Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Craig B]

That is impossible. It is the HJ argument that must be and argument for Silence. HJers must first admit that the NT is not historically reliable and then imagine who their Jesus was.

The HJ argument is a perfect argument from Silence.

Now please read who Jesus was!! Jesus was born of a Ghost, the Son of God and God Creator--a perfect myth in Matthew 1, <snip rest of list of ancient writers> and others.

Which others? I need more lists, lists, lists!!! Or maybe not, after all.

 

[dejudge]

That is precisely what mythers all assert to the last man over at the big RatSkep thread. In fact, you've summed up the myther take on Paul in a nutshell. Each of those four direct Paul refs. (and more) to humans, plain and simple, with plainly human activities, have each been ascribed by mythers to either the one "revelation" (at Damascus or wherever) or to OT Scripture. That's precisely what the mythers do.

Of course, you pile all these Paul refs. up, one on another, and it does get ridiculous very quickly. Occam's Razor, anyone? Thing is, the routine modus operandi of the mythers is to take each small data point in isolation and to refuse to assess any overall data set as a whole, no matter how intricately related. It's a dishonest tactic, of course, but they do that, again and again. By taking each data point in isolation, it's a sneaky way of making it harder to pin them down on overall patterns. That's one big reason why their tactics have so often been compared on other board to those of Creationists, who do precisely the same thing.

Stone

If you apply Occams Razor to the Pauline Epistles then Jesus was a pure myth down to the very core.

Jesus is a myth on the outside so why would expect history on the inside?

If you peel an onion what would you expect inside?

If the Pauline Jesus was NOT a resurrected Myth then there would be no Remission of Sins--there would be Christian Faith.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV --And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Without mythology there would be no Christianity.

Jesus must a resurrected myth in the Pauline Corpus.

 

[Belz...]

I think it seems that way to you because you're mostly arguing the HJ side.

Then you haven't followed this topic for very long, because you would've noticed the exact opposite: I'm arguing against MJ because the arguments presented are irrational. Earlier this year I was arguing against HJ for similar reasons.

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

It was a joke meant to illustrate that asking for 100% certainty is ridiculous.

 

[Brainache]

If you apply Occams Razor to the Pauline Epistles then Jesus was a pure myth down to the very core.

Jesus is a myth on the outside so why would expect history on the inside?

If you peel an onion what would you expect inside?

If the Pauline Jesus was NOT a resurrected Myth then there would be no Remission of Sins--there would be Christian Faith.

Are you serious? Paul developed his theology from the OT his "vision" and something else. What was that?

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV --And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Yes their faith was vain. The world didn't end.

Remember?

Without mythology there would be no Christianity.

Jesus must a resurrected myth in the Pauline Corpus.

Without people there would also be no Christianity.

Jesus does not obey your commands, apparently.

 

[Belz...]

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.

That's quite a logical error on your part. Absence of evidence for a proposal is quite distinct from that proposal's plausibility. At least I have my answer: you do not think that the scenario is plausible. Of course, this stems from your inability to distinguish different things from each other.

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

WE might be trying to do that, but not you. You have already made, and closed, your mind.

That is impossible. It is the HJ argument that must be an argument for Silence. HJers must first admit that the NT is not historically reliable and then imagine who their Jesus was.

You should really slow down and read the posts that people write.

If you apply Occams Razor to the Pauline Epistles then Jesus was a pure myth down to the very core.

No.

 

[Belz...]

You have argued that the mundane events in the bible were true therefore it follows that you are claiming that the NT, when stripped of miracles is true.

I never argued this. I said I named things that were mundane and therefore possible, not that they were true.

Your inability to follow a train of thought impels me to get off at the next station.

 

[Belz...]

No. He argued that they are plausible.

It's amazing how many people here are utterly unable to distinguish one claim from another. I can only conclude that they are unwilling to see this debate as anything but a black or white issue. You're either 100% MJ or 100% HJ. They will argue that they don't, but their posts speak for themselves.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe it does contain clues as to the origins of Christianity. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Jesus figure was the beginning of it.

You're right. However it makes it likely. Do you agree with that ?

 

[dejudge]

Then you haven't followed this topic for very long, because you wouldn't noticed the exact opposite: I'm arguing against MJ because the arguments presented are irrational. Earlier this year I was arguing against HJ for similar reasons.

Your statement is extremely strange because you are the very poster who admitted that everyone agreeS the evidence for an HJ is TERRIBLE, that it is very weak and that you are not convinced there was an HJ.

Your 60-40 probability is most amusing because you have not presented the data for your position.

We have data for myth Jesus and none for a real HJ of the Nazareth as a Zealot, a Cynic, an Apocalyptic, a prophet or a rabbi.

In effect, all version of Jesus are Myths.

Christianity needed Myth Jesus. Without Myth Jesus there would be NO remission of Sins.

If Jesus was really a man he would have benn baptized or crucified for his own sins.

It is actually 100-0 in favor of MJ until new evidence is found.

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is extremely strange because you are the very poster who admitted that everyone agreeS the evidence for an HJ is TERRIBLE, that it is very weak and that you are not convinced there was an HJ.

Dejudge, you just agreed with me.

****, really you should slow down and READ.

Your 60-40 probability is most amusing because you have not presented the data for your position.

I have but you probably didn't read my posts.

 

[Stone]

Your statement is extremely strange because you are the very poster who admitted that everyone agreeS the evidence for an HJ is TERRIBLE, that it is very weak and that you are not convinced there was an HJ.

Dejudge, you just agreed with me.

****, really you should slow down and READ.

Your 60-40 probability is most amusing because you have not presented the data for your position.

I have but you probably didn't read my posts.

Some of the most voluminous posters on the HJ side who have in fact provided yards of direct cites, complete with bibliographical references, URL links, page nos., etc., have been addressed by various mythers in just this way, Belz: "You haven't given any evidence". It's as if they're coming in at the start of an entire "conversation"!! As if the whole history of an entire thread has never taken place before that very moment when THEY have suddenly graced us with their infinite grace. Your history doesn't count. Their "reality" trumps everything. It's as if they're programmed to address a straw man. They have their narrative for their "opponent" (read: their straw man), and the individual posting history of any HJ-er iof the moment is irrelevant.

Stone

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

It is actually 100-0 in favor of MJ until new evidence is found.

If new evidence could change the verdict, then the verdict is not 100-0.

So, as the old joke goes, now that we've established that, we're just dickering about the price.

 

[davefoc]

Whats this tsig?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

When I first began to look into the history of Christianity about seven or eight years ago the first time I had ever heard of the Jesus didn't exist theories was from this article:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

The author's main point is that the early Christian stories were derived from a misunderstanding of Jewish history and from the garbling of information from the Talmud and that there was never an HJ.

I don't think information in the Talmud provides much support for either the non-existence or existence of an HJ. Perhaps it might be argued that the failure of the Talmud to mention a clearly identifiable HJ suggests strongly that a hypothetical HJ was not widely known of in first century Palestine?

 

[Foster Zygote]

That is impossible. It is the HJ argument that must be an argument for Silence. HJers must first admit that the NT is not historically reliable and then imagine who their Jesus was.

The HJ argument is a perfect argument from Silence.

Speaking of silence, you still haven't explained which elements of the possible Jesus narrative I proposed are logically impossible.

Now please read who Jesus was!

You mean, who the deluded authors of the various New Testament texts thought Jesus was.

The fact that they were believers doesn't mean that they weren't deluded about an actual humans being, any more than the delusions of those indoctrinated in the worship of Kim Jong-il mean that he wasn't a real person.

 

[The Norseman]

Then you haven't followed this topic for very long, because you would've noticed the exact opposite: I'm arguing against MJ because the arguments presented are irrational. Earlier this year I was arguing against HJ for similar reasons.

Earlier this year? I'm following three threads currently; there were at least two other ones that have since dropped off that I read and commented on earlier this year, IIRC. Please do not expect me to remember precisely what you, out of all the dozen or more posters, had argued maybe as far back as nine months ago, ok?

However, having said that, I'll take your word for it and I do stand corrected.

It was a joke meant to illustrate that asking for 100% certainty is ridiculous.

Heh. Oh. I completely missed it.

You're right. However it makes it likely. Do you agree with that ?

I don't believe it's likely, no. I would rather say that it's possible but not yet probable until more evidence surfaces if at all. I'm arguing more on the HJ side because I think it's getting short shrift in these threads as a viable alternate theory. People who have derided it -- in my own humble opinion -- haven't given logical reasons to dismiss it.

 

[The Norseman]

Some of the most voluminous posters on the HJ side who have in fact provided yards of direct cites, complete with bibliographical references, URL links, page nos., etc., have been addressed by various mythers in just this way, Belz: "You haven't given any evidence". It's as if they're coming in at the start of an entire "conversation"!! As if the whole history of an entire thread has never taken place before that very moment when THEY have suddenly graced us with their infinite grace. Your history doesn't count. Their "reality" trumps everything. It's as if they're programmed to address a straw man. They have their narrative for their "opponent" (read: their straw man), and the individual posting history of any HJ-er iof the moment is irrelevant.

Stone

It'd be child's play to post all of this evidence then, as many times as asked. In fact, Piggy had said he'd collate all of this mountain of evidence and present it in one of these threads to thoroughly destroy any other position except for the HJ. To my knowledge he has not done that. I can understand if he was sick and tired of the HJ debate. Since you still are posting, how about walking us through the steps using the historical method that pretty well nearly proves that there is "a HJ". With your background knowledge, I think it'd be informative.

 

[Craig B]

It'd be child's play to post all of this evidence then, as many times as asked. In fact, Piggy had said he'd collate all of this mountain of evidence and present it in one of these threads to thoroughly destroy any other position except for the HJ. To my knowledge he has not done that. I can understand if he was sick and tired of the HJ debate. Since you still are posting, how about walking us through the steps using the historical method that pretty well nearly proves that there is "a HJ". With your background knowledge, I think it'd be informative.

Are you saying the evidence has not been provided, or merely that you haven't read it? This has been done in these threads, producing the arguments and analyses that indicate a probability - not prove; who said prove? - of an HJ. So go back and read the material. But if Piggy wants to take you up on it, fine.

 

[Stone]

When I first began to look into the history of Christianity about seven or eight years ago the first time I had ever heard of the Jesus didn't exist theories was from this article:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

The author's main point is that the early Christian stories were derived from a misunderstanding of Jewish history and from the garbling of information from the Talmud and that there was never an HJ.

I don't think information in the Talmud provides much support for either the non-existence or existence of an HJ. Perhaps it might be argued that the failure of the Talmud to mention a clearly identifiable HJ suggests strongly that a hypothetical HJ was not widely known of in first century Palestine?

Another possible reason for MJ-ers and HJ-ers talking at each other at cross purposes may lie in the fact that the HJ model developed by the most up-to-date professional academic specialists of the 21st century does _not_ involve Jesus the rabbi being a celebrity in his own day at all! The fact that he is not widely known in his own day thus makes the vagueness of texts like the Talmud of no bearing in attempts to question his historicity. Their vagueness is of a piece with today's academic peer-vetted conclusion that, in his day, Jesus the rabbi is an utterly obscure rabble-rouser who ends his "journey" with an excruciating and humiliating execution.

That's the general consensus. Now, my own personal suggestion is that the Jesus "way" only "grew legs" later on for two reasons, one related to notoriety, the other to lifestyle:

1) A few of his followers were so heartbroken when he was nailed that they got all hysterical and excited when the body disappeared and some began to think that perfect strangers were Jesus in disguise, and

2) Jesus's ethical doctrine was so counter-culturally sympathetic with the vulnerable and his own life shewed such an evidently ready nature to help everyone that his horrible death made his devastated followers want to emulate him, if they could, kind of like the effect that President Kennedy's assassination had on the Civil Rights Movement, when some historians have suggested that the Civil Rights laws could never have gotten through in '64 without the memory of Kennedy as a "martyr" spurring people on.

Stone

 

[pakeha]

Whats this tsig?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

From your source

Peter Schäfer concluded that the references were not from the early tannaitic period (1st and 2nd centuries) but rather from the 3rd and 4th centuries, during the amoraic period.[22]

Apparently the Talmudic authors were familiar with the NT.
What do you reckon this proves?

 

[Stone]

It'd be child's play to post all of this evidence then, as many times as asked. In fact, Piggy had said he'd collate all of this mountain of evidence and present it in one of these threads to thoroughly destroy any other position except for the HJ. To my knowledge he has not done that. I can understand if he was sick and tired of the HJ debate. Since you still are posting, how about walking us through the steps using the historical method that pretty well nearly proves that there is "a HJ". With your background knowledge, I think it'd be informative.

I already did that, and it failed to convince any MJ-er.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9602560&postcount=441

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9603160&postcount=443

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9603235&postcount=444

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9604509&postcount=450

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9604546&postcount=452

The sure sign of a lunatic is to indulge in the same behavior again and again and expect a different result every time, even when exactly the opposite thing happens instead -- again and again and again and..............

By that definition, I must be a lunatic.

Stone