Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

As to the red: The fact that the stories contain a liberal amount of nonsense calls into question everything else the person(s) had said. I think on this point we do agree. So, in order to test the mundane stuff historians look for evidence which tends to support one way or the other regarding Jesus' corporeal presence. There really isn't any. But again, we're dealing with religious texts which some are known forgeries and some have been tampered with. There's no other-than-the-bible evidence that can bear scrutiny. It seems logical to me to say "I don't know for sure" but I find that a non-corporeal Jesus theory is still just as likely as a corporeal Jesus.

As to the green: It doesn't have to be conspiracy or fraud to explain what could have happened with the MJ theory. They all seemed to believe all sorts of things that are untrue; why wouldn't a mythical Jesus also be a legitimate view of the past?

It is the HJ theory that is a massive conspiracy theory.

Those who argue for HJ are claiming that their Jesus was a human being and that it was forgotten who he was or that his disciple simply lied about him.

Such a conspiracy theory does not make much sense if his disciples wanted to appear credible and start a new religion.

We have the stories of Jesus and we know what Christians believed and argued. NT manuscripts and Codices have been recovered and dated no earlier than the 2nd century.

All the present available evidence in fact explains what happened.

The story of Jesus originated in the 2nd century and people believed the story in the 2nd century up to this day.

There was no 1st century, pre 70 CE, Jesus story.

HJ is a massive conspiracy theory based on 2nd century fictional accounts that never happened in the time of Pilate.

 

[Craig B]

HJ does not explain the evidence in Matthew 1, Mark 6, Mark 9, Luke 24, Acts 1, John 1, Galatians 4, Ignatius' Ephesians, Aristides' Apology, Justin's First Apology, Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ, Hippolytus' Against All Heresies, Origen's Against Celsus, Lactantius' "On How the Persecutors died", Optatus' Against the Donatist, Eusebius' Demonstration of the Gospel and others.

I hope you're impressed with your own erudition, listing these names; but it would really be best if you could cut down the pure lists of names, and set down the arguments made by these venerable authors that you wish us to attend to. The "and others" is no help to us, is it?

 

[The Norseman]

Yes, thank you, I usually am.

Well, you have omitted to say that it was a comment about dejudge - do you think he thinks HJ is a possiblility?

Um... no, I don't think he thinks HJ is a possibility. But that's not what I was responding to. What you said was that waving his arms and screaming Forgery! is all he does and that's blatantly untrue.

 

[David Mo]

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. 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.

Yes. Hazardous and inconsistent reinterpretations of the Old Testament are very common in Christian exegesis. In the most difficult cases a resort to allegorical or symbolic interpretation is ever possible. Symbols and allegories allow everything. They are used especially in front to a passage that contradicts the particular credo of the reader. So, a text with a very explicit meaning to the early readers becomes an allegory over the years and finally almost all the Old Testament and a large proportion of the New are symbolic to many contemporary sensitivities.

 

[tsig]

Quote: tsig
Why do you believe you can discern truth from fiction in the bible?

Same way I detect it anywhere else./QUOTE]

Must be nice to have an infallible truth detector. Know where I can get one?

 

[Craig B]

Same way I detect it anywhere else.

Must be nice to have an infallible truth detector. Know where I can get one?

I have no idea. Where did I give the impression that I had an infallible method? If I say I have something, why assume I claim perfection for it?

 

[Craig B]

It makes me curious not cross but you have a need to portray everyone who disagrees with you in the worst possible light.

If that's your view, and it's a good one, why your post #1206 addressed to belz?

It raises the question as to why you are accepting the words of a known forgery as true.

That's the point 7 in my list in the post to Brainache.

 

[tsig]

I have no idea. Where did I give the impression that I had an infallible method? If I say I have something, why assume I claim perfection for it?

If a truth detector isn't infallible how do you know it's telling the truth?

 

[tsig]

I have no idea. Where did I give the impression that I had an infallible method? If I say I have something, why assume I claim perfection for it?

Are you or are you not claiming that you can determine the truth about an HJ by separating the truth from the fiction in the NT?

 

[IanS]

Yes, thank you, I usually am.

Well, you have omitted to say that it was a comment about dejudge - do you think he thinks HJ is a possiblility?

Dejudge has already said that if there was ever real evidence of Jesus, then he would reassess his view. But he has explained countless times to you that he is saying that the biblical Jesus must be a myth, and he has explained why in the clearest possible terms (with very full references & quotes).

And further, he and others here have pointed out that there really never was any other source of any mention of a messiah called Jesus, except in the bible .... and the Jesus of that bible is certainly a mythical figure from writing which is not reliable by any stretch of even the most absurd and deluded imagination.

 

[Belz...]

Then what is your evidence for an HJ?

Again ??? We've been through this, no ?

The hilited sentence.

I don't see how what you thought I was saying follows from the hilighted.

 

[Belz...]

It is the HJ theory that is a massive conspiracy theory.

How is it a conspiracy theory to claim that a man lived, had a cult formed around him, and died, with his story being altered as time went on ?

Seriously, the lack of honesty when representing other people's opinions is apalling in these HJ threads, and the MJ side seems most guilty of this.

 

[Belz...]

If a truth detector isn't infallible how do you know it's telling the truth?

Let's save some time, since I know where this is going: how do we even know that we're not in the matrix ?

 

[dejudge]

duplicated

 

[Craig B]

If a truth detector isn't infallible how do you know it's telling the truth?

If an egg timer isn't infallible, how do you know your egg's soft boiled? If an alarm clock isn't a perfect one, how do you know it's time to get up?

Are you or are you not claiming that you can determine the truth about an HJ by separating the truth from the fiction in the NT?

I don't think you have the least idea what these analyses of the gospel materials, and discussions regarding them, are all about.

 

[Belz...]

The HJ argument is a massive conspiracy theory--early Christians openly lied to

Oh, my god ! They got to him !

 

[Craig B]

Oh, my god ! They got to him !

This is getting surreal. I need another lie down and cup of tea.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge has already said that if there was ever real evidence of Jesus, then he would reassess his view. But he has explained countless times to you that he is saying that the biblical Jesus must be a myth, and he has explained why in the clearest possible terms (with very full references & quotes).

And further, he and others here have pointed out that there really never was any other source of any mention of a messiah called Jesus, except in the bible .... and the Jesus of that bible is certainly a mythical figure from writing which is not reliable by any stretch of even the most absurd and deluded imagination.

By the way, it is not plausible that there was an HJ because it will be found that is no evidence from antiquity to support such a proposal.

Like any argument one can propose for argument sake that HJ is plausible and one can propose that MJ is plausible.

But, it is the actual examination of the evidence that will determine which proposal is most reasonable--not the proposal itself.

We are attempting to determine if a character called Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was a myth or not.

Let us look at the evidence from antiquity for an HJ that was put forward by HJers.

Immediately we see a massive problem ----HJers present nothing to support their HJ proposal.

In fact, HJers only repeat the initial proposal and do not supply the evidence.

The proposal that Jesus was a figure of history cannot be sustained since no evidence can be presented--there is none and it would appear there was never any.

All NT manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings about the Jesus story that have been recovered are dated to the 2nd century or later and found outside Galilee and Jerusalem.

By the way, other characters found in the NT have been corroborated like John the Baptist, Pilate, Tiberius, King Herod the Great--but nothing for Jesus of Nazareth, the 12 apostles and Paul.

 

[The Norseman]

How is it a conspiracy theory to claim that a man lived, had a cult formed around him, and died, with his story being altered as time went on ?

Seriously, the lack of honesty when representing other people's opinions is apalling in these HJ threads, and the MJ side seems most guilty of this.

I think it seems that way to you because you're mostly arguing the HJ side. I have found that odd due to your close 60/40 split. It's logical to me that you'd be arguing for the MJ almost as much. Please don't misunderstand; I'm not trying to tell you what to do or anything. It's just an observation and I could be wrong.

Let's save some time, since I know where this is going: how do we even know that we're not in the matrix ?

How about we let tsig tell us where she is going with that.

 

[Stone]

How is it a conspiracy theory to claim that a man lived, had a cult formed around him, and died, with his story being altered as time went on ?

Seriously, the lack of honesty when representing other people's opinions is apalling in these HJ threads, and the MJ side seems most guilty of this.

And _that_, frankly, is the pattern that I've seen too many times on all these boards. And -- whether warrantably or not -- it's that pattern that has changed me from someone who was first curious about the MJ idea to someone who became frankly furious at so many MJ quacks having wasted their -- and my -- time. This is fraud, pure and simple -- as I see it, IMO, etc. And if that makes me irrational, it makes me irrational. I'm just furious at such quacks putting others through the same nonsense I was put through.

Sincerely,

Stone