one time had the meaning we now assign to the word "spirit" in general. In modern German, the word geistig means spiritual. But the English word "ghostly" which once meant the same thing now has a very different connotation, usually referring to the spirits of dead people becoming visible to the living, a mildly laughable concept. The word has thus become trivialised in the English language. That is why in recent years the expression "Holy Spirit" has come to be preferred by Christians.

Your repeated use of formulations like "ghost stories" and so on therefore either represents utter and complete ignorance of the shift in the meanings of words, or is a crude attempt to make things look ridiculous by disingenuous exploitation, purely for rhetorical effect and with no regard for accuracy, of these changes of meaning.

It hardly needs to be said that your million-fold repetition of this device does absolutely nothing to convince your opponents of the validity of your arguments.

 

[dejudge]

Why are you speculating? There is nothing to speculate.

There's plenty to speculate about. We are all engaged in speculation regarding the origins of Christianity.

That's dumb.

I do not speculate about Romulus, Perseus, Achilles, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, Zeus, the Angel Gabriel, Jesus of Nazareth and the Holy Ghost.

What do you expect to accomplish by speculating and assuming?

Surely, you could not expect people in the 21st century to rely on the Ghost stories for history.

Jesus is who he is in the Bible until new evidence is found.

That's a really dumb argument.

You have confirmed that you are likely to be a secret xtian fundamentalist christian.

Is it not true that the God of the Jews is who he is in the Bible until new evidence is found?

Why do atheists NOT accept who God is in the Bible? It is because there is no new evidence.

You imply that atheists are dumb.

You argue like a secret xtian christian fundamentalist.

Why are you stuck on this stupid argument? Do you think that we don't realize how religion works? Do you think so simplistically that you can't separate the ways religions are really started from the ways that their followers think they started?

It is your argument that is stupid.

Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus and the Angel Moroni yet you want to make people believe that Jesus or the Angel Moroni could physically start a religion like Joseph Smith.

How illogical can you be.

Jesus and the Angel Moroni are myth characters in the Mormon Bible.

Jesus, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost were myth characters in the Gospels--it is the AUTHORS who start religions--NOT the mythological characters.

 

[Brainache]

That's dumb.

I do not speculate about Romulus, Perseus, Achilles, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, Zeus, the Angel Gabriel, Jesus of Nazareth and the Holy Ghost.

What do you expect to accomplish by speculating and assuming?

Surely, you could not expect people in the 21st century to rely on the Ghost stories for history.

You have confirmed that you are likely to be a secret xtian fundamentalist christian.

Is it not true that the God of the Jews is who he is in the Bible until new evidence is found?

Why do atheists NOT accept who God is in the Bible?

You imply that atheists are dumb.

It is your argument that is stupid.

Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus and the Angel Moroni yet you want to make people believe that Jesus or the Angel Moroni could physically start a religion like Joseph Smith.

How illogical can you be.

Jesus and the Angel Moroni are myth characters in the Mormon Bible.

Jesus, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost were myth characters in the Gospels--it is the AUTHORS who start religions--NOT the mythological characters.

I'm shocked that you haven't won the Nobel Prize yet.

Shocked!

 

[Craig B]

... Surely, you could not expect people in the 21st century to rely on the Ghost stories for history.

That's the way! Pay no attention whatever to any objections about your use of expressions like "ghost story". Just keep repeating yourself. And if refusing to address objections and constant repetition are not enough, then irksome ad hominem arguments are wheeled out. On it goes ...

You have confirmed that you are likely to be a secret xtian fundamentalist christian ... You argue like a secret xtian christian fundamentalist. It is your argument that is stupid.

 

[dejudge]

I wonder if you understand the meaning of the expression "ghost" as in "Holy Ghost". The word at one time had the meaning we now assign to the word "spirit" in general. In modern German, the word geistig means spiritual. But the English word "ghostly" which once meant the same thing now has a very different connotation, usually referring to the spirits of dead people becoming visible to the living, a mildly laughable concept. The word has thus become trivialised in the English language. That is why in recent years the expression "Holy Spirit" has come to be preferred by Christians.

Your repeated use of formulations like "ghost stories" and so on therefore either represents utter and complete ignorance of the shift in the meanings of words, or is a crude attempt to make things look ridiculous by disingenuous exploitation, purely for rhetorical effect and with no regard for accuracy, of these changes of meaning.

It hardly needs to be said that your million-fold repetition of this device does absolutely nothing to convince your opponents of the validity of your arguments.

You do not understand English? There are myth fables called Ghost Stories. The NT clearly states Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost and that when he walked on the sea he looked like a Ghost.

What difference does it make when a Spirit is a Ghost?

Jesus appeared like a Ghost [Spirit] when he was walking on the sea.

The AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION used the word Ghost to describe Jesus in gMark 6.


Jesus is a pure unadulterated Ghost story propagated by ILLITERATES in antiquity.

Mark 6:49 ASV---American Standard Version

but they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out

Why are you so worried about the Ghost stories in the NT?

 

[Craig B]

... Jesus is a pure unadulterated Ghost story propagated by ILLITERATES in antiquity.

I thought it was fabricated by literate but unknown forgers for unknown but nefarious reasons in an unknown place at an unknown time just prior to 180 AD.

Why are you so worried about the Ghost stories in the NT?

Because ghost stories make me hide under the blankets! Woooo ....

 

[dejudge]

I thought it was fabricated by literate but unknown forgers for unknown but nefarious reasons in an unknown place at an unknown time just prior to 180 AD.

You forgot that ILLITERATES can talk. Illiterates propagated the childish foolish monstrous fables by telling other ILLITERATES and they believe.

Now, even Scholars tell others that the character who was described as the Son of a Ghost was really a man although they have no idea who his father was.

 

[David Mo]

David - I notice you did not highlight my notes of caution in the above, where I repeatedly said “iirc” , and stressed several times that the whole point is NOT whether the always and deliberately obscure and vaguely worded prophecies in the OT, actually named the “messiah” or named “Jesus” (though astonishingly, one such “prophecy” ascribed to Moses, does actually name Jesus himself … and Moses was supposed to have lived c.1300-1500BC!!!). (...)

Thank you for the wide quotation but I think it adds nothing to our dissension.

If I have understood correctly -IIUC-, we agree in that no passage of the Old Testament speaks about a Messiah crucified by (Romans) and that it was an alien idea to Jewish mentality. But you find "easy" the transition to this idea from the biblical passages that speak about the sufferings or rejection of diverse individuals, the prophet, the just, the God's servant, and so on. For my part, I find this transition is very difficult and unnecessary (cross applied to the Mesiah!!). I find "easier" to think that we have here the common and old Christian proceeding of manipulate quotations from the Old Testament in order to provide justification for some passages of the New Testament. But applied in this case to a real individual and his humiliating death.

I think our last comments don't progress at all.

 

[pakeha]

Good morning, Dave.
Before I leave for work on a mist shrouded* morning I wanted to mention a curious thing I read last summer about that troublesome crucifixion.

"Justin Martyr depicted the paschal lamb as being offered in the form of a cross and he claimed that the manner in which the paschal lamb was slaughtered prefigured the crucifixion of Jesus. It is generally thought that Justin, who was born and raised in Samaria, was thinking of the Samaritan Passover, but the present day Samaritan practice would not justify his depiction of the lamb in the form of a cross. An examination of the rabbinic evidence, on the other hand, seems to show that in Jerusalem the Jewish paschal lamb was offered in a manner which resembled a crucifixion. The earlier Samaritan practice, it is suggested, followed the Jerusalem tradition but has since been changed. The rabbinic evidence could also provide an explanation for the crown of thorns with which Jesus was adorned."
http://silouanthompson.net/2012/04/c...-paschal-lamb/
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p=9674592&highlight=Passover+lamb#post9674592


I have no way of knowing if Justin Martyr was right in making this comparison or not, but it does change the way one sees the crucifixion, turning it from an embarrassment the gospel writers had to explain away to a theological figure that the botched arrest and trial stories tried to 'humanify'.





*Sorry, I couldn't resist the reference.

 

[davefoc]

...
If I have understood correctly -IIUC-, we agree in that no passage of the Old Testament speaks about a Messiah crucified by (Romans) and that it was an alien idea to Jewish mentality. But you find "easy" the transition to this idea from the biblical passages that speak about the sufferings or rejection of diverse individuals, the prophet, the just, the God's servant, and so on. For my part, I find this transition is very difficult and unnecessary (cross applied to the Mesiah!!). I find "easier" to think that we have here the common and old Christian proceeding of manipulate quotations from the Old Testament in order to provide justification for some passages of the New Testament. But applied in this case to a real individual and his humiliating death.

...

A problem I see with the embarrassment argument is that Jesus seems to be in control of the situation. The explanation as to why superman Jesus can be crucified is that he is allowing it to happen as part of some big sacrifice that he is making for mankind.

By the above, I don't mean to say I reject your ideas on this entirely David Mo, but I still don't see this as a particularly good argument that an HJ existed.

My own idea about this is that the religious group that transitioned into Christianity was fired up waiting for the imminent arrival of the Messiah. At some point in time for reasons that are unknown today their belief in the imminent arrival of a Messiah morphed into a belief that the Messiah had come and gone. Maybe it was a real HJ that was part of a small sect that included Peter and James, that served as the inspiration for the transition or maybe some guy completely unknown to history created the story and it just turned out to be a lot more popular idea than waiting around for a Messiah that never seemed to come.

Assuming my idea is right then the Jesus story that we have today is the kind of thing one would need to have invented to serve as the trigger for the transition to Christianity. So I am uncomfortable assuming anything about that story is real when the creation of the story could have just been driven by the need for a story that would gain traction amongst a group of people that were waiting for the Messiah to arrive.