Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[tsig]

A wrong reasoning is repeated endlessly in this thread: Paul -or the evangelists- lies. We must not rely on someone that lies. Therefore, all that Paul -or the Gospels- says is untruth.

This is a wrong reasoning because not everything a liar says is untruth. For example: we can find that the liar says a truth when he says something that contradicts his falsehoods or intentions. This is catch a liar, and this simple ruse is the basis to the difficulty rule applied to crucifixion.

You can criticise this rule, but not disregard it. And it is just this what the mythicists are doing here.

How do you know that the crucifixion was a difficulty to the early Christians, the ones of today positively glory in it

 

[IanS]

But Paul doesn't say that. He says he got his "gospel" (the good news that Jesus' death had significance to the Gentiles) from "no man". He doesn't say he consulted "no human man" about Jesus.

I'm not sure whether you have given the passages that make you think that Paul "clearly does say, and repeatedly stresses, that he consulted no human man about Jesus", but could you give them here please? It seems an important point that needs to be clarified.

Yes, certainly, it has indeed been quoted here many times before. Are you really insisting that we have to keep replying to all these same requests 40 or 50 times over & over again with all the same full quotes and references every time?

What Paul’s letters say, is that his beliefs about Jesus came to him from no man, but instead as direct revelation from Christ. His direct revelations from Christ’s are described by him as his religious visions of a dead Jesus. Elsewhere, he frequently says that his beliefs about that Christ are according to scripture. Did you really not know that?

But, in your above quote you specifically try to talk about Paul’s “gospel” - are you trying to claim that on the few occasions that Paul’s talks about his preaching as his “gospel”, which he gets from his visions (impossible) and from OT scripture (a very obvious and real source well known to Paul), that by that “gospel” he does not mean Jesus at all? Is that what you are saying - that Paul’s gospel obtained from his visions and from scripture was not in fact anything to do with Jesus?


There is only one question that needs an answer here. And that is -

- what is claimed to be the evidence showing that Jesus was a real human figure written about in the bible in the 1st century AD?

Do you have that evidence or not. If you cannot produce genuine evidence of a human Jesus, then there is nothing left to discuss. Either you can produce the evidence, or else you cannot. Where is the evidence?

 

[tsig]

So just cite the evidence then.

Where is it?

Well you take one part of the NT and compare it with another part and if you find matches then that's true. You determine that it would be embarrassing* for certain things to be published so when you see them in the NT you know they're true.

*You have to mind read the ancient Christians for this to work.

 

[Stone]

So just cite the evidence then.

Where is it?

I ALREADY CITED THE DATA ON P. 32! -- HERE: --

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

WHAT THE #*^$%#%^%*$%& IS WITH YOU? IF YOU DON'T VIEW THIS DATA AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, THEN

SHOW

US

HOW

IT

ISN'T

BY

ADDRESSING

THE

DATA

IN

DETAIL

INSTEAD

OF

PRETENDING

IT'S

NEVER

BEEN

SUBMITTED

AT

ALL.

THEN

EXAMINE

THE

DATA

PAKEHA

AND

OTHERS

ARE

SUBMITTING

HERE

ABOUT

QUESTIONS

ON

THE

STRATIFICATION

MODEL.

Stone

 

[Craig B]

Well you take one part of the NT and compare it with another part and if you find matches then that's true. You determine that it would be embarrassing* for certain things to be published so when you see them in the NT you know they're true.

*You have to mind read the ancient Christians for this to work.

Stuff and nonsense. The modern mind is adequate for the purpose of discerning "embarrassment" and you don't "know they're true", but it is evidence, which is what is being discussed. Anyway, thank you for looking at the issue, which is a good example to IanS.

 

[Craig B]

How do you know that the crucifixion was a difficulty to the early Christians, the ones of today positively glory in it

Because in 1 Corinthians Chapter 1 Paul says this

22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Jesus and his disciples were Jews of course, and getting executed wasn't what being a successful messiah was all about. They were supposed to restore Israel and rule it under God. It took some time for the crucified messiah idea to catch on, and of course the majority of Jews never accepted it.

 

[Belz...]

How do you know that the crucifixion was a difficulty to the early Christians, the ones of today positively glory in it

I guess he means that when your messiah dies, it's a bit of a pickle.

 

[zugzwang]

Incidentally, a point about forgeries, if the whole of Paul's letters are forged at a later date, why didn't the forgers have Paul actually meet Jesus? They could have constructed some kind of plausible meeting, couldn't they, to give Paul added authenticity? Then they wouldn't have had to write all that stuff about Paul being jealous of the other lot in Jerusalem, who had met him. He could say, me too, I was there when he lost his sandal, and it was me who found it, and he smiled at me, and said, bless you, friend.

 

[pakeha]

The usual references are to Galatians, aren't they?

"I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ". Gal. 1: 12

The 'it' refers to the particular gospel preached by Paul; interestingly, almost in the next line, he refers to his own persecution of the church. So, presumably he had heard about Jesus then, pre-conversion; unless, of course, it is all forged!

Thanks for the reminder to reread the entire Epistle.
It's a strange tone Paul sets, isn't it?
Insisting his message is the legitimate Gospel, claiming God had marked him from his mother's womb, even defying the angels to more properly communicate this wondrous ghost story to the marksgentiles.

1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
No Other Gospel

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Paul Called by God

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

I ALREADY CITED THE DATA ON P. 32! ...

Steady on, Stone.
While I quite enjoy playing with different coloured hiliting, somehow seeing posts in all-caps really set my teeth on edge. Perhaps it's because several of the forum's pet creationalists employ all-caps, perhaps because using all-caps is a habit of internet scammers?
It's hard to tell why it irritates me so thoroughly.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but while stratification is a convincing method of analysing the NT, it's not, as far as I can tell, a unanimously accepted way of peeling off the ghost stories associated with the NT. Can we even say there's a consensus about using stratification?

I'm learning here and what I've just written probably shows up my ignorance.
Not for the first time.

And yes, I do wonder about this in particular.
Once we peel away the ghost stories, hagiography and just plain spiel, is what is left evidence of an HJ, or is it evidence of of stories told back in the day?

 

[The Norseman]

Can you please specify how/why the posts I link to at the bottom of p. 32 are insufficient for what you're looking for?

Thank you,

Stone

I will do that and let you know; today I kick off my holiday cookie-making, so if I'm a little slow in responding, you know why.

ETA: Are you referencing the links you have given me to read? If that is the case, I've already read three I think. If not, I browse JREF with 50 posts per page so my page numbers wouldn't match up. May I ask for a post number instead?

 

[dejudge]

A wrong reasoning is repeated endlessly in this thread: Paul -or the evangelists- lies. We must not rely on someone that lies. Therefore, all that Paul -or the Gospels- says is untruth.

This is a wrong reasoning because not everything a liar says is untruth. For example: we can find that the liar says a truth when he says something that contradicts his falsehoods or intentions. This is catch a liar, and this simple ruse is the basis to the difficulty rule applied to crucifixion.

You can criticise this rule, but not disregard it. And it is just this what the mythicists are doing here.

Your post does not reflect what is happening here at all. When I use the NT to show that Jesus is a figure of mythology I am accused of using a source that is not historically reliable as if everything in the NT is false.

The problem with the HJ argument is that it requires credible historical sources unlike the MJ argument.

Fiction, mythology and implausible events do not require credible sources. In fact, it is far easier to determine if a character is a myth if virtually everything that is known is total fiction, or accounts that could not have happened.

In the NT, virtually all accounts of Jesus are either total fiction and could not have happened plus there is no non-apologetic account for Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus is a perfect myth or probably the world's finest myth character--all myth and no history.

 

[IanS]

A wrong reasoning is repeated endlessly in this thread: Paul -or the evangelists- lies. We must not rely on someone that lies. Therefore, all that Paul -or the Gospels- says is untruth.
This is a wrong reasoning because not everything a liar says is untruth. For example: we can find that the liar says a truth when he says something that contradicts his falsehoods or intentions. This is catch a liar, and this simple ruse is the basis to the difficulty rule applied to crucifixion.

You can criticise this rule, but not disregard it. And it is just this what the mythicists are doing here.

David, how many times? The above is not true at all, and it is absolutely NOT what the sceptic side here have said.

What has been said is that - the huge amount of untrue fiction in the biblical accounts of Jesus, makes the bible an unreliable source which cannot be trusted as a source of believable information in any claims it makes about Jesus.

That is NOT the same as saying it's impossible for anything about Jesus to be true in the bible. It's always possible that the biblical writing might contain something actually true about Jesus. But overall, that bible is so utterly and constantly unreliable, and proven to be so, that it really must be discounted completely as a reliable source.

As I said in a recent reply to CraigB -if you think there is something true about Jesus in the bible, then fine, but in that case you need some external corroboration ... it is completely unacceptable to take a work which has now been exposed as so completely and thoroughly unreliable as the bible (definitely proven wrong in fact on almost every claim of substance that it ever made about Jesus), and try to claim that the bible can act as it's own supporting evidence for the wholly unreliable things it says.

 

[Craig B]

... As I said in a recent reply to CraigB -if you think there is something true about Jesus in the bible, then fine

Oh! Wash your mouth out with soap for telling such fibs. What you said was

I've said to you before that we have long since passed the stage of talking endlessly about why the bible cannot possibly be reliable evidence of a human Jesus.

What is written in the bible ... was after about 1800 years of unquestioning Christian belief, finally proved scientifically to be untrue superstitious and impossible fiction.

So the bible is not a credible source in any measure at all.

If you are claiming evidence of a human Jesus, then it must come form [sic] some other contemporary credible source independent of the completely discredited fictional writing of the bible ... we cannot go over again, for what must be literally the 200th time in these threads, why the bible is NOT credible and not a valid source of what it’s preaching

So that means it's "fine" if I think there's something true in the Bible, does it?

 

[Belz...]

The problem with the HJ argument is that it requires credible historical sources unlike the MJ argument.

Interesting. So your side doesn't require any evidence ?

And by "side", I mean MJ, not "I don't know".

 

[IanS]

As I said in a recent reply to CraigB -if you think there is something true about Jesus in the bible, then fine

Oh! Wash your mouth out with soap for telling such fibs. What you said was So that means it's "fine" if I think there's something true in the Bible, does it?

Oh dear, naught naughty Craig;- deliberately cutting off the quote in mid sentence as if it had ended there, when in fact the rest of the sentence which you deliberately omitted to post, makes crystal clear that I said you needed some external corroboration and not merely the bible’s own un-evidenced unsubstantiated, in fact quite unbelievable, claims themselves.

The actual quote which you failed to give was this (below) -

As I said in a recent reply to CraigB -if you think there is something true about Jesus in the bible, then fine, but in that case you need some external corroboration ... it is completely unacceptable to take a work which has now been exposed as so completely and thoroughly unreliable as the bible (definitely proven wrong in fact on almost every claim of substance that it ever made about Jesus), and try to claim that the bible can act as it's own supporting evidence for the wholly unreliable things it says.

 

[Brainache]

Oh dear, naught naughty Craig;- deliberately cutting off the quote in mid sentence as if it had ended there, when in fact the rest of the sentence which you deliberately omitted to post, makes crystal clear that I said you needed some external corroboration and not merely the bible’s own un-evidenced unsubstantiated, in fact quite unbelievable, claims themselves.

The actual quote which you failed to give was this (below) -

What is impossible about a flesh and blood person doing this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+COR+11:23-29

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
...

How does a Spirit Being do any of that?

 

[tsig]

Because in 1 Corinthians Chapter 1 Paul says this Jesus and his disciples were Jews of course, and getting executed wasn't what being a successful messiah was all about. They were supposed to restore Israel and rule it under God. It took some time for the crucified messiah idea to catch on, and of course the majority of Jews never accepted it.

If your messiah was coming to save the world from sin by his death then a successful messiah had to die.

24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Basically you're saying they were ashamed of a central tenet of their belief system.

 

[tsig]

I guess he means that when your messiah dies, it's a bit of a pickle.

Not if that's what your messiah is supposed to do.

 

[Belz...]

Not if that's what your messiah is supposed to do.

Of course. Both are possible.

 

[Belz...]

If your messiah was coming to save the world from sin by his death then a successful messiah had to die.

Basically you're saying they were ashamed of a central tenet of their belief system.

No, he's saying that they had to reconcile his death with their belief system, and invented the "save this world from sin by his death" as a response.