Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

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?

What has Abraham Licoln and Anne Bolelyn have to do with existence or non-exitence of Jesus in the Bible?

The existence or non-existence of Licoln and Bolelyn requires separate inquiries and the result cannot be transferred to Jesus.

There are many characters in the Bible.

I can find statements in non-apologetic sources about Pontius Pilate, Tiberius, King Herod, Caiaphas the High Priest, Gamaliel, Theudas, Festus, Agrippa, and John the Baptist both I cannot find anything about Jesus of Nazareth, the 12 apostles and Paul.

Until new evidence surfaces, I will consider them fiction characters. In any event, Jesus of Nazarth was the Son of a Ghost so I never expected to find any non-apologetic sources to mention such a character.

That is exactly what has happened.

I NEVER expected to find any manuscripts dated to the 1st century with the story Jesus of Nazareth.

That is exactly what has happened .

I NEVER expected to find any manuscripts dated to the 1st century with the Pauline Corpus.

That is exactly what has happened.

I NEVER expected any non-apologetic to argue against the Jesus story and cult until the 2nd century.

That is exactly what has happened.

I NEVER expected that any story of Jesus would be recovered in Galilee and dated to the 1st century.

That is exactly what has happened.

All the evidence support a 2nd century Jesus story and cult which originated OUTSIDE of Galillee.

 

[Brainache]

What has Abraham Licoln and Anne Bolelyn have to do with existence or non-exitence of Jesus in the Bible?

The existence or non-existence of Licoln and Bolelyn requires separate inquiries and the result cannot be transferred to Jesus.

There are many characters in the Bible.

I can find statements in non-apologetic sources about Pontius Pilate, Tiberius, King Herod, Caiaphas the High Priest, Gamaliel, Theudas, Festus, Agrippa, and John the Baptist both I cannot find anything about Jesus of Nazareth, the 12 apostles and Paul.

Until new evidence surfaces, I will consider them fiction characters. In any event, Jesus of Nazarth was the Son of a Ghost so I never expected to find any non-apologetic sources to mention such a character.

That is exactly what has happened.

I NEVER expected to find any manuscripts dated to the 1st century with the story Jesus of Nazareth.

That is exactly what has happened .

I NEVER expected to find any manuscripts dated to the 1st century with the Pauline Corpus.

That is exactly what has happened.

I NEVER expected any non-apologetic to argue against the Jesus story and cult until the 2nd century.

That is exactly what has happened.

I NEVER expected that any story of Jesus would be recovered in Galilee and dated to the 1st century.

That is exactly what has happened.

All the evidence support a 2nd century Jesus story and cult which originated OUTSIDE of Galillee.

You have apparently discovered Pauline Christianity.

I think you might be a bit late though...

 

[Belz...]

I ask sincerely, are you being facetious?

No, I'm being entirely sincere (I realise you don't know me personally, but please assume that this is always the case with me, as it, actually, is.) I don't like people on any side of the topic using dishonest or irrational arguments, least of all myself. Using "ghost" as a way to make Christianity more ridiculous may be funny, but it's not helpful in a discussion about history related to that religion.

 

[Belz...]

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??

You really don't need to be constantly antagonistic, Dejudge. If you didn't understand what Zygote meant, you can simply ask for clarification.

If you could, please, take a bit of time to read the following, and understand it: We all understand and agree that the bibble is full of nonsense, supernatural claptrap, and is, as you are so fond of reminding us, terrible evidence, by standards of modern history and science. However, these facts, as much as they make the quest for the history behind the story very difficult, do not mean that there is no history behind the story at all. Please note that in this paragraph I am not claiming that Jesus existed as a real guy, nor am I providing evidence for that claim. What I am saying is that we cannot discount it as a possibility based solely on the fact that the story contains liberal amounts of nonsense.

Now, is it possible that there was a preacher-guy somewhere at the source of the story ? I hope you admit at least the possibility. Is it possible there was not ? Sure. It's very possible, and if we were to find out, through new evidence, that there wasn't, that'd be very, very interesting (if only to see the mental gymnastics that the believers would pull in order to ignore the evidence.)

You keep asking me for evidence that Jesus existed, and I'll repeat my answer here, as a layman: 1) despite the amount of crap in the bibble, we know that the story had to start somewhere. In my understanding, most religions are started by people, more specifically a single preacher making extraordinary claims, and whom people believe in. Now, it's entirely possible that Paul made up this person, though he seems to claim that this religion existed before he converted, to which one has to ask: why would he make up a religion and then not take the credit ? It's not impossible, but it raises a few questions that the alternative, HJ, doesn't. This brings us to 2) I don't buy the criterion of embarassment fully, but one has to admit that several of the gospels and stories go through hoops to justify things that existed in previous versions of the stories. Is it possible that those are elements simply invented by previous authors ? Again, sure. But it again raises fewer questions if one assumes (yes, there's that word) that they weren't added layers of conspiracy or fraud.

Again, it all depends on your threshold of acceptance for such weak evidence. I said before, I'm leaning towards HJ, if only because it raises fewer questions, lends itself better to the story as we know it, and matches similar cults. But it's very possible that MJ is correct, instead. However, your attitude, namely that the former is simply ridiculous and impossible, and declaring the latter the victor, is premature and unsupported.

 

[Belz...]

What has Abraham Licoln and Anne Bolelyn have to do with existence or non-exitence of Jesus in the Bible?

Simple: ghost stories are associated with them. If we are to discount the Jesus story solely because of the supernatural elements in them, then we must do the same with these other historical characters.

 

[dejudge]

No, I'm being entirely sincere (I realise you don't know me personally, but please assume that this is always the case with me, as it, actually, is.) I don't like people on any side of the argument using silly arguments, least of all myself. Using "ghost" as a way to make Christianity more ridiculous may be funny, but it's not helpful in a discussion about history related to that religion.

You are exposing that you are not at all familiar with apologetic writings and the arguments used by supposed early Christian writers.

Irenaeus showed that the coming of the Holy Gost was predicted by the Prophets.

The Ghost must come first upon all.


Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.12

Again, when the Holy Ghost had descended upon the disciples, that they all might prophesy and speak with tongues, and some mocked them, as if drunken with new wine, Peter said that they were not drunken, for it was the third hour of the day; but that this was what had been spoken by the prophet: "It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and they shall prophesy."

 

[dejudge]

Simple: ghost stories are associated with them. If we are to discount the Jesus story solely because of the supernatural elements in them, then we must do the same with these other historical characters.

Your claim is highly illogical. It cannot be assumed Jesus is figure of history based solely on Ghost stories.


In any event, we have documented evidence for Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Belz...]

You are exposing that you are not at all familiar with apologetic writings and the arguments used by supposed early Christian writers.

Irenaeus showed that the coming of the Holy Gost was predicted by the Prophets.

The Ghost must come first upon all.

I'm with you so far. What's your conclusion ?

 

[Belz...]

Your claim is highly illogical. It cannot be assumed Jesus is figure of history based solely on Ghost stories.

No one is doing that. Could you quote someone doing that ?

Also, would you mind telling me what your reply has to do with my post, since I was saying the exact opposite ? That one cannot conclude X based on Y doesn't imply that one can conclude Not-X based on Not-Y.

 

[davefoc]

No one is doing that. Could you quote someone doing that ?

Also, would you mind telling me what your reply has to do with my post, since I was saying the exact opposite ? That one cannot conclude X based on Y doesn't imply that one can conclude Not-X based on Not-Y.

I have stopped responding to him, but just reading these posts are painful.

dejudge can not differentiate between the possible and the certain. It seems to not be in his makeup to understand the difference or his game is to pretend to be somebody that can not understand the difference. There do not seem to be any words available that would lead him to acknowledge that he understands the difference.

Can you be sure that he is a human and that he is not a Turing machine with a limited range of responses? How could one distinguish dejudge's posts from the responses that could be generated by a Turing machine?

 

[dejudge]

No one is doing that. Could you quote someone doing that ?

Also, would you mind telling me what your reply has to do with my post, since I was saying the exact opposite ? That one cannot conclude X based on Y doesn't imply that one can conclude Not-X based on Not-Y.

So, what really are you arguing about?

I consider Jesus a figure of mythology until new evidence is found. That is my position on all myths. As soon as there is new evidence, I will evaluate it and review my position.

It is virtually impossible for me to have considered Jesus of Nazareth, God the Creator, Romulus, Satan the Devil, the Holy Ghost, the Angel Gabriel as a figures of history based on the present available evidence.

I am open to new evidence. Always was.

Right now, the evidence shows Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and God Creator.

That is evidence of mythology. Jesus was a myth until better evidence is found.

 

[Belz...]

So, what really are you arguing about?

Arguing for or arguing about ? I'm arguing for the idea that an HJ is plausible, and raises fewer questions. I'm also arguing for the idea that this is by no means a definitive answer.

I consider Jesus a figure of mythology until new evidence is found.

Yes but you have failed to communicate clearly why you think so. So far, the way you have worded your posts gives the impression that you are conflating theories and possibilities, or are unfamilliar with several important rules of skepticism.

It is virtually impossible for me to have considered Jesus of Nazareth, God the Creator, Romulus, Satan the Devil, the Holy Ghost, the Angel Gabriel as a figures of history based on the present available evidence.

I thought you said there weren't any.

I am open to new evidence. Always was.

I don't think you are, since you ignored most of the evidence already present by pretending that it isn't there.

Right now, the evidence shows Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and God Creator.

There is also evidence that Kim Il-Sung created the universe. It would help if you could address this, my first point to you.

By the way, did you even bother to read my long-ish post to you ? Or are long posts are unworthy of your attention as short ones ?

 

[dejudge]

Arguing for or arguing about ? I'm arguing for the idea that an HJ is plausible, and raises fewer questions. I'm also arguing for the idea that this is by no means a definitive answer.

HJ raises a lot of questions. The very first question cannot even be answered after over 200 years in the Quest for HJ.

Who was HJ if there was one?? Can you please answer the first question and there are lots more.


On the other hand, there is no question that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost in the Bible--NO question at all.

 

[Foster Zygote]

What has Abraham Licoln and Anne Bolelyn have to do with existence or non-exitence of Jesus in the Bible?

It's very simple: It addresses your objection to an historical Jesus on the grounds that people told "ghost stories" about him. Obviously, if your argument is "ghost stories about X means that X never existed", then if we insert Anne Boleyn or Abraham Lincoln in place of X, you are claiming that those persons never existed. If we can find people whom we are sure existed, about whom ghost stories are told, then your argument is invalidated.

The existence or non-existence of Licoln and Bolelyn requires separate inquiries and the result cannot be transferred to Jesus.

I'm not investigating, and certainly not disputing, the historical existence of Lincoln and Boleyn (how did you manage to misspell both names the same way twice?). I am pointing out that your argument doesn't work because we have proof that ghost stories can be told about real people.

Until new evidence surfaces, I will consider them fiction characters.[/QUOTE]
And that's why you don't understand the historical method. Your attitude is the very antithesis of scientific inquiry. You are making an assumption that you know something to be true when you can't possible know. It's like you said that you know that extraterrestrial life does not exist because you haven't yet seen evidence for it. Those who understand the practice of critical thought can consider both propositions as possible without committing to either, even if they regard one as more likely than the other based on available evidence. We are saying, "Jesus could have been a real person, or he could have been a fictional construct. We cannot claim either option with epistemological certainty". You are saying, "I am certain that Jesus is mythical because absence of evidence is proof that something doesn't exist".

 

[dejudge]

It's very simple: It addresses your objection to an historical Jesus on the grounds that people told "ghost stories" about him. Obviously, if your argument is "ghost stories about X means that X never existed", then if we insert Anne Boleyn or Abraham Lincoln in place of X, you are claiming that those persons never existed. If we can find people whom we are sure existed, about whom ghost stories are told, then your argument is invalidated.

Again, whether or not Abraham Lincoln and Anne Bolelyn existed requires separate inquiries and the results of those inquiries cannot be transferred to Jesus.

I never did an actual inquiry into the existence of Lincoln or Bolelyn so it is really irrelevant.

There are hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings which consistently describe Jesus as a myth, the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator who walked on water.

I can only consider that Jesus was a myth until new evidence is found.

I consider that the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Holy Ghost and the angel Gabriel as figures of myth too--until new evidence is found.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your claim is highly illogical. It cannot be assumed Jesus is figure of history based solely on Ghost stories.

No one has assumed that Jesus really existed at all, least of all because he was the subject of supernatural tales.

I think a lot of your problems stem from the fact that you have rather poorly defined definitions of many of the words involved in this discussion, "assumption" being just one of those words.

In any event, we have documented evidence for Abraham Lincoln.

Yeah, that's the point. We have an individual who's existence is not disputed, and about whom supernatural stories have been told.

And Lincoln's existence isn't dependent on our documentation of him. If the Earth was struck by a meteor and the few remnants of humanity knocked back to the Stone Age and all historical record and memory of Lincoln lost, it wouldn't change the fact that he had existed. Similarly, just because no contemporary record of a little-known, rural preacher survived from his lifetime in a time when written records were scarce to begin with, it doesn't warrant the assumption that he did not exist.

 

[dejudge]

You are saying, "I am certain that Jesus is mythical because absence of evidence is proof that something doesn't exist".

I never said such a thing. Why can't you repeat what I said? If you cannot repeat what I wrote then please do not respond to my post.

Based on the present available evidence I said that I will consider that Jesus was a figure of mythology until new evidence is found.

I cannot draw conclusions that there was likely to be an HJ using never seen, never heard and never known evidence.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Again, whether or not Abraham Lincoln and Anne Bolelyn existed requires separate inquiries and the results of those inquiries cannot be transferred to Jesus.

I never did an actual inquiry into the existence of Lincoln or Bolelyn so it is really irrelevant.

Do you even read the responses to your posts? Because if you do, you clearly aren't comprehending what it being written.

There are hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings which consistently describe Jesus as a myth, the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator who walked on water.

Could that be because nobody started writing about Jesus until a religion had already been constructed around the story of his life and death and began to spread?

I can only consider that Jesus was a myth until new evidence is found.

Then you are assuming that you know what can't be known.

I consider that the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Holy Ghost and the angel Gabriel as figures of myth too--until new evidence is found.

There is a big difference between considering the possible existence of an all too human preacher and a supernatural being. Of the former, we at least know that they are as common as mice. Of the latter, we have never had the slightest indication that they've ever even existed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I never said such a thing. Why can't you repeat what I said? If you cannot repeat what I wrote then please do not respond to my post.

Yes, you did.

Based on the present available evidence I said that I will consider that Jesus was a figure of mythology until new evidence is found.

You are denying the possibility that there is unavailable information.

I cannot draw conclusions that there was likely to be an HJ using never seen, never heard and never known evidence.

But there is evidence. It's just fragmentary. Unfortunately, you seem to have "evidence" confused with "proof".

By the way, are you ever going to explain which parts of the hypothetical situation I described here are logically impossible?

 

[dejudge]

You are denying the possibility that there is unavailable information.

Your claim is false. I never denied such a thing. If you cannot repeat what I write then do not respond to my post.

I specifically stated that based on the abundance of evidence that I will consider that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth until new evidence is found.

It is highly illogical to assume that unavailable evidence supports only HJ.

Unavailable evidence does not help the HJ argument.