Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[zugzwang]

Craig B

Very good points there. There is a kind of monolithic thinking among some MJ advocates, which is quite puzzling. All of Jesus' actions and statements are supernatural - palpably untrue; everything in the NT is derived from the Jewish Bible (OT) - palpably untrue; everything is forged - well, that's possible, but why didn't they make a better job of it, e.g. they could have Paul actually meet Jesus, to make it more authentic?

 

[eight bits]

zugzwang

You've said something like this twice, so I feel emboldened to ask:

they could have Paul actually meet Jesus, to make it more authentic?

How would that help? What would that help? The (Nicene) Christian position is that Jesus is now alive and incarnate, and has been since about 4 BCE, with a few days off sometime in the 30's.

It follows that Paul did meet the living Jesus, as Christians (the supposed forgers) conceive of the situation.

I am, without apology (the other kind), not following your argument.

 

[Craig B]

zugzwang

You've said something like this twice, so I feel emboldened to ask:


How would that help? What would that help? The (Nicene) Christian position is that Jesus is now alive and incarnate, and has been since about 4 BCE, with a few days off sometime in the 30's.

It follows that Paul did meet the living Jesus, as Christians (the supposed forgers) conceive of the situation.

I am, without apology (the other kind), not following your argument.

I think what is meant here is the living human Jesus who existed on earth in an accessible physical form, as opposed to a talking light in the sky. James and the apostles had known the living human Jesus and had also had visions of the posthumous Jesus, before Paul had his. He therefore had to go to some trouble to establish that his knowledge of Jesus was as good as theirs. You ask, how would that help? The answer is, that's how it would help.

 

[zugzwang]

Yes, something like that. Why did the forgers invent all the business about Paul feeling jealous and angry because he hadn't met Jesus, and felt inferior to those who had, and had to big himself up in compensation? They could have just had him meet Jesus on a few occasions, or even witness the crucifixion, then he would be primus inter pares, or maybe, secundus inter pares.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, something like that. Why did the forgers invent all the business about Paul feeling jealous and angry because he hadn't met Jesus, and felt inferior to those who had, and had to big himself up in compensation?

Whatever the MJ answer to that is, it is speculation, which is odd. Or par for the course.

 

[JaysonR]

I don't think that line of reasoning holds very well, as it can be shown that fictional creations go through odd lengths regularly; a casual reading of the Hebrew accounts of their god produces far greater issues of senseless tangents and out of the way interactions which help the over all image none at all for us, but we full well understand that the accounts are pure myth.

By applying the same concept, we would be forced to assume some individual once existed who became this god of myth.

I'm not siding with the MJ position in stating this; simply pointing out that in itself, seeming senselessness of what seems unhelpful to the story for us today is not a good basis to guage actualness of claimed events or figures of texts from ancient times of different cultures.

Heck, epistles, for a time, were even a form of fictional diary literature like travel journal fiction of the 18th and 19th century; especially if they were juicy with politics and/or (later versions) romantic and foolish passion.

 

[Craig B]

... it can be shown that fictional creations go through odd lengths regularly ... Heck, epistles, for a time, were even a form of fictional diary literature like travel journal fiction of the 18th and 19th century; especially if they were juicy with politics and/or (later versions) romantic and foolish passion.

That's right. Epistles are not myths. Epistles are literary works, and myths in essence are not, though they may be repeated in literary compositions.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

I think what is meant here is the living human Jesus who existed on earth in an accessible physical form, as opposed to a talking light in the sky.

But "talking light in the sky" is your term, probably based on Luke's imagining of Paul's experience. The hypothetical forgers teach that Jesus is a man, just like you and me, except that Jesus can walk through locked doors and fly.

There is nothing "objectively" wrong with Paul's status vis a vis the retired fishermen who are his chief rivals, and he's got scholarly chops while they probably can't even read. His inferiority is all in his head - just as we know most inferiority is.

zugzwang

Yes, something like that. Why did the forgers invent all the business about Paul feeling jealous and angry because he hadn't met Jesus, and felt inferior to those who had, and had to big himself up in compensation? They could have just had him meet Jesus on a few occasions, or even witness the crucifixion, then he would be primus inter pares, or maybe, secundus inter pares.

But that's what makes a story good - the protagonist has problems, preferably interesting ones.

I think Paul is a superbly realized character, within the conceit that we are reading his late-career business letters, when his story is beginning to unravel. Willy Loman with no kids, but with a college degree. It's very convincing - I'm something like 85-15 or better that he's real and is what he says he is. That's still within the range of what you'd expect from thin evidence, but solidly near the top of what's possible (for me).

If I was advising the forgers, I'd tell 'em not to change a word of it; it'll sell like Billy-be-damned.

 

[tsig]

Craig B


But "talking light in the sky" is your term, probably based on Luke's imagining of Paul's experience. The hypothetical forgers teach that Jesus is a man, just like you and me, except that Jesus can walk through locked doors and fly.

There is nothing "objectively" wrong with Paul's status vis a vis the retired fishermen who are his chief rivals, and he's got scholarly chops while they probably can't even read. His inferiority is all in his head - just as we know most inferiority is.

zugzwang


But that's what makes a story good - the protagonist has problems, preferably interesting ones.

I think Paul is a superbly realized character, within the conceit that we are reading his late-career business letters, when his story is beginning to unravel. Willy Loman with no kids, but with a college degree. It's very convincing - I'm something like 85-15 or better that he's real and is what he says he is. That's still within the range of what you'd expect from thin evidence, but solidly near the top of what's possible (for me).

If I was advising the forgers, I'd tell 'em not to change a word of it; it'll sell like Billy-be-damned.

It has.

Paul is the model for the preacher, Jesus is the model for the average Christan.

 

[Craig B]

It has.

Paul is the model for the preacher, Jesus is the model for the average Christan.

No, according to MJ. Does the average Christian aspire to do nothing but perform miracles and other supernatural deeds, and then to be tortured to death in order to atone for the sins of mankind? Or does the average Christian accept as a model, the compassionate morality that Christians believe Jesus to have taught? The "model" Jesus imagined by the average Christian is not heavily supernatural. The "saviour" Jesus of that Christian is another matter.

As to Paul being taken as a model for preachers; he seems to have kept causing riots and getting imprisoned and flogged. Then his activities create a disturbance in Jerusalem, and he is carted off by the Roman garrison into protective custody. There are preachers like that, I suppose. But a "model"? Well ...

 

[tsig]

Yes, something like that. Why did the forgers invent all the business about Paul feeling jealous and angry because he hadn't met Jesus, and felt inferior to those who had, and had to big himself up in compensation? They could have just had him meet Jesus on a few occasions, or even witness the crucifixion, then he would be primus inter pares, or maybe, secundus inter pares.

How do you know Paul was angry and jealous, it looks like he was proud his doctrine came from no man and besides he had met Jesus along a road to Damascus.

 

[Craig B]

How do you know Paul was angry and jealous (?)

From this, for one thing.

Galatians 2:6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message ... 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me ... 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned ... 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy ...

 

[JaysonR]

That's right. Epistles are not myths. Epistles are literary works, and myths in essence are not, though they may be repeated in literary compositions.

While they are not categorically, "myth", the point was that our impression of convenience and sensibility is not in itself a guarantee, or indication, of fictional or actual standing of a text's contents.

If someone wishes to call Pauline epistles, "myth", and the epistle in question happens to be fictional in account, then the individual is wrong in terminology; which was not the subject of my address.

 

[dejudge]

...and:
Revelation
The Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
Egerton Gospel
Gospel of Peter
Secret Mark
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of the Hebrews
Apocalypse of Peter
Secret Book of James
Preaching of Peter
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Nazoreans
Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
Traditions of Matthias
Gospel of Mary
Dialogue of the Savior
Gospel of the Savior
Epistula Apostolorum
Infancy Gospel of James
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Acts of Peter
Acts of John
Acts of Paul
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Book of Thomas the Contender
Acts of Thomas
Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel of Thomas
Secret Book of James
Basilides
Naassene Fragment
Gospel of Mary
Dialogue of the Savior
Gospel of the Savior
Marcion
Epiphanes
Ophite Diagrams
Ptolemy
Gospel of Truth
Excerpts of Theodotus
Heracleon
Acts of Peter
Acts of Thomas

And more...

Point being; you are running your definition of who Jesus was from one canonical definition.
If you believe Jesus is purely a myth, then you shouldn't be limiting the definition of who the figure was to just one mythical tradition, because the only reason that tradition does so is because they believe their texts outline a specific and real Jesus and reject all other texts as fake.

On the other hand, if you hold the canonical texts as fake to begin with, then there's no sense to limiting the definition of Jesus to the canonical texts, as the justification for the limitation to just the canonical texts is itself of no value if we adopt the view of Jesus being purely mythical and created entirely.

As I've mentioned before; your position only addresses one version of Jesus tradition and ignores all others.
There's no rational reason for dismissing other texts from the survey if we believe that all texts, no matter which we look at, are fictional creations about a figure who never existed.

The list you supplied consists of known forgeries and fiction. When "Church History" was composed some of those writings on your list were already acknowledged as rejected or disputed.

Plus, the Jesus in most of those writings of your list is far more mythological than in the Canonised writings.

You have not even supplied any date of authorship for those writings. If the Gospel according to the numerous disciples and apostles were really first written in the 2nd and 3rd century then we are actually dealing with forgeries and fiction.

The pattern is extremely consistent.

Writings from the 2nd and 3rd century were forged or falsely attributed to supposed 1st century characters who themselves may have not existed.

This is Eusebius on the forgeries and fiction in non-Canonical writings.


Church History 3.25.6.

But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.

Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

Let us now proceed with our history.

Since the 4th century, it was already acknowledged that many of the writings on your list were fiction and forgeries.

It is virtually without reasonable doubt that all writings attributed to Relatives, apostles and disciples of Jesus in or out the Canon were forgeries or falsely attributed to fake 1st century characters.

 

[JaysonR]

Right, that was my point, Dejudge.
According to you, everything is a forgery, so why make the Jesus definition exclusive to only a list made up by people who disagreed with you and believed a select group of texts to be acurate of real people and events?
In your proposal they are wrong and no such real individuals and events took place; it is all a myth from forgeries.

So why only define Jesus by one canon's forgeries?
Why not include all forgeries of the 2nd century?

 

[Belz...]

Right, that was my point, Dejudge.
According to you, everything is a forgery, so why make the Jesus definition exclusive to only a list made up by people who disagreed with you and believed a select group of texts to be acurate of real people and events?
In your proposal they are wrong and no such real individuals and events took place; it is all a myth from forgeries.

So why only define Jesus by one canon's forgeries?
Why not include all forgeries of the 2nd century?

My prophecy is that you won't get a useful answer to this.

 

[pakeha]

Wow. Someone HAS to make a Smiley version of the bible, now. The Expressive Emoticon Version Bible (EEV).

You know the LOLcat version, I take it?

...[respectfully snipped]...Yet, again, at no point do we need to introduce a 5th text (Q) to accomplish this rendering, and the mixes continue to sympathize with geographic minded dispersion patterns which would have been available.

Thanks for taking so much time and trouble with that reply.
I'll have to read it through several more times to get more than a general idea of it, but in conjunction with my own reading on the academic consensus on the subject of stratification and the Q hypothesis, I'm getting the impression that however attractive a given method of analysing the gospels may be, at the end of the day, it's just literary analysis.

 

[Stone]

Thanks for taking so much time and trouble with that reply.
I'll have to read it through several more times to get more than a general idea of it, but in conjunction with my own reading on the academic consensus on the subject of stratification and the Q hypothesis, I'm getting the impression that however attractive a given method of analysing the gospels may be, at the end of the day, it's just literary analysis.

And why is that "just" or only? Literary analysis has revealed that the author of "Primary Colors" is Joe Klein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Colors_(novel)). Literary analysis has added a new play to the Shakspeare canon (Edward III). Literary analysis is not pointless woo. It's a discipline like any other, and it can be performed clumsily or adroitly.

Stone

 

[JaysonR]

pakeha,
I think more paleographers need to think of it as "just".
Humility is a great asset in the field, imo.

 

[zugzwang]

And why is that "just" or only? Literary analysis has revealed that the author of "Primary Colors" is Joe Klein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Colors_(novel)). Literary analysis has added a new play to the Shakspeare canon (Edward III). Literary analysis is not pointless woo. It's a discipline like any other, and it can be performed clumsily or adroitly.

Stone

Certainly, without textual analysis, I'm not sure what we would be able to say about any text, such as the Jewish Bible (OT) and the NT. I suppose it would be difficult to even describe it as a text in the first place, let alone something with a discernible structure, with various bits that repeat, or are patterned, and so on. It would be a kind of ultimate nihilism in the presence of written culture!