Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

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.

Are there any OT passages about the Messiah giving rules on marriage? Paul says Jesus did that. What about taking bread and wine and telling people to eat and drink in remembrance of him? Any of that stuff in the OT? IanS will not reply to this post.

 

[Stone]

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.

This is generally an accurate summation of the most recent scholarly research on the development of the various texts. However, the most recent professional research does separate out certain very early suggestive remarks by Jesus the rabbi at the outset of the oral tradition that, while not reflective of the "high Christology" of the later textual strata, does hint at certain very vague claims by Jesus that might account for later posthumous accretions.

I already summarized these odd remarks and how they may have played into the hands of future hagiographers here --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9261094&highlight=GThomas#post9261094

-- Briefly put, these remarks cited in the above post seem to indicate that Jesus may have already viewed himself as _a_ Son of God (not _the_ Son) in -- perhaps? -- a spiritual way, but not much more. He may also have deemed himself capable of bequeathing a "godly" inheritance -- of a sort -- among other things. Read the cited post above if you're interested in the actual textual details. I know the board frowns on repeating extended detailed posts. I think the cited post, though, may at least be useful in addressing Zugzwang's remarks.

Thoughts?

Stone

 

[JaysonR]

OK, lasts posts were just tossed up from my phone...finally had some time to sit down and type on a proper keyboard.

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

The symbolism could be an elaboration.

Most notably, the most dramatic of this story comes from Matthew, whereas Luke simply notes the event by excuse of census and moves on.

However, in Matthew, several things are interesting about the account.
He is born in Bethlehem, ran out to Egypt while King Herod kills all children, and after Herod's death and loss of power, they return to the land by moving to Nazareth.

Each of these constructs is followed by a notation that in doing so, prophecy would be fulfilled (some are stretching it to make the claim).

The Matthew text is quite openly interested in the symbolic value of this story; holding it as both factual and symbolic at once.

There are several counts of symbolism being noted and accounted for.

Ramah is almost within the same tribal area (Ephraim) as Bethlehem (Judah), so the author takes advantage of this to cite the 'prophecy' regarding the weeping of Rachel (mother of Joseph and Benjamin [Tribe of Joseph most often written as two tribes: Ephraim and Manasseh - sons]) for the deaths in Ramah (birthplace of Samuel; the first of the major prophets and the one to anoint the first two Kings of Israel: Saul and David).
There is a "Betel" (Bethel) in the Ephraim tribal area, but Bethlehem is in the tribal lands of Judah; not Ephraim (Ramah is real close to the southern border of Ephraim and northern border of Benjamin lands, and Benjamin is the small lands of Jerusalem, and just a bit south of that is Bethlehem of Judah's tribal lands).
The author does not offer a clarification for this issue, nor do they seem to recognize there being an issue.

They go to 'Nazareth' in Galilee.
Nazareth, as noted, may mean the same thing as Samaria, but (more of value) the prophecy is interesting because the prophecy that's being alluded to as filled by this is referring to a 'nazir', from Numbers 6.

The English is frustrating because translators don't translate what this word means and use it as a name, but it effectively means to make and keep a sacred vow.
As such, a 'nazarene' or 'nazarite' is one who takes and keeps a sacred vow (a rather specific [if not odd] vow).

What we have, then, is (like I mentioned before) a super Hebrew in this.

1. He's of the womb of Judah.
2. Rachel, the mother of Joseph, who is the Father of Epharim (Bethlehem is of Judah, Ramah is of Epharim - Betel is of Epharim, however) and Manasseh (Samaria), has wept over the losses caused wrongly by Herod after him.
   Meaning: Rachel blesses Jesus for vengeance should he want for it; he is justified for any action through Rachel's loss.
3. He survives Egypt and returns to his promised land.
4. He lives in Galilee; the land of the fallen Kingdom of Israel and the lost children of Samaria.
5. He is claimed to be one of the sacred vow (nazarite) [Samuel and Samson are examples of individuals who opened a nazarite vow to their god].
6. I should not leave out, also, the well known lineage tracing granting Jesus as a line of Judah through David.

Whether or not the figure is mythical or actual; I do have doubts that all of these placements just happened conveniently in actuality without any aid by an author wanting to enhance the symbolic values of incredible qualities in the Hebrew culture.

I would really appreciate being able to have another messiah's lengthy biography, as I have always wondered to what extent this pattern of symbolically super-charging the individual was cultural, and to what extent Jesus' attributed biographical symbolisms are unique.

 

[Brainache]

Now that DSS reference to "the simple of Ephraim and Manasseh" makes more sense to me.

Thanks Jayson.

Just simple honest country folks, salt of the land. You know, morons...

 

[davefoc]

...
However, in Matthew, several things are interesting about the account.
He is born in Bethlehem, ran out to Egypt while King Herod kills all children, and after Herod's death and loss of power, they return to the land by moving to Nazareth.

...

One of my ideas about all this, is that Christianity had to start separated in time and distance from the location most directly associated with Jesus so the founders could make stuff up and nobody was around that would know they were doing that. But Herod massacring all those children seems like the kind of thing that would be well known if it had happened even well separated in time and distance from the event. How did the author of Matthew get away with inserting this whopper into his story? Is this evidence that Matthew was created long after and far from the events in question. But Matthew is supposedly the Gospel that has corrections of Mark's cultural and geographical mistakes which suggests that the writer might have been closer in time and distance to a hypothetical HJ or maybe it just suggests he was more closely aligned with the Jewish culture?

 

[JaysonR]

Brainache:
"simple", is a bad translation.
The grammatical context is better reflected by the word, "laymen".
It refers to the general population, and not the general populattions intelligence by comparison to other regions.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache:
"simple", is a bad translation.
The grammatical context is better reflected by the word, "laymen".
It refers to the general population, and not the general populattions intelligence by comparison to other regions.

Yes. The reference to "morons" was a quote from a different Jewish text:

 

[The Norseman]

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

Okay, that's a stretch but whatever. Seems really off topic to me basically because you're doing it an awful lot and I'm having trouble connecting what you're saying to what's going on in these various threads.

But, pray continue as is your wont to do.

 

[The Norseman]

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.

No, I don't believe this is representative of the MJers statements. IanS and maximara both have told numerous times what it is in precise and sometimes numbing detail, so your continued posts like this really aren't accurate.

 

[The Norseman]

Are there any OT passages about the Messiah giving rules on marriage? Paul says Jesus did that.

What about taking bread and wine and telling people to eat and drink in remembrance of him?

Any of that stuff in the OT?

IanS will not reply to this post.

I'm curious but why does the OT have to align precisely and perfectly with the Jesus as told in the NT like it seems you're asking?

If there are a few differences, you feel it quite likely that they're not talking about the same thing?

 

[zugzwang]

No, I don't believe this is representative of the MJers statements. IanS and maximara both have told numerous times what it is in precise and sometimes numbing detail, so your continued posts like this really aren't accurate.

Where did I say that it's representative?

 

[Brainache]

I'm curious but why does the OT have to align precisely and perfectly with the Jesus as told in the NT like it seems you're asking?

If there are a few differences, you feel it quite likely that they're not talking about the same thing?

Because I was told that "all of Paul's information about Jesus comes from the OT"

I have shown that that statement is not true. It has been shown to not be true many times in these threads, but it keeps coming up.


Why is that?

 

[Brainache]

No, I don't believe this is representative of the MJers statements. IanS and maximara both have told numerous times what it is in precise and sometimes numbing detail, so your continued posts like this really aren't accurate.

They have done nothing of the sort.

They wave their hands around a bit and shout "Forgery!".

That is not a detailed explanation.

It doesn't even reach this level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


Let alone the level of the professional Scholarship on Jesus.

 

[The Norseman]

Where did I say that it's representative?

Okay. What you said isn't accurate at all. There. Happy?

 

[The Norseman]

Because I was told that "all of Paul's information about Jesus comes from the OT"

I have shown that that statement is not true. It has been shown to not be true many times in these threads, but it keeps coming up.


Why is that?

I dunno. A poster or two doesn't have anything new to say?

They have done nothing of the sort.

They wave their hands around a bit and shout "Forgery!".

That is not a detailed explanation.

It doesn't even reach this level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


Let alone the level of the professional Scholarship on Jesus.

You are incorrect with regard to maximara. He has stated evidence to back up his assertions. If they have the high ground in the Jesus debates, why do the HJers feel the need to mischaracterize the opponents?

 

[Brainache]

I dunno. A poster or two doesn't have anything new to say?




You are incorrect with regard to maximara. He has stated evidence to back up his assertions. If they have the high ground in the Jesus debates, why do the HJers feel the need to mischaracterize the opponents?

Maximara says anyone who doesn't accept the Gospels at face value is a MJ supporter.

He is using a definition from 1913.

So, I don't think he counts really.

 

[The Norseman]

Maximara says anyone who doesn't accept the Gospels at face value is a MJ supporter.

He is using a definition from 1913.

So, I don't think he counts really.

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

 

[dejudge]

The story of Jesus in the Pauline writings also came from gLuke.

Apologetic writers ADMITTED the Pauline writers knew of gLuke.

The claim that Paul knew gLuke is also part of the abundance of evidence that the Pauline writer was alive after c 70 CE.

Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark......... And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

Eusebius' Church History 6

.....third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus

Luke a physician of Antioch, as his writings indicate, was not unskilled in the Greek language. An adherent of the apostle Paul, and companion of all his journeying, he wrote a Gospel, concerning which the same Paul says, “We send with him a brother whose praise in the gospel is among all the churches”

 

[Craig B]

The story of Jesus in the Pauline writings also came from gLuke.

Apologetic writers ADMITTED the Pauline writers knew of gLuke.

The claim that Paul knew gLuke is also part of the abundance of evidence that the Pauline writer was alive after c 70 CE.

Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1

Eusebius' Church History 6

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus

You call that "an abundance of evidence"! The only pre-Constantine source you cite is Origen. So let's look at what you tell us he says.

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven

So he's merely citing established church doctrine, founded on beliefs about divine inspiration. What a robust source indeed!

I have learned by tradition

Just as I stated - and who can argue with tradition? Let's see how accurate it is.

that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first

Now universally rejected in favour of Mark's primacy

and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue

Now rejected.

and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark

Now, as I state, believed to be the first. Your other sources, one of them, Eusebius, notoriously undependable, are presumably simply copying Origen. So, sorry, not convinced.

But very glad to see you back. I hope you don't have to go away again.

 

[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.

Still waiting for you to address this post, Dejudge.