Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Craig B]

Craig B ... You know more about their private mental states than I do. I just know what they wrote, not what they personally believed.

I took for granted they believed their experiences to be supernatural, which is a false belief. If you're saying they didn't believe this, you are an evident exponent of the "phoney shaman" hypothesis. I don't know about that.

You didn't, but you did mention widespread undiagnosed epilepsy, and offered "another example of the same phenomenon" which told us that Mohammed "sometimes growled like a camel, foamed at his mouth, and streamed with perspiration." Somebody might connect the dots, despite your strenuous efforts to dissuade them. Thank you for clarifying.

Your thanks are welcome, but not required. You wrote

There is nothing "diseased" about his ideas. They reflect typical human concerns (social dominance, wealth, and servicing a variety of sexual partners), and transparently helped achieve his goals.

But I didn't say Paul's or Muhammad's ideas were diseased. I said their ideas may have found expression as supernatural events in their minds as a consequence of a physical condition. If you're saying Muhammad was an insincere calculating shaman who simulated all this so that he could "service" more women, I don't see how that enhances his reputation.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

If you're saying they didn't believe this, you are an evident exponent of the "phoney shaman" hypothesis. I don't know about that.

Just to clarify, I think Paul and Mohammed are separate cases. If I had to pick a single view of Paul's career, then I would go with something psychologically nuanced rather than consciously fraudulent. Mohammed is more difficult to analyze clearly, because he didn't write in his own voice, and stories about him told by others are all over the place.

It is possible that Mohammed may have believed to some extent, but also noticed that others' belief in him was exploitable, and that a timely revelation could yield practical rewards. That cannot be excluded in Paul's case. I think his short espistle Philemon illustrates Paul's practical side nicely, with a very different style from Mohammed's.

But I didn't say Paul's or Muhammad's ideas were diseased.

And I acknowledged that you didn't say that. I also explained why a fair-minded reader might infer that that was within the intended scope of what you did say. You know, just as Mark never says Jesus was Jewish, but it's hard for some of us to avoid reaching that conclusion.

If you're saying Muhammad was an insincere calculating shaman who simulated all this so that he could "service" more women, ...

I have already commented on things like "insincere calculating shaman," as far as I am able. As to such matters as servicing more women than other men are allowed, yes, according to the Koran, it is Allah's will that Mohammed have more wives than other men, and as we know, Mohammed is Allah's messenger. Sincere or not, Mohammed must have noticed that that could work out rather nicely. He may be mistaken, but he ain't stupid.

I don't see how that enhances his reputation.

Estimating a man's reputation is a rational faculty. Submission to God's will, as revealed to you by Mohammed, is not an appeal to exercise your rational faculties. Grovel in the dirt, accept that your only channel to the divine takes unearned emolument, amputate a hand and a foot on opposite sides of a malefactor's body and call it justice - it's all of a piece.

 

[dejudge]

Craig B I was relying on Paul's signed reports.

There are 13 letters which are under the name of Paul of which there maybe up to seven different authors writing at different time periods.

It is virtually impossible for you to even suggest you know the real Paul if there was one when in the very NT there is zero corroboration that Paul wrote any letter to any person or Church.

In Acts, when Saul/Paul arrived in Rome supposedly when Festus was procurator of Judea up to c 62 CE there was no known Pauline letter.

Based on Acts, any claim that Saul/Paul wrote 13 Epistles before c 62 CE must mean that they are all false attribution.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

There are 13 letters which are under the name of Paul of which there maybe up to seven different authors writing at different time periods.

Yup. I was writing to Craig on the basis of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon.

Since you mention it, I believe that Acts was written by the same author as Luke. Today is an especially apt time to notice that "Luke" misplaced a census by a few years. I am thinking that he wasn't a detail man.

Speaking of which, in your opinion, did John the Baptist have any disciples?

Coming up on six.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge


Yup. I was writing to Craig on the basis of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon.

Those Epistles were not written by Saul/Paul. The only source to corroborate Paul in the NT is the author of Acts and there is no corroboration for the Pauline Corpus --None.

The authors of Acts claimed Paul Persecuted the Church and PREACHED Christ crucified throughout the Roman Empire but never stated anywhere that he wrote 13 Epistles to anyone or Church up to c 62 CE.

Your promotion of Chinese Whispers is completely unacceptable and counter-productive in the resolution of the History of the Jesus cult.

Early Pauline writings are Myths--early Paul is in fact Fake Paul.

The entire Pauline Corpus suffers from the same forgery problem as all the other books of the NT Canon--they are all late writings [after 70 CE] with fake authors posing as 1st century writers.

 

[Belz...]

It is virtually impossible for you to even suggest you know the real Paul if there was one when in the very NT there is zero corroboration that Paul wrote any letter to any person or Church.

And yet you have no trouble making suggestions for which you appear to be entirely certain.

 

[Craig B]

Those Epistles were not written by Saul/Paul ... The entire Pauline Corpus suffers from the same forgery problem as all the other books of the NT Canon--they are all late writings [after 70 CE] with fake authors posing as 1st century writers.

Tell me who forged these seven letters, when and why. You have been asked this many times. Repeated assertion is not evidence.

 

[Craig B]

... And I acknowledged that you didn't say that. I also explained why a fair-minded reader might infer that that was within the intended scope of what you did say. You know, just as Mark never says Jesus was Jewish, but it's hard for some of us to avoid reaching that conclusion.

Not at all, and that's no reason to put words in my mouth, that you acknowledge I have not uttered.

I have already commented on things like "insincere calculating shaman," as far as I am able. As to such matters as servicing more women than other men are allowed, yes, according to the Koran, it is Allah's will that Mohammed have more wives than other men, and as we know, Mohammed is Allah's messenger. Sincere or not, Mohammed must have noticed that that could work out rather nicely. He may be mistaken, but he ain't stupid.

Then the difference between Paul and Muhammad may not be that great, as regards the pecuniary, if not sexual rewards due to spiritual leaders. 1 Cor 9

3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

Admittedly, then goes on to claim

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

However, even if he did exercise that restraint, he regards such emoluments as his right. This is a commonplace among preachers, as you are surely aware.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

OK, six.

Craig B

Not at all, and that's no reason to put words in my mouth, that you acknowledge I have not uttered.

Words weren't put in your mouth, Craig. You said something very much like what you were described as saying. Subsequent dialog furnished you an opportunity to clarify your remarks, which you did. That would be a great place to leave it.

 

[Craig B]

Craig B

Words weren't put in your mouth, Craig. You said something very much like what you were described as saying. Subsequent dialog furnished you an opportunity to clarify your remarks, which you did. That would be a great place to leave it.

I raised it because I interpreted your words

... I acknowledged that you didn't say that. I also explained why a fair-minded reader might infer that that was within the intended scope of what you did say.

as implying that I hadn't made my position clear, but yes I'm happy with what you have written here. Thanks.

 

[dejudge]

Tell me who forged these seven letters, when and why. You have been asked this many times. Repeated assertion is not evidence.

Why don't you ask the Historians and Bible Scholars when and who forged Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, Colossians, 1&2 Timothy and Titus?

They will never answer or provide evidence.

I have answered your question and not only answer them but provided the supporting evidence.

I will answer you again.

1. Acts of the Apostles does NOT mention the Pauline Corpus.

2. c 50 CE Philo does not mention Paul.

3. Up to 95 CE Josephus does not mention Paul.

4. Up to c 110 CE Tacitus does not mention Paul

5. Up to c 115 CE Suetonius does not mention Paul.

6. Up to c 110 CE Pliny the younger did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus

7. Aristides c 117-138 CE did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

8. Justin c 138-161 CE did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

9. UP to c 179 CE Theophilus of Antioch did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

10. Up to c 180 CE, Athenagoras of Athens, did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

11. Origen admitted that Celsus did not mention Paul c 180 CE.

12. No Pauline letters have recovered and dated in the supposed time of Paul.

 

[pakeha]

... If I had to pick a single view of Paul's career, then I would go with something psychologically nuanced rather than consciously fraudulent. ...

You're probably right to say that, though "phoney shaman" does seem to meet the case, as far as I can tell.

 

[JaysonR]

Politician comes to mind in describing Paul.

 

[Craig B]

<snip incredible irrelevance and misdirection>.

Many plausible analyses of the origin of the pseudo Pauline epistles has been offered, and why they have been classified as such. Here is a résumé of this material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles. Now, all you do is tell me so and so didn't know Paul so Paul must be all forged. And if I prove that Paul is mentioned by so and so, you tell me that part of so and so's work is itself a forgery too. For all I know your posts have been forged! At all events, unless you say something new I will assume you have prepared a stock reply and just resend it by tapping your keyboard when the occasion arises. Merry Christmas.

 

[JaysonR]

And if I prove that Paul is mentioned by so and so, you tell me that part of so and so's work is itself a forgery too.

Or that it means that clearly the Pauline corpus copied so and so.

 

[Belz...]

Why don't you ask the Historians and Bible Scholars when and who forged Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, Colossians, 1&2 Timothy and Titus?

They will never answer or provide evidence.

Only you know best, right ?

The fact of the matter is, you have been unable to support the MJ scenario.

You lose.

 

[IanS]

Didn't you say you did ?

Oh, yeah you did:

Originally Posted by IanS
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.

In your last post in the other thread you just called me liar, an accusation which was, and which is, completely untrue. And now you are repeating same blatant untruths again here. What on earth is the point of you making silly childish posts like that. It just underlines again the entirely vacuous nature of your posts and the fact that you have no evidence to support your belief in Jesus.

What the above quote says, and what my immediately previous posts all spelt out, is that what’s required for Jesus is a least a few examples of the best type of evidence that we have for figures like Caesar … not examples of the “worst” type of evidence that people may sometimes claim for figures like Caesar, but at least a few examples of the best sort of evidence that we have for numerous figures like Caesar.

That means we don’t want any more claims of utterly useless so-called “evidence” such as the anonymous 4th century copyist gospel preaching from people who never knew Jesus and who could not name any informant who knew him either, nor the usual examples of 11th century Christian copies of authors such as Tacitus and Josephus who were not ever born at the relevant time of Jesus.

You don’t have any credible evidence of Jesus.

And your belief is based on the religious faith of 1st century ignorant superstitious Christianity.

 

[Belz...]

In your last post in the other thread you just called me liar, an accusation which was, and which is, completely untrue. And now you are repeating same blatant untruths again here. What on earth is the point of you making silly childish posts like that.

I pointed out that you did what you claimed not to have done. I don't see how that's childish.

It just underlines again the entirely vacuous nature of your posts and the fact that you have no evidence to support your belief in Jesus.

I don't have a belief in Jesus. That's another of your lies.

What the above quote says, and what my immediately previous posts all spelt out, is that what’s required for Jesus is a least a few examples of the best type of evidence that we have for figures like Caesar … not examples of the “worst” type of evidence that people may sometimes claim for figures like Caesar, but at least a few examples of the best sort of evidence that we have for numerous figures like Caesar.

You're proving my point.

You don’t have any credible evidence of Jesus.

I didn't claim that I had, but there is evidence, as I've told you before. So this is, again, a lie.

And your belief is based on the religious faith of 1st century ignorant superstitious Christianity.

Another lie. I have explained to you what my reasoning is. The posts are there for all to see.

 

[jhunter1163]

What the above quote says, and what my immediately previous posts all spelt out, is that what’s required for Jesus is a least a few examples of the best type of evidence that we have for figures like Caesar … not examples of the “worst” type of evidence that people may sometimes claim for figures like Caesar, but at least a few examples of the best sort of evidence that we have for numerous figures like Caesar.

And, as has been explained to you repeatedly, we don't expect to find the "best" kind of evidence for Jesus because a) he was not that important a figure in his time and b) espousing the Christian faith in those days was akin to signing one's own death warrant. Anyone creating a lasting monument to Christ before the time of Constantine would almost certainly find themselves on the business end of a Roman sword posthaste.

 

[IanS]

Well he did say the cult existed before he conv.... haven't we been through this before ?

Afaik - Paul does not say that any earlier cult worshipped a messiah named Yehoshua.

When Paul says that after his vision of the risen messiah he called Yehoshua (a theophoric name/word, apparently prophesised as far back as the time of Moses c.1000BC+), he came to share the beliefs of an earlier sect, he may well have just meant that he came to accept their apocalyptic view of the believed messiah. For example - since at least c.170BC in that same small region, the Essenes in their Dead Sea Scrolls had been preaching that same belief in which the anticipated messiah would bring warning of Yahweh's imminent "end times" ... much like Paul later came to preach.


That’s apart from the fact that we don’t know what Paul originally wrote (if he wrote anything at all), because all copies of Paul’s letters inc. all mention of the name Yehohsua, come centuries later from Christian religious copyists themselves.