Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[pakeha]

...As I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with doing that; but it's not compatible with scholarship. Go to any scholarly seminar or meeting, which is discussing ancient history, and use terms like that, and you would be a laughing stock.

But then I don't think the aim is scholarship in any case, so I guess the 'ghosters' don't really mind!

Wait.
I'd understood you're a retired lit. prof.
What do you know about ancient history seminars and/or meetings?

 

[Brainache]

I am reminded of some of the discussions we used to have in the 9/11 subforum. I shall, in honor of this, henceforth refer to MJers as "Trvthers."

I got a tongue lashing from a few posters here for calling them "Mythers", for exactly the same reason.

So I stick with MJ and let the readers decide. They are reading the same arguments. If they can't see a difference, I can't help them.

 

[Brainache]

Wait.
I'd understood you're a retired lit. prof.
What do you know about ancient history seminars and/or meetings?

Yes I'm sure if a Lit. Prof. accidentally stumbled into an Ancient History Seminar, he'd think he had landed on the Moon, or something. They are totally alien...

 

[pakeha]

Yes I'm sure if a Lit. Prof. accidentally stumbled into an Ancient History Seminar, he'd think he had landed on the Moon, or something. They are totally alien...

Actually, yes.
Especially for a lit. prof. specialising in modern lit.

 

[Brainache]

Actually, yes.
Especially for a lit. prof. specialising in modern lit.

But the subject of this little side-track is the standards of Professional Courtesy in Academia and how the MJ side is failing in that. I don't think Lit. and Anc. Hist. are all that different regarding standards of discourse.

So your objection is irrelevant.

 

[eight bits]

zugzwang

What is this 'revenant' a translation of?

Not a translation of anything. Nor is ghost a translation of anything. They are English words that correspond with what Paul discusses. Jesus died and yet later, Paul thought that he had perceived "Lord Jesus Christ." If Jesus was dead, then who or what did Paul think he perceived?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revenant
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghost

Beyond that, Paul isn't forthcoming about what he perceived and believed that others had perceived before him. Pneuma body is an oxymoron - it could only refer if there was some convention which specified its meaning (and so "jumbo shrimp" has a meaning). There doesn't appear to have been any such convention. The phrase can't be translated, then, except by word substitution, which yields a meaningless pairing of English words. It is some kind of ghost, or if plain English offends, and everything sounds better in French, some kind of revenant.

 

[abaddon]

Yes. But he gave rise to a belief system prior to Paul also. Left to itself that would have been a modest Jewish sect based on the preachings of a peripatetic apocalypticist rabbi. Not the only one either. And it would have been forgotten by now. Or relegated to a tiny footnote in the history of Judaism. But Paul turned it into something else, something that finally displaced the pagan gods. That he "hijacked" it is true beyond doubt. Jesus' surviving disciples and "brothers" were indignant at Paul's doctrinal shenanigans.

Yup. We're pretty much on the same wavelength here.

A historical chap existed? Sure.

Said chap peeved the romans enough to get hiself executed? Sure.

Others made up stuff after? Sure.

Might be made up of whole cloth? Sure.

Likelyhood that some dood got hijacked? Sure.

And there is where we all part. Dejudge claims that no such individual existed nor could possibly have done so. Dejudge further claims that if you consider that a perfectly human individual might perhaps have existed, you must perforce be a fundamentalist Christian. His claim is that although I am an atheist, somehow I am a fundamentalist xtian. It has become amusing.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes. But he gave rise to a belief system prior to Paul also. Left to itself that would have been a modest Jewish sect based on the preachings of a peripatetic apocalypticist rabbi. Not the only one either. And it would have been forgotten by now. Or relegated to a tiny footnote in the history of Judaism. But Paul turned it into something else, something that finally displaced the pagan gods. That he "hijacked" it is true beyond doubt. Jesus' surviving disciples and "brothers" were indignant at Paul's doctrinal shenanigans.

I think it was Hokulele whom I first saw write that Christians should probably be more accurately called Paulians.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Do you not understand that for hundreds of years Christian writers of antiquity did state that the Jews killed Jesus.

You mean all those Christians writing in the Old Testament texts?

...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.

So what do you think all those 1st through 4th Century writers have to do with what 1st Century Jewish Apocalypticists thought their religious texts had to say about a messiah?

 

[pakeha]

But the subject of this little side-track is the standards of Professional Courtesy in Academia and how the MJ side is failing in that. I don't think Lit. and Anc. Hist. are all that different regarding standards of discourse.

So your objection is irrelevant.

I was responding to this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9705043#post9705043

 

[Brainache]

I was responding to this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9705043#post9705043

This one:

As I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with doing that; but it's not compatible with scholarship. Go to any scholarly seminar or meeting, which is discussing ancient history, and use terms like that, and you would be a laughing stock.

But then I don't think the aim is scholarship in any case, so I guess the 'ghosters' don't really mind!

Exactly. It is about using dishonest arguments about "Ghost Stories" to discredit the Bible as a source of Historical information.

It's not about the quality of the evidence, it's about the quality of the arguments.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This one:


Exactly. It is about using dishonest arguments about "Ghost Stories" to discredit the Bible as a source of Historical information.

It's not about the quality of the evidence, it's about the quality of the arguments.

The irony being, as I've already pointed out to dejudge, ghost stories are often based on real people.

 

[dejudge]

Yes. But he gave rise to a belief system prior to Paul also. Left to itself that would have been a modest Jewish sect based on the preachings of a peripatetic apocalypticist rabbi. Not the only one either. And it would have been forgotten by now. Or relegated to a tiny footnote in the history of Judaism. But Paul turned it into something else, something that finally displaced the pagan gods. That he "hijacked" it is true beyond doubt. Jesus' surviving disciples and "brothers" were indignant at Paul's doctrinal shenanigans.

You seem to have forgotten that the Pauline Corpus is probably the work of SEVEN different authors posing as a single character.

For almost 2000 years it was thought that the Pauline Corpus represented pre 70 CE Christianity but it has been discovered or deduced that the Pauline Corpus is itself HIJACKED by multiple authors posing as Paul.

It cannot really be determined when Paul wrote, what Paul or if he did write anything in the Pauline Corpus.

What is almost certain is that the Pauline Corpus has been HIJACKED and does not represent the history and theology of the early Jesus cult.

Essentially, the attempted HIJACKER got HIJACKED.

After almost 2000 years it has now been shown that what was once believed to be a compilation of authentic Epistles to Seven Churches with Patorals are nothing but an attempt to invent a bogus History of the Jesus cult and Teachings.

 

[dejudge]

The irony being, as I've already pointed out to dejudge, ghost stories are often based on real people.

Oh, NO!!! What!! I can't believe what you wrote!!! "Ghost stories are often based on real people"!!!!

This must be the quote of the millenium.

Who are trying to impress? Christians, Atheists, Illiterates??

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

It is about using dishonest arguments about "Ghost Stories" to discredit the Bible as a source of Historical information.

So help me with this. How is being a ghost story inherently incompatible with being a source of historical information?

http://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/a-real-life-new-england-ghost-story-for-halloween/

The ghost needs work, but the woman whose ghost it appears to be is just fine. It is however, only the ghost story which brings the woman to our attention, unless we happen to be historians of Amherst College, biographers of Emily Dickinson, or real estate developers in Newton, Massachusetts. My wild guess is that that would be most of us.

It is fine to remark, as some have, that Jesus would be a footnote except that Paul wrote that he saw Jesus' pneuma-body, but dishonest to say that Jesus comes to our attenton through a ghost story. Right.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache


So help me with this. How is being a ghost story inherently incompatible with being a source of historical information?

http://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/a-real-life-new-england-ghost-story-for-halloween/

The ghost needs work, but the woman whose ghost it appears to be is just fine. It is however, only the ghost story which brings the woman to our attention, unless we happen to be historians of Amherst College, biographers of Emily Dickinson, or real estate developers in Newton, Massachusetts. My wild guess is that that would be most of us.

It is fine to remark, as some have, that Jesus would be a footnote except that Paul wrote that he saw Jesus' pneuma-body, but dishonest to say that Jesus comes to our attenton through a ghost story. Right.

It isn't. dejudge and IanS want to classify as "Ghost Stories", the gospels which include miraculous incidents. They are equating a modern genre of fiction with ancient devotional literature.

It is an anachronistic equivocation. (I think you may be one of the few on these fora to whom that sentence might actually clarify anything.)

It is like comparing apples and figs...

 

[Craig B]

You seem to have forgotten that the Pauline Corpus is probably the work of SEVEN different authors posing as a single character.

Sources, please.

For almost 2000 years it was thought that the Pauline Corpus represented pre 70 CE Christianity but it has been discovered or deduced that the Pauline Corpus is itself HIJACKED by multiple authors posing as Paul.

Sources, please.

It cannot really be determined when Paul wrote, what Paul or if he did write anything in the Pauline Corpus.

Sources, please.

What is almost certain is that the Pauline Corpus has been HIJACKED and does not represent the history and theology of the early Jesus cult.

Sources, please.

Essentially, the attempted HIJACKER got HIJACKED.

Sources, please.

After almost 2000 years it has now been shown that what was once believed to be a compilation of authentic Epistles to Seven Churches with Patorals are nothing but an attempt to invent a bogus History of the Jesus cult and Teachings.

Sources, please.

 

[pakeha]

It isn't. dejudge and IanS want to classify as "Ghost Stories", the gospels which include miraculous incidents. They are equating a modern genre of fiction with ancient devotional literature.

It is an anachronistic equivocation. (I think you may be one of the few on these fora to whom that sentence might actually clarify anything.)

It is like comparing apples and figs...

How so?
I've already demonstrated ghost stories were existent in ancient Rome.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Oh, NO!!! What!! I can't believe what you wrote!!! "Ghost stories are often based on real people"!!!!

This must be the quote of the millenium.

Who are trying to impress? Christians, Atheists, Illiterates??

Are you saying that Anne Boleyn and Abraham Lincoln weren't real people?

Do you even think about this sort of stuff before you type it?

 

[Brainache]

How so?
I've already demonstrated ghost stories were existent in ancient Rome.

Maybe so. Maybe the devotional writing did incorporate those elements over time. But the "Ghostliness" of Jesus is not the focus of gMark.

In Paul the "Ghostliness" is used to give himself Authority equal to or above the people who knew the living Jesus. The ghost in Paul makes no sense without a living Jesus born of the flesh, under the Law and a descendent of David. Without him, there is no ghost to speak of.

Paul isn't the only one telling Jesus Stories, but I think he invented the "Jesus-Ghost Story" genre.