Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Craig B]

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.

Agreed about Psalm 22. Whatever may be about the hands and feet (and MT disagrees with LXX here) the psalm is in no way describing crucifixion, far less the death of a messiah on a cross.

There is another issue about the interpretation of Deut 21:23. See http://mailstar.net/maccoby.html. Hyam Maccoby claims that Paul's interpretation of the verses was not standard in Judaism.

It is clear that the manner of Jesus's death, by hanging on a cross, was itself of great significance to Paul ... Here Paul has recourse to an interesting interpretation, or misinterpretation, of a verse in the Hebrew Bible (which Paul, incidentally, read in Greek, not in Hebrew, since it can be shown that his quotations are from the Septuagint ... Deuteronomy 21:22-3 reads (in the Authorized Version):

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; for he that is hanged is accursed of God; that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

In Jewish exegesis, this was not held to mean that a hanged man was under a curse, for, on the contrary, it was held that an executed man was purged of all guilt by his execution. If his dead body, contrary to the law, was allowed to hang overnight, this could bring no curse upon the dead man, who had paid the penalty of his crime, but only upon those who contravened the law by exposing his body. Thus the relevant sentence is translated in the New English Bible, 'A hanged man is offensive in the sight of God', a translation very much in accord with Jewish traditional exegesis. Paul, however, understood the sentence very differently. His comment is, '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' (Galatians 3:13).

I see no good reason to suppose that the crucifixion of Jesus is invented by Paul. He reinterpreted it, in terms of his understanding of the Law, which may not have been accurate on this point.

 

[Belz...]

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.

At this time all I answer is "a jewish preacher in Judaea."

What are the other questions ?

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

That is not true. I and others have mentioned some of those questions. In fact in posts I wrote to you yesterday. Did you not read them ? Like, for instance, the big one. Anyway, here's one question:

If Jesus is entirely fictional, why do the stories have him come from Nazareth rather than directly from Bethehem ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

So you're denying the parallel because they're not the same person ?

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.

Which manuscript describes Jesus as a myth ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Dejudge, could you please address this post, upon your return ?

 

[zugzwang]

Yes, that's the bit that I find puzzling, the idea that HJ is ridiculous and impossible. I can't get my head round that at all. The idea of a Jewish preacher doing stuff like healings and exorcisms seems to have been common currency. It doesn't mean that it actually happened, but that people were described in that way.

I wonder if there is a kind of retro-logic going on here - the idea of a man being God is seen as ridiculous and impossible, then this is back-fitted to the whole story.

I think this is a poor argument. There were people in the 20th century who declared themselves to be divine, and who had followers and so on, but they definitely existed.

I forgot to say that one of the interesting spin-offs from the various types of historical critical research applied to this period is something which many Christians do not like! This is the idea that in the beginning Jesus was not seen as divine, and did not pronounce himself to be. This seems to be one of the strands of historical research which has been used in the HJ argument, since if Jesus was originally another Jewish preacher, with no special status, that seems to help the HJ argument. But of course, Christians don't like this. So they tend to insist that the high theology (or Christology) is there from the beginning, and is even found in the Jewish Bible (OT).

 

[Craig B]

... This seems to be one of the strands of historical research which has been used in the HJ argument, since if Jesus was originally another Jewish preacher, with no special status, that seems to help the HJ argument. But of course, Christians don't like this. So they tend to insist that the high theology (or Christology) is there from the beginning, and is even found in the Jewish Bible (OT).

Yes they do, and it's very difficult even to get them to look at the evidence for the development of divinisation of Jesus. They just point to impossible statements, say the bible contains such (as indeed it does), and then treat the whole lot as a uniform undistinguishable pack of lies. And because the HJ proponents appear to them to be promoting this pack of lies, they sometimes become highly indignant, and even bellicose.

 

[zugzwang]

Yes they do, and it's very difficult even to get them to look at the evidence for the development of divinisation of Jesus. They just point to impossible statements, say the bible contains such (as indeed it does), and then treat the whole lot as a uniform undistinguishable pack of lies. And because the HJ proponents appear to them to be promoting this pack of lies, they sometimes become highly indignant, and even bellicose.

Very amusing.

But it does point to the strange thing that has gone on - first, the historical critical method demythologized the Jesus story, and thus laid bare the possible bones of HJ. As far as I can see, most historians of the period, and also classicists and textual scholars support HJ.

But the MJ supporters have remythologized it. Of course, there is a big difference, since they don't see the myth as 'true', whereas Christians do. None the less, the double process of demythologizing and remythologizing is something marvelous and quixotic to behold.

 

[JaysonR]

If Jesus is entirely fictional, why do the stories have him come from Nazareth rather than directly from Bethehem ?

Not that I agree with Dejudge, but a symbolic reason for Galilee is that this was what was left of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
Mixing with the Bethlehem birth, and Samaritan parable, the symbolism is one from the womb of Judah (House of David), of the Kingdom of Israel (House of Joseph), who remebers all of the Israelites (Samaria was the capital city of the Kingdom of Israel, and literally meant 'watch tower', as in a guardian; interestingly enough, this is a possible meaning of Nazareth as well).

By doing all three, the figure is like captain Hebrew with all three powers combined to stand strong and representative of total unity.

 

[zugzwang]

Not that I agree with Dejudge, but a symbolic reason for Galilee is that this was what was left of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
Mixing with the Bethlehem birth, and Samaritan parable, the symbolism is one from the womb of Judah (House of David), from the Kingdom of Israel (House of Joseph), who remebers all of the Israelites (Samaria was the capital city of the Kingdom of Israel, and literally meant 'watch tower', as in a guardian; interestingly enough, this is a possible meaning of Nazareth as well).

By doing all three, the figure is like captain Hebrew with all three powers combined to stand stong and representative of total unity.

That's very ingenious; but isn't that one of the problems with MJ?

 

[JaysonR]

Isn't what one of the problems?

Sorry, I'm not clear on this.

 

[Craig B]

Not that I agree with Dejudge, but a symbolic reason for Galilee is that this was what was left of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
Mixing with the Bethlehem birth, and Samaritan parable ... (Samaria was the capital city of the Kingdom of Israel ... )

I don't know about that. Consider Matthew 10:5

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.

 

[zugzwang]

Isn't what one of the problems?

Sorry, I'm not clear on this.

I meant that some mythicist solutions seem to depend on ingenious interpretations of various texts, and these then get piled on top of each other in a kind of tottering ziggurat.

Of course, this doesn't render MJ impossible, but it makes you think of parsimony, and the razor.

 

[JaysonR]

I did not intend that as either support for or against a mythical position.

A completely real figure could have existed and that same symbolism could still be employed; such is quite common for Hebrew and Hebrew-based epics of law and righteousness.

Those pieces of information are existent, yes, but I only supplied the possibility of their narrative value; not of their existant causal proof.

 

[JaysonR]

I don't know about that. Consider Matthew 10:5

Yes, for their towns were mixed in theology and no longer unified in belief.
They were considered the worst of the Hebrews.
The idea, by the parable existing and the command to not enter, was to accept them back, but do not go to them.
They have many gods and have a corrupt temple of El, but they are Hebrew, so if they come to help and be with us, then let them; because they are lost versions of us.

The parable goes further in pointing out the idea that the politics of Judah were more likely to kill itself than even a Samaritan could possibly kill it by touching Judah.

 

[Belz...]

I meant that some mythicist solutions seem to depend on ingenious interpretations of various texts, and these then get piled on top of each other in a kind of tottering ziggurat.

One that's larger and heavier on top ?

 

[Belz...]

I did not intend that as either support for or against a mythical position.

A completely real figure could have existed and that same symbolism could still be employed; such is quite common for Hebrew and Hebrew-based epics of law and righteousness.

Yes but no one said it was impossible, just less probable and more question-begging.

 

[zugzwang]

Yes but no one said it was impossible, just less probable and more question-begging.

I would like to see a clear trajectory for MJ. After all, for HJ, there is a reasonably clear one, isn't there? I mean the development from low theology to high, or from charismatic Jewish preacher, who is reputed to do miracles, (quite a normal phenomenon in apocalyptic Judaism), to exalted Christ (more Hellenistic). I suppose one argument is that you can trace this from Mark to John, with quite a lot of small changes, indicating the increasing exaltation.

Now, that isn't 'proof' of HJ, obviously, but it seems parsimonious.

But I would like to see an MJ trajectory, along the same lines. One problem with Doherty's is that it gets mired in Middle Platonism, and mystery cults, and so on, for which there seems to be little evidence. It seems to consist of a lot of suppositions.

But as already stated, maybe Carrier will satisfy all our longings in this regard.

One of the curious things about such a trajectory, is that it will start 'high', and then insert some 'low' material. Thus a celestial Christ, unknown on earth, is then seen as human, suffering an abject death. It's not impossible of course.

 

[zugzwang]

One that's larger and heavier on top ?

More like a lemon meringue pie, when the lemon stuff hasn't set properly.

 

[Belz...]

I would like to see a clear trajectory for MJ. After all, for HJ, there is a reasonably clear one, isn't there? I mean the development from low theology to high, or from charismatic Jewish preacher, who is reputed to do miracles, (quite a normal phenomenon in apocalyptic Judaism), to exalted Christ (more Hellenistic). I suppose one argument is that you can trace this from Mark to John, with quite a lot of small changes, indicating the increasing exaltation.

Now, that isn't 'proof' of HJ, obviously, but it seems parsimonious.

Yeah, the scenario is easy to imagine, and fits with the little evidence we have.

 

[IanS]

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.

Below I have summarised the highlighted lines from my two earlier posts.

What you can see there is that those OT passages (and I expect many more), very clearly do prophesise a future messiah who will die in an act which will symbolises the vital religious/theological message of salvation of the faithful - the very first quote from the book of Daniel, for example.

What is also undeniable from these quotes , inc. Paul’s own letter to the Galatians, is that Paul thought (rightly or wrongly) that the OT scriptures, which he repeatedly emphasised as his entire earthly source of all he knew about Jesus, that various passages in that OT scripture confirmed his belief that the messiah would be “hung on a tree” in a symbolic act which in Paul's mind/theology lifted the faith above the “accursed” law of man and delivered the faithful in the ways of the very different and vital laws of God.

Paul, and other biblical writers were clearly, as they told us, and as the quotes below show, getting these messiah beliefs from what they believed to be the correct interpretation of what they thought had been written in ancient scripture according to God.

And by the way - iirc, the genuine letters of Paul (if any are genuine) do not mention Pontius Pilate. The name of Pilate turns up in one of the supposedly “fake” letters” written at a later date … though of course we do not have any letters actually written by Paul and thus cannot know what he originally wrote about any of this … all of these claims are coming from much later Christian copying (c.200AD+ in Paul’s case)


Daniel 9:24-27
Prophecy of Seventy Weeks
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself
Isaiah 53:5
[COLOR="Blue[HILITE]"]"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53:5[/HILITE] (King James Version)

"But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed." Isaiah 53:5 (JPS The Judaica Press Tanach with Rashi's commentary

One of the first claims in the New Testament that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus comes from the Book of Acts[/COLOR]

Psalm 16
The interpretation of Psalm 16 as a messanic prophecy is common among Christian evangelical hermeneutics.
According to the preaching of Peter, this prophecy is about the messiah’s triumph over death, i.e., the resurrection of Jesus.
“God raised Jesus up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken…

Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it” (Acts 2: 24-32).
Also of note is what Paul said in the synagogue at Antioch.
“And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ Therefore he also says in another psalm, ‘Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.’ For David, after he had served the counsel of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and saw corruption; but he whom God raised up saw no corruption” (Acts 13: 34-37)[/HILITE]. Psalm 34 "Many are the afflictions of the just man; but the Lord delivers him from all of them. He guards all his bones: not even one of them shall be broken." (Psalms 34:20) Ray Pritchard has described Psalm 34:20 as a messianic prophecy.[53] In its account of the crucifixion of Jesus, the Gospel of John interprets it as a prophecy (John 19:36) and presents some of the details as fulfillment. “So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with Jesus; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water… For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘Not a bone of him shall be broken.’ And again another scripture says, ‘They shall look on him whom they have pierced’” (John 19:32-37) Galatians 2:15-21 - - And then I went on to explain that we, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, know that a man is justified not by performing what the Law commands but by faith in Jesus Christ. We ourselves are justified by our faith and not by our obedience to the Law, for we have recognised that no one can achieve justification by doing the "works of the Law". Now if, as we seek the real truth about justification, we find we are as much sinners as the Gentiles, does that mean that Christ makes us sinners? Of course not! But if I attempt to build again the whole structure of justification by the Law then I do, in earnest, make myself a sinner. For under the Law I "died", and now I am dead to the Law's demands so that I may live for God. As far as the Law is concerned I may consider that I died on the cross with Christ. And my present life is not that of the old "I", but the living Christ within me. The bodily life I now live, I live believing in the Son of God, who loved me and sacrificed himself for me. Consequently I refuse to stultify the grace of God by reverting to the Law. For if righteousness were possible under the Law then Christ died for nothing! 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.' http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...13&version=KJV Galatians 3.13-14 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.