Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Stone]

OK. A bit more than a "minor disturbance", but not a very successful revolt either. Just Jesus and his gang, the people apparently didn't join in...

I think we may be misreading this passage. I've double-checked various different translations --

http://biblehub.com/mark/15-7.htm

-- and it would appear that Barabbas was involved in an insurrection unrelated to the ruckus at the temple -- which is the way I've always read this, frankly.

Stone

 

[Brainache]

Certainly wasn't successful. The extent of popular participation is hard to discern from the texts, which are concerned in any case to conceal the event as far as possible. Christians are a bunch of rebellious messianic Jews. Like Theudas? That would never do at all! So the nice Jesus the Nazarene and the nasty Jesus bar Abba have been separated into two people. We are disciples of the nice one.

Well maybe the Romans would have killed his followers as well, if they thought they were a threat.

Jesus was a youth, so didn't have much Authority at the time. I'm guessing his family and friends talked him up a lot after he went and got himself in trouble.

 

[Craig B]

I think we may be misreading this passage. I've double-checked various different translations --

http://biblehub.com/mark/15-7.htm

-- and it would appear that Barabbas was involved in an insurrection unrelated to the ruckus at the temple -- which is the way I've always read this, frankly.

Stone

Perhaps. Do we have anything specific about the Barabbas event? My point is that here we have two messianic Jesuses one of whom has been in an insurrection, about which we are given no other indication, and the other is said to have caused a ruckus in the temple. The parallels are too tempting to ignore, unless you have positive information about Barabbas' activities that explicitly rules out an identification of these individuals.

 

[Belz...]

At the very best, those authors could only have been repeating hearsay of what they thought had once been said by Christian believers of the day.

Actually, at the very best they could have written records to work from.

 

[Belz...]

Because it's been stated that there is as much evidence for an HJ as there is for Caeser.

Yeah but you should not take those claims seriously.

 

[Belz...]

I don't necessarily expect the same amount of credible evidence for Jesus as we have for Caesar.

Didn't you say you did ?

Oh, yeah you did:

I have not tried to redefine the word "evidence" at all. What I have consistently said is that Jesus is such an important figure now in the 21st century, that the evidence needs to be at least as solid, reliable and convincing as the best evidence that historians produce for figures like Julius Caesar or the early British kings and queens.

 

[tsig]

Yeah but you should take those claims seriously.

About as seriously as the claim that to deny the HJ is to deny all ancient history?

Or the one that to deny the Hj is the equivalent of denying evolution?

 

[Foster Zygote]

How in the world can an event that could not have happened confirms the existence of Jesus as a human being?

The resurrection of Jesus could not have happened even if Jesus did live.

The claim of the resurrection has no historical or factual value.

Ionically, the claim of the resurrection in fact confirms Paul was NOT FACTUAL.

As JaysonR correctly pointed out, I was being sarcastic. I thought that this was transparently obvious, but it clearly went over your head. There is nothing logically impossible, or even unlikely, about the idea that Paul could have could have been deluded about, or lied about having a visitation from a dead man.

And I can't help but notice that you seem to be deliberately ignoring my question as to which elements of my hypothetical origin for Christianity are logically impossible. Are you unable to provide any reason why such a scenario cannot have happened?

 

[Belz...]

About as seriously as the claim that to deny the HJ is to deny all ancient history?

Or the one that to deny the Hj is the equivalent of denying evolution?

Wow, sorry. I wanted to say "not seriously", obviously. I edited the post, now.

 

[dejudge]

As JaysonR correctly pointed out, I was being sarcastic. I thought that this was transparently obvious, but it clearly went over your head. There is nothing logically impossible, or even unlikely, about the idea that Paul could have could have been deluded about, or lied about having a visitation from a dead man.

Are you still being sarcastic? Please explain how sarcasm helps the HJ argument?

Now, since you seem to know that "nothing is logically impossible" then you ought to know that it is not logically impossible that the Pauline writers were deluded Liars no earlier than c 180 CE.

And I can't help but notice that you seem to be deliberately ignoring my question as to which elements of my hypothetical origin for Christianity are logically impossible. Are you unable to provide any reason why such a scenario cannot have happened?

In reality, once data is used to develop an hypothesis then some hypothesis are not logically plausible.

 

[pakeha]

Still not implausible though.

I'm not saying it was a city-wide riot, just a small disturbance with maybe a few casualties. Happened all the time in those days.

Sounds about right.
I wonder why the gospel writers took up the incident.
To sell Jesus as a new broom sweeping clean?

I think we may be misreading this passage. I've double-checked various different translations --

http://biblehub.com/mark/15-7.htm

-- and it would appear that Barabbas was involved in an insurrection unrelated to the ruckus at the temple -- which is the way I've always read this, frankly.

Stone

Thanks for the link!
Like you, I've read the passage as being unrelated to Barabbas, but ideas about how to interpret the NT do change.
Off to see the latest ideas concerning Barabbas from the academic world.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Are you still being sarcastic? Please explain how sarcasm helps the HJ argument?

Do you often have difficulty discerning sarcasm and the use of idioms? I'm just curious.

Now, since you seem to know that "nothing is logically impossible" then you ought to know that it is not logically impossible that the Pauline writers were deluded Liars no earlier than c 180 CE.

I've never claimed that it is impossible. However, I'd like to see some argument for that case. Could you summarize it for us in your own words?

In reality, once data is used to develop an hypothesis then some hypothesis are not logically plausible.

You are evading the question.

What data shows what aspects of my hypothetical scenario to be logically impossible?

 

[Craig B]

Are you still being sarcastic? Please explain how sarcasm helps the HJ argument?

You mean it's impossible that a person should think they see a bright light in the sky at noonday in Syria and then hear sounds in their head which they interpret as coming from a dead man whose followers they are on a mission to arrest or otherwise persecute? Nobody has ever suffered a psychotic incident involving a belief that they have made contact with the dead? That has never been known to happen, that a person has had such a delusion?

 

[IanS]

Dejudge, Foster was being sarcastic.
He was stating that Paul's historicity does not rest upon Paul's dogmatic authority from meeting Jesus in any literary capacity.

Your post spent its time discussing Paul's encounter with Jesus, Foster is stating that there is no limitation upon whether or not Paul could have claimed to have met Jesus, or never claimed it, and preached his theology.

He is stating that Paul's preaching is not reliant on the historicity of Jesus and Paul meeting.
No more, say, than the idea (for you) that a 2nd c CE writer is reliant upon a historicity of meeting with Jesus.

Where did the claim of Jesus as messiah come from, if not from Paul?

Which writer before Paul is known to have preached that the messiah everyone expected anyway, was someone called Jesus?

After the time Paul, we have (apparently, if we accept the usual estimated dates), first g-Mark, then g-Mathew, and then the rest. In which case it's obvious that the writers of g-Mark and g-Mathew etc., could very easily have obtained the name "Jesus" from the earlier writing of Paul.

And certainly, those gospel authors were following the Practice of Paul who said that his information about Jesus came from "scripture", from what he said was "written" (ie "it is written that" ...), and from what he called "revelation" from God, the Lord & Christ, where by "revelation" he appears to mean both his imagined visions (which cannot have been real of course) and what he thought was "revealed" in the true theological meanings of the Old Testament.

IOW - (a) Paul is the only known source of the name Jesus, and (b) all of them say they obtained these beliefs from the theology of the OT.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You mean it's impossible that a person should think they see a bright light in the sky at noonday in Syria and then hear sounds in their head which they interpret as coming from a dead man whose followers they are on a mission to arrest or otherwise persecute? Nobody has ever suffered a psychotic incident involving a belief that they have made contact with the dead? That has never been known to happen, that a person has had such a delusion?

One interesting suggestion that I've heard is that Paul had some sort of epileptic seizure that resulted in his "vision".

 

[tsig]

One interesting suggestion that I've heard is that Paul had some sort of epileptic seizure that resulted in his "vision".

Yep, if Paul had had good medical attention we might never have gotten Christianity just like a good bicarbonate of soda might have prevented Mormonism.

 

[Craig B]

... IOW - (a) Paul is the only known source of the name Jesus, and (b) all of them say they obtained these beliefs from the theology of the OT.

But the beliefs in the following were not obtained from Paul. He knows nothing about the miracle birth.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Paul knows very little about Jesus' (real or imaginary) biography, so the evangelists who wrote down these (real or imaginary) details did not get their ideas from Paul, but from other (trustworthy or untrustworthy) sources. These name Mary and Joseph (which Paul doesn't iirc), so one presumes they named Jesus too, and didn't call him "Son X".

 

[dejudge]

But the beliefs in the following were not obtained from Paul. He knows nothing about the miracle birth. Paul knows very little about Jesus' (real or imaginary) biography, so the evangelists who wrote down these (real or imaginary) details did not get their ideas from Paul, but from other (trustworthy or untrustworthy) sources. These name Mary and Joseph (which Paul doesn't iirc), so one presumes they named Jesus too, and didn't call him "Son X".

When will the fallacy end that the Pauline writers were not of aware of the miracle birth when there was a tradition that the Pauline writers knew of gLuke?


I am afraid it is claimed that Paul knew the Jesus story from Conception to Ascension.

You have either ignored the evidence that the Pauline writers knew gLuke or have forgotten.

Origen and Eusebius admitted that the Pauline writers knew of the Gospel according to gLuke.

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 third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.

Eusebius' Church History 6.25 4.

Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew............ the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts.

The evidence from antiquity do show that the Pauline writers knew of gLuke.

 

[dejudge]

One interesting suggestion that I've heard is that Paul had some sort of epileptic seizure that resulted in his "vision".

Paul had epic seizures continuously at least from 37-62 CE but went undetected till about 200 hundred years ago??

Nobody in antiquity argued that Paul had epic seizures.

 

[dejudge]

I will now dispel the modern Chinese Whispers that the Pauline Corpus was composed before the Gospels were written because they do not mention the details in the story of Jesus.

The very first thing that must be immediately remembered is that the Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of the Church.

The story of Jesus was known BEFORE Paul was himself called to preach the Gospel.

Galatians 1:23 NAS

Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."

The story of Jesus was known by the Pauline writer BEFORE he was called to preach the Gospel.

Now, it has been deduced that there are at least SIX forgeries under the name Paul----Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.

These forgeries prove that even though the Epistles contain very little about the stories of Jesus that they could have been written after the Gospels were composed.

All the supposed forged Epistles [Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus] contain very little or nothing about the details of Jesus yet they were most likely written AFTER the Gospels were already composed and circulated.

It therefore cannot any longer be assumed that any Epistle without details of the Jesus story was composed before the Gospel.

1. The Jesus story was known when Paul was a persecutor.

2. There are Pauline Epistles written AFTER the Gospels were most likely composed.

There is now no evidence whatsoever that any Pauline Epistle was composed before the Jesus story was composed and circulated.