Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

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

Your claim is false. I have not confused evidence with proof. I have asked for the evidence for HJ of Nazareth and it cannot be presented.

Is the fragmentary evidence for HJ of Nazareth in the Bible?

In the Bible Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of a Ghost and God Creator.

Is the fragmentary evidence for HJ of Nazareth in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder or Pliny the younger?

Those sources do not even mention Nazareth.

Where did you see the fragmentary evidence??

 

[John Jones]

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.

Enough of this already.

*plonk* for christ's sake.

 

[Brainache]

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.

"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Contradiction is just the automatic gain-saying of anything the other person says..."

"No it isn't"

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

You are denying the possibility of an historical Jesus based on lack of evidence. You are saying that you will regard Jesus as a mythical figure until more evidence is presented. You have reached a conclusion, rather than granting the possibility that there was an historical Jesus.

If you don't understand that you are saying this, have been saying this for weeks now, then I can only conclude that you don't even understand the implications of your own arguments.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your claim is false. I have not confused evidence with proof. I have asked for the evidence for HJ of Nazareth and it cannot be presented.

And you have assumed that the lack of evidence from two millennia ago is an indication that it never existed. Do you know anything about the history of writing? Do you know how rare texts of widely distributed texts written in that time period are, let alone any mention of an insignificant rural preacher would have been? The absence of evidence in the form of contemporary writing is not evidence of the absence of an historical Jesus.

Is the fragmentary evidence for HJ of Nazareth in the Bible?

In the Bible Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of a Ghost and God Creator.

You keep repeating that as though it is a valid argument. If it is, then the depiction of Joseph Smith meeting an angel would be reason to conclude that the man never existed. Someone two millennia from now reading only Mormon writings from the late 19th Century would, according to your methodology, be justifying in concluding that Joseph Smith was entirely mythical.

Is the fragmentary evidence for HJ of Nazareth in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder or Pliny the younger?

Those sources do not even mention Nazareth.

So what? Why would we expect Philo to write about a nobody religious leader who's followers were only just establishing a cult? Was Philo the anchorman of a vast Roman news network with reporters all over the Empire? The same goes for Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder or Pliny the Younger.

And Josephus did mention a Jesus. While scholars agree that the Testimonium Flavianum is a late interpolation by a Christian scholar, there is also a broad consensus that Josephus did mention the execution of James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. Of course, Josephus wasn't born until after Jesus is said to have been executed, so he was just reporting what Christians believed about him.

Where did you see the fragmentary evidence??

Where you refuse to look, apparently.

 

[Foster Zygote]

By the way, are you ever going to point out the logically impossible components of my possible history of the Jesus movement?

I'll re-post it here for you.

A member of the Jewish apocalyptic movement begins teaching his own version of apocalyptic prophecy and gathers at least a modest following.

Eventually he and his inner circle head off to Jerusalem during the Passover festivities with the expectation that he will initiate a fairly standard apocalyptic scenario in which the faithful, good Jews are led in revolt against the Roman occupiers (and the unfaithful collaborators) by a descendant of King David, who will then reclaim the throne of Israel and reestablish its sovereignty as a kingdom of God.

But, like so many other deluded prophets (including previous apocalyptic revolutionaries who have tried exactly the same thing), his protests at the Temple fail to spark the powder keg of revolution that he expects and he is promptly arrested by the Romans and sentenced to die the very painful and public death of a seditionist.

His followers are stunned, yet they strongly resist the most parsimonious conclusion: that their rabbi was merely a very imaginative, but none the less deluded man, who, even if their beliefs regarding prophecy are correct, was not the heir to the throne of David that they are waiting for. And so they begin to rationalize the complete and utter failure of their cosmic revolution. They reinvent their doctrine so that their leader's death was part of the plan all along. In fact he isn't even dead, they say. He came back to life long enough to tell them the new plan then headed up to be with God and prepare for his glorious return when he will complete God's plan and set everything right.

Stories about this new narrative are spread by word of mouth, changed and embellished by successive narrators who alter it to suit their own ends.
"Could he do miracles?"
"Oh heck yeah! He... he... walked on water! And he... brought dead people back to life!"
"Wow!"

Eventually, many different versions of the fictionalized accounts of the man's life are circulating, although some elements of his original apocalyptic teachings remain, even if their context is forgotten or simply missed by those who are unfamiliar with that school of religious thought. Generations after his death, people begin to write their versions of the story down. Eventually, the cult surrounding his legend grows to become a religion of its own (several squabbling religions, actually), even to the point that he is deified by many and worshipped by beople who never practiced Judaism. Ironically, it's hard to say what would have infuriated the real man more: the blasphemous claim that he was a god, or the fact that this blaspheming religion based on him would one day become the official religion of the Roman Empire that he hated so much.

 

[The Norseman]

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

*snip*

One must start from somewhere, yes? The null hypothesis demands that we begin from the point that *X does not exist* (can't prove a negative and all that). I don't mind if the word "assume" is used; it's not germane to the point.

 

[Craig B]

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

That's true. Proof of the existence of Abraham Lincoln is not transferable. A historian can't say to a colleague, Hey I already proved Lincoln existed and this new evidence turned up, so now I've got more proof than I need; want some? It's high grade stuff. Sure thing, says the colleague, I'll use it to prove William Tell existed. Nobody been able to do that up to now. Thanks.

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

Other people say, that's not relevant, so I didn't look at it. dejudge says, I didn't look at that, so it's not relevant. I mean, "really" not.

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.

There are hundreds of places in this thread where you tell us this, dejudge, and beside them there are hundreds of places where other people are saying, some of the descriptions of Jesus in the gospels have him doing perfectly mundane things. As regards miracles, even some of these seem to be psychological phenomena of a familiar type. When people in his home town didn't believe in his powers, he couldn't do any miracles there. Mark 6

4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

Compare that with the later Matthew 13

56 ... Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.” 58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

See how Matthew changes "could not" to "did not"? He's making Jesus more supernatural, and removing human fallibility from him. See it happening before your very eyes, dejudge. That is a little part of the evidence that Jesus started out as a man and ended as a god. And I've not just shouted it at you, dejudge, I've provided citations, explanations, the lot. Will you thank me? No, you'll just bray once more: people can't walk on water, so Jesus didn't exist. You've said it many times and you'll say it many times more.

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.

Now that's plain silly. I think Jesus was a human preacher and exorcist, perhaps with messianic aspirations. Did such persons exist? Why yes they did, as everyone agrees. Judaea was seething with them. So was one of them Jesus? Not impossible. Now, dejudge, I believe in the existence of wandering preachers so believing that Jesus was one is not difficult, as in any case he is described as such, among other things. But gods? That's different. I don't believe in any god. But I do believe that wandering preachers exist, sometimes make a nuisance of themselves, and get executed. Same goes for evil spirits like Satan, and angels like Gabriel. I don't believe in any of them. But messianic preachers--yes they exist. There's even a surplus of them. We've got more than we need.

 

[The Norseman]

"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Contradiction is just the automatic gain-saying of anything the other person says..."

"No it isn't"

Since this thread is about Christian myths, how does this post of yours tie into the conversation via the historic method? I understand you're not an historian and that's okay for the purpose of my response.

 

[Brainache]

Since this thread is about Christian myths, how does this post of yours tie into the conversation via the historic method? I understand you're not an historian and that's okay for the purpose of my response.

It ties into the quality of arguments being offered for a mythical alternative to a HJ.

 

[jhunter1163]

It ties into the quality of arguments being offered for a mythical alternative to a HJ.

I understand your reluctance to post this, given the circumstances in the other thread, so I'll do it. You're right, though; it is an accurate description of the style of argument presented by the Trvthers.

 

[David Mo]

[

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'.

It is a very interesting reference, Pakeha. I couldn’t read it attentively but I glanced at it. From what I have read Justin invented his reference to a crucified lamb as a ritual practice in Jerusalem. The author of the article speculates about an ancient practice in Samaria (Justin was born there) but nothing is clear about this. I don’t believe these vague references are able to justify the identification between the alleged crucified lamb and Jesus. After all the baked rabbit with mustard is presented in crucified form and nobody has related it to Our Lord Jesus. It would be blasphemy. Sure.

 

[pakeha]

Well, the problem with 'Paul's letters tell a ghost story' is that it's unclear how you are using the term 'ghost story', since for example, in English literature, the ghost story was revived via the Gothic novel, which seems a bit anachronistic in relation to Paul. Are you saying that there was a Jewish literary genre of ghost story? I would be interested in finding out about that.

In relation to Holy Ghost, of course we would need to go back to the original, presumably 'pneuma' in Greek, and 'ruach' in Hebrew and Aramaic. But here I would have to defer to others more knowledgeable about how those terms were used in the 1st century, and if they have the same connotations as 'ghost story'.

While modern ghost stories form part of modern genres of fiction, zugzwang, in a broader sense they form part of immemorial folk-lore from over the world. Their presence in Christian literature is hardly surprising given ghost stories were current at the time.

Why do you say identifying parts of the NT as ghost stories is anachronistic?

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.

The ghost in Paul's stories makes sense as ghosts in ghost stories have always made sense.

 

[pakeha]

[

It is a very interesting reference, Pakeha. I couldn’t read it attentively but I glanced at it. From what I have read Justin invented his reference to a crucified lamb as a ritual practice in Jerusalem. The author of the article speculates about an ancient practice in Samaria (Justin was born there) but nothing is clear about this. I don’t believe these vague references are able to justify the identification between the alleged crucified lamb and Jesus. After all the baked rabbit with mustard is presented in crucified form and nobody has related it to Our Lord Jesus. It would be blasphemy. Sure.

You're very likely right about Justin Martyr, David Mo.
I was struck by this reference last summer because it was the first time I'd read an explanation of the crucifixion as a literary devise tying Jesus' sacrifice to the Passover sacrifice via the spitted lamb.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache (post 1116)

I appreciate that your heart is in the right place. Words can be abused, and some folks have enlisted the phrase "ghost story" in their personal quarrel with religion and the religious-minded.

However, "ghost story" isn't inherently offensive. If it wounds, then that is because its secular and mundane character painfully contrasts with the cosmic pretensions of some who tout what has come from a particular ancient ghost story. Using the term cannot help but direct attention to an inconvenient fact:, that the earliest Christian doctrines were diferent from today's Christianity.

There cannot be a truthful discussion of the origins of Christianity and Islam that avoids these truths. I also see little point in euphemizing sore spots. My position is unchanged if I discuss a "revenant narrative." That being so, I'd just as soon use plain English words to express myself.

The objection to a "ghost story" theory in which the Holy Ghost is a ghost, while Mark's Elijah, Moses and seaworthy Jesus aren't ghosts, is that the theory misstates the evidence. It doesn't matter what words are used to assert falsehoods. Pious and impious alike simply reject them.

Paul wrote a ghost story. Paul tells at length what will be the percptible vehicle of the human personality after death - not just Jesus', whose many sightings Paul recounts, but the final form of everybody in Paul's church. The reader is encouraged to join with Paul in order to become whatever it is that Jesus has become, forever. The ghost story is integral to the enterprise.

Pakeha did the homework to show that "ghost stories" existed back then. Zumzwang rightly challenged me for a Jewish ghost story (The Witch of Endor). The assertion, then, can be discussed seriously - maybe not at an academic seminar, where the exquisite sensitivities of some participants must be scrupulously catered to, but the feat has been performed on an internet forum, right here, with only tolerable rough and tumble.

 

[David Mo]

And finally, in respect of what I just showed with the quotes above in post #1015, regarding the messiah being “hung on a tree” (ie crucified), and specifically why Paul thought and actually said, that his faith and OT prophecy from God took precedence over man-made laws which he viewed as a curse on the people, see this -

(…)

3:11 - It is made still plainer that no one is justified in God's sight by obeying the Law, for: 'The just shall live by faith.'
3:12 - And the Law is not a matter of faith at all but of doing, as, for example, in the scripture: 'The man who does them shall live by them.'

Well, whether or not you think those OT passages were meant to apply to the messiah, the point is that those quotes I just gave, show that Paul himself (and other gospel authors) definitely did believe that those OT passages described the messiah he knew as Jesus, even including Paul’s belief that the OT had prophesised that his messiah would be hung on a tree!. That's the crucial point!

If I understand correctly your point is: Paul uses crucifixion of the Lord against Jewish Law, because it is written “for a hanged man is cursed by God" (Deuteronomy 21, 23). Let us forgot that this sentence refers to a corpse and not a living man in a cross. Let us also forgot that Psalm 22 sentence doesn't clearly refer to nailed hands and feet. The fact is Paul believed so. And your argument is that Paul could invent the entire cross story as a weapon against the Law of Judaism, i.e., as a proof that Law was abolished with the death of Jesus.

This argument is invalid. If Paul or his circle would had invented the death of a sacred man he wouldn't had used the cross and the Pilate story because Pauline movement (Gospels include) was trying to extend Crhistianism to gentiles of Roman Empire. And the cross directly involved the Roman soldiers and Pilate. And was an infamous punishment for Roman people. And Paul had said that all authority comes to God... and so on.

For Pauline movement it would have been suitable a resorting to specifical Jewish systems of execution (as stoning) that would involved the Jews and only the Jews. Some examples, as James' and Stephen's deaths, are significant. They couldn't do it because they were fighting against an embarrasing fact: the Jesus' death in the cross. Most probably.

 

[David Mo]

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.

My idea is not very different of yours. I only substitute “maybe” to “most probably”, because I find the invention of a humiliating end for a alleged “messiah” or religious leader is unlikely. See for example my previous answer to IanS.

 

[David Mo]

If he was just one of many wandering preachers who got killed why would his death be any more disturbing than any other?

Who knows.

 

[David Mo]

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

Yes. It was the most repeated idea in Christianism from second Century. It is a sad tendency to antisemitism that still persists in some Christian circles. It has several different causes at history. But despite their intentions of conceal the Romans the fact is evident in the evangelic narrative.

 

[David Mo]

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?

Sorry, I cannot grasp the sense of your answer. But I don't know any Jewish Apocalypse speaking about a Messiah (or religious leader) crucified by Romans. And this is the point: humiliating punishment and Romans together.