Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Roger Ramjets]

For me the magical woo has never been a deciding point

I think we can all agree that the magical woo woo is not in any way evidence for an HJ. So we can immediately discard it, and see what's left.

my issues with the Jesus story are NOT on the supernatural stuff but on the nonsupernatural elements... It is when the non mythical parts of the Jesus story don't fit with history as we know it that we can say that something here doesn't add up...

Yes, we see that the non-woo is no more reliable than the woo. In short, everything written about Jesus in the Bible is probably myth.

So we can't rely on the Bible to tell us anything about HJ. But that doesn't mean he didn't exist. We just need reliable evidence from another source...

and yet not one known contemporary of Jesus writes anything about him. In fact, no Churchman even mentioned anything regarding the actual account in the Gospels until 130 CE.

That is troubling. Surely a person of such fame and influence must have gotten at least some mention in the contemporary record? No?

No one of these points is a major deciding point but taken together they suggest that if Jesus did exist he was a short lived preacher who exploits were wildly exaggerated many decades latter.

And there you have it. An HJ who 'must' have existed because someone was responsible for getting Christianity rolling. But of that someone, we know nothing.

Yet, the fact that we know nothing about this HJ - perhaps cannot know anything about him - in no way indicates that he was mere myth.

Just like all the extant writings about Sherlock Holmes are undoubtedly myth, but that doesn't mean the man himself didn't exist. I mean, someone must have been the inspiration for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, right? That someone - even if we know nothing about him - was the HSH... and no serious scholar would ever suggest otherwise.

 

[Brainache]

IIRC that is mainly DeJudge thinking. For me the magical woo has never been a deciding point and I even gave the example of Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn as an example of a known historical person being used in a fantastical impossible story. In fact I pointed out that my issues with the Jesus story are NOT on the supernatural stuff but on the nonsupernatural elements (If we are to reject Jesus as having any historical basis we must do NOT just on the merits of the fantastical things attributed to him. It is when the non mythical parts of the Jesus story don't fit with history as we know it that we can say that something here doesn't add up.):

1) Matthew describes Herod going on a child killing rampage about 2 years after Jesus parents have gone to Egypt while Luke expressly states they went to temple every year. No one else talks about Herod going on a child killing rampage.

This isn't about Jesus. It's propaganda against that nasty King Herod who killed his own kids.

2) The scope of Luke's census anachronistic...the closest census of that scope was in 74 CE. The moving around of people of a census makes little sense from a logistic matter.

The Census was the birth of the Zealot movement. It was what spurred Judas The Galilean (grandfather or father of someone called "Menahem"), into action.

This movement continued to grow until the revolt against Rome.

3) The Sanhedrin trial account is totally at odds with the records on how that court actually operated in the 1st century.

Not surprising as it is a piece of anti-semitic nonsense inserted to blame the Jews.

4) Pontius Pilate is totally out of character based on other accounts. Moreover it is never really explained in the Bible why if Jesus' only crime was blasphemy why Pilate would need to be involved. If Jesus crime has been sedition then there would be no reason for Pilate to involve Herod Antipas.

Exactly. The Gospels try to make the Pilate innocent and blame the Jews.

5) Jesus preaches in the open so there is no need for the whole Judus betrayal. Some one mentioned an account where Pilate sent soldiers into a group causing problems and on a prearraigned signal the soldiers started killing them until the group disbursed.

More anti-Jew, or specifically anti-Zealot in the case of "The Iscariot". IMO.

6) The crucified were left to rot as a warning to others unless there was intervention on the behalf of an important person per The Life Of Flavius Josephus (75)

Not always. I'll find a quote if you like, I'm pretty sure it's Josephus too.

7) Given Jesus short time on the cross and reports of him being out an about after word certainly the Roman might have wondered if they had been tricked yet there is nothing in the reports of the Romans acting in this matter. Carrier describe how the Romans would have handled the situation and it is totally at odds with the account in Acts.

I think a lot of Acts is deliberate lies, particularly the first 11 or 12 chapters.

8) the Roman Empire was the most literate in the ancient world ("no one, either free or slave, could afford to be illiterate" (Di Renzo, A (2000) “His master's voice: Tiro and the rise of the roman secretarial class,” Journal of technical writing and communication, vol. 30, (2) 155-168)) and yet not one known contemporary of Jesus writes anything about him. In fact, no Churchman even mentioned anything regarding the actual account in the Gospels until 130 CE. Paul who supposedly met Jesus' brother give us no real details in the seven letters agreed to be his-rather they are the same vague broad outlines we see for John Frum who likely started out as an idea rather then a person.

His cult were dedicated to secrecy. It was all Pliny could do to get them to talk without killing them. You think that 70 years prior to Pliny people would have been gossipping about Jesus all over the place? I don't.

No one of these points is a major deciding point but taken together they suggest that if Jesus did exist he was a short lived preacher who exploits were wildly exaggerated many decades latter.

I don't think they do suggest that particularly, but I do agree with the conclusion.

 

[pakeha]

...It's true that professional historians have access to stuff which we don't, such as the latest research, extensive publications, and of course, training in various aspects of historical method, and hardly any of us have that - so should we all just shut up?

Nah.
I see your point about the training, though and I'd go further and mention peer review as a dividing factor between an amateur's musings and a scholar's considerations.

Still, sooner or later, things filter to the public arena, don't they.

 

[maximara]

His cult were dedicated to secrecy. It was all Pliny could do to get them to talk without killing them. You think that 70 years prior to Pliny people would have been gossipping about Jesus all over the place? I don't.

Actually we don't know that the Christians was dedicated to secrecy. Also Pliny seems to have had a reasonable time talking to them:

"Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome. "

Note Trajan's reply:

"You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."

You would think a movement whose leader may have preached sedition would be hunted down and eliminated for fear it would cause problems. In fact, Pliny states they "bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." IIRC there was something in Roman law where Jews were not punished for not worshiping the Emperor...something that is one of Pliny's tests for seeing if an accused in NOT a Christian. The annoying thing is Pliny doesn't explain why there is so much concern regarding Christians by Roman officials.

 

[Brainache]

Actually we don't know that the Christians was dedicated to secrecy. Also Pliny seems to have had a reasonable time talking to them:

"Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome. "

Note Trajan's reply:

"You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."

You would think a movement whose leader may have preached sedition would be hunted down and eliminated for fear it would cause problems. In fact, Pliny states they "bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." IIRC there was something in Roman law where Jews were not punished for not worshiping the Emperor...something that is one of Pliny's tests for seeing if an accused in NOT a Christian. The annoying thing is Pliny doesn't explain why there is so much concern regarding Christians by Roman officials.

These are Pauline Christians, of the approved (well, not actively persecuted most of the time) Roman variety, not the Zealous Jewish sort who gave Vespasian so much trouble 50 years prior.

But you were right about Pliny. The torture was to get them to denounce Christ or worship the Emperor or something, not divulge whether they were Christian or not. I think I must have invented that.

 

[dejudge]

IIRC that is mainly DeJudge thinking. For me the magical woo has never been a deciding point and I even gave the example of Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn as an example of a known historical person being used in a fantastical impossible story.

You mis-represent my position.

The deciding factor me is that there is NO history of Jesus of Nazareth.

Let me repeat it.

The deciding factor for me is that Jesus of Nazareth is ALL MYTH and NO HISTORY.

I expect that there would be WOO--WOO and HISTORY for Jesus of Nazareth if he did live.

There is NO history for the character in the NT called Jesus of Nazareth--ONLY WOO-WOO

I can find John the Baptist OUTSIDE the NT and Apologetics.

I can find Pontius Pilate OUTSIDE the NT and Apologetics.

I can find King Herod the Great OUTSIDE the NT and Apologetics.

I can find Caiaphas the High Priest OUTSIDE the NT and Apologetics.

I can find Tiberius the Emperor OUTSIDE the NT and Apologetics.

I cannot find the MAIN CHARACTERS in the NT--Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul OUTSIDE the NT and Apologetics.

They completely vanished into thin air leaving all Woo--Woo.

I simply cannot accept Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul as figures of history with ONLY WOO--WOO.

A real figure of history is expected to have some WOO--WOO and some History.

Figures of Mythology typically have ALL Woo--Woo and NO history.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul PERFECTLY Match figures of Mythology--all Woo--Woo and No history.

There is all Woo--Woo and No history for the Myth characters called the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, Perseus and Romulus.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul PERFECTLY match those Myths---ALL Woo-Woo and No history.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Let me warn you again--do not take the NT at face value--it is riddled with historical problems, discrepancies and events that could not have happened.

And let me remind you again that the same holds true for the Mormon account of how Joseph Smith came to reveal "God's true message". The same holds true for North Korean accounts of its "history". The same can be said for the accounts of the miraculous healings performed by the likes of W. V. Grant, Peter Popoff, Pat Robertson and Anjezë Bojaxhiu.

So just repeating that Jesus has to have been entirely mythical because Christian accounts of Jesus contain fabrications of magical events is a stupid argument at this point. The only question is whether you are genuinely incapable of understanding why your "argument" fails, or whether you simply enjoy disagreement so much that you are willing to employ any argument, however asinine, as long as it generates the conflict you seek.

 

[Belz...]

And let me remind you again that the same holds true for the Mormon account of how Joseph Smith came to reveal "God's true message". The same holds true for North Korean accounts of its "history". The same can be said for the accounts of the miraculous healings performed by the likes of W. V. Grant, Peter Popoff, Pat Robertson and Anjezë Bojaxhiu.

It seems that drilling this point into an ivory tower is an exercise in futility.

 

[dejudge]

And let me remind you again that the same holds true for the Mormon account of how Joseph Smith came to reveal "God's true message". The same holds true for North Korean accounts of its "history". The same can be said for the accounts of the miraculous healings performed by the likes of W. V. Grant, Peter Popoff, Pat Robertson and Anjezë Bojaxhiu.

Your fallacious argument has already been debunked.

Joseph Smith, W. V. Grant, Peter Popoff, Pat Robertson and Anjezë Bojaxhiu have WOO--WOO and HISTORY--Jesus Christ have ALL WOO-WOO and NO history.

Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus Christ and the Angel Moroni in the Mormon Bible. It was NOT Jesus Christ and the Angel Moroni who physically started the Mormon religion it was Joseph Smith.

It is the very same thing with the Jesus cult. It is the authors of the Jesus story who most likely started the Jesus cult NOT the Son of the Ghost or the Angel Gabriel.

In the very NT itself, the resurrected Son of the Ghost had ALREADY ascended to heaven BEFORE the Gospel of Salvation by the resurrection was preached.

Do you not even understand that in the Bible itself it was AFTER the Son of the Ghost was DEAD and Resurrected that he TALKED to his disciples about preaching the Gospel to the Whole World?


Mark 16

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat , and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen . 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Even if Jesus did live, he did NOT start the preaching of Salvation by his future crucifixion and resurrection.

The preaching of Salvation by the Crucifixion and Resurrection happened AFTER Jesus was dead in the Gospels.

Jesus MUST DIE and MUST Resurrect in the Bible BEFORE the preaching of the Gospel of Salvation by his crucifixion and resurrection.

Jesus in the NT could NOT be like Joseph Smith.

JESUS must be dead, RESURRECTED and must NOT be on earth in order for the preaching of Salvation by the crucifixion and resurrection.

Joseph Smith MUST be on earth, alive and LITERATE to write the Mormon Bible and physically start the New Religion.


Jesus of the NT wrote NOTHING before and after his resurrection.


John 16:7 KJV

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away : for if I go not away , the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart , I will send him unto you

John 15:26 KJV

But when the Comforter is come , whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me..

 

[pipelineaudio]

So with 50 something pages of dancing around in this and so many other threads, with hundreds of handwavings away of "we have tons of proof in this or that thread" talk, it comes down to what IanS and others claimed all along:

Your evidence for the HJ IS the bible

Spin it anyway you like, but at least you admitted it. It didnt take all that handwaving and obfuscation

 

[Craig B]

So with 50 something pages of dancing around in this and so many other threads, with hundreds of handwavings away of "we have tons of proof in this or that thread" talk, it comes down to what IanS and others claimed all along:

Your evidence for the HJ IS the bible

Spin it anyway you like, but at least you admitted it. It didnt take all that handwaving and obfuscation

And your conclusion from that? What is there about "the bible" that inclines most scholars to admit the existence of an HJ?

 

[dejudge]

So with 50 something pages of dancing around in this and so many other threads, with hundreds of handwavings away of "we have tons of proof in this or that thread" talk, it comes down to what IanS and others claimed all along:

Your evidence for the HJ IS the bible

Spin it anyway you like, but at least you admitted it. It didnt take all that handwaving and obfuscation

That is precisely the situation. Without the Bible there can be no argument for an Historical Jesus but the Bible clearly states Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost and a virgin and was God Creator.

There is NO corroborative non-apologetic source for an HJ.

Christian writers have already DENIED that James was the brother of Jesus called Christ.

HJers have already DENIED their HJ was the Christ.

HJ is unknown outside the Bible.

HJ and MJ have the same time of birth and death.

HJ and MJ was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate at the same time.

HJ and MJ are the same MYTH DUCKS.


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

The term Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus of Nazareth,[3][4][5] based on historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography....

 

[The Norseman]

And let me remind you again that the same holds true for the Mormon account of how Joseph Smith came to reveal "God's true message". The same holds true for North Korean accounts of its "history". The same can be said for the accounts of the miraculous healings performed by the likes of W. V. Grant, Peter Popoff, Pat Robertson and Anjezë Bojaxhiu.

So just repeating that Jesus has to have been entirely mythical because Christian accounts of Jesus contain fabrications of magical events is a stupid argument at this point. The only question is whether you are genuinely incapable of understanding why your "argument" fails, or whether you simply enjoy disagreement so much that you are willing to employ any argument, however asinine, as long as it generates the conflict you seek.

I think you're still missing it. The argument made (by others, perhaps not dejudge) is that it's fabrications of magical events in addition to the fact that any mundane stories are unverifiable. We either cannot verify the stories, or when we can, they make no sense or are not true to the history we do know.

That's why, to me, a mythical Jesus is plausible.

ETA: At least, that's one reason. Another reason is the euhemerization of Jesus -- Jesus matches other mythical figures quite closely, for example.

 

[Brainache]

So with 50 something pages of dancing around in this and so many other threads, with hundreds of handwavings away of "we have tons of proof in this or that thread" talk, it comes down to what IanS and others claimed all along:

Your evidence for the HJ IS the bible

Spin it anyway you like, but at least you admitted it. It didnt take all that handwaving and obfuscation

Plus all of the other Ante-Nicene Christian writings, don't forget that.

https://archive.org/details/antenicenechrist00robeuoft

 

[pipelineaudio]

Plus all of the other Ante-Nicene Christian writings, don't forget that.

https://archive.org/details/antenicenechrist00robeuoft

When were those written?

 

[Brainache]

When were those written?

1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries.

There is a lot of stuff that didn't make it into the Bible. Some of that stuff can shed light on editorial changes that were made to the NT.

It can take a very long time to get your head around it all, just saying "it's all fake!", is easy.

 

[Belz...]

So with 50 something pages of dancing around in this and so many other threads, with hundreds of handwavings away of "we have tons of proof in this or that thread" talk, it comes down to what IanS and others claimed all along:

Your evidence for the HJ IS the bible

Spin it anyway you like, but at least you admitted it. It didnt take all that handwaving and obfuscation

This brings up the very real possibility that you didn't read either of those threads, because this claim has been addressed multiple times.

 

[davefoc]

This brings up the very real possibility that you didn't read either of those threads, because this claim has been addressed multiple times.

Yes, but in fairness, even if you accept the standard dates for stuff there is no documentation or discussion of an HJ before the writings of Paul which are usually dated to begin about twenty years after the death of the hypothetical HJ.

The earliest work that has a possibly reliable attribution is 1 Clement that is dated 80-140 CE.

Writings that have come down to us with any kind of reliable provenance probably date not much earlier than 100 CE and even then all that is available is reconstructions based on later authors quotations from these works.

I understand that some people in this thread think that some kind of truth about the HJ might be found in the Gospels. I agree there might be some truth in them but I don't see a process to reliably identify it. They are unreliable for all the reasons that have been noted many times in this thread and others.

So there is a gap in time between the HJ and Paul and then there is another substantive gap between Paul's writings and Christian writings with a provenance that might be correct.

I think the truth about this is a truth that nobody in this thread seems to be particularly happy with: We just don't friggin know. Without facts to narrow the speculation, HJ theories will continue to range all over the place. Because confirmation bias is such a huge driver of the human thought process there will be strong advocates for every view. All that is necessary is something that tips the individual's ideas in a particular direction and all of a sudden every ambiguous clue will be seen to suggest the probability of his particular theory.

The thing that I have found annoying about this whole subject is that there are so many clues that look like they might provide significant insight into the question but on further inspection the reliability of the clues is suspect and the significance of the clues even if they were true is debatable and every attempt (at least for me) to try to find some hard truth is thwarted by the ambiguity and unreliability of the information.

ETA: I didn't mean for this post to be a spring board for a Josephus discussion. If somebody believes that there is reliable information in Josephus then it is fair to say there was something written earlier than 100 CE that referenced the HJ.

 

[dejudge]

It's true that professional historians have access to stuff which we don't, such as the latest research, extensive publications, and of course, training in various aspects of historical method, and hardly any of us have that - so should we all just shut up?

These forums were not set up for us to shut up unless there is no evidence to support your claims.

If professional historians have access to the latest research, and extensive publications who come that up to now HJers still only use the same two forgeries found in Tacitus and Josephus?

 

[dejudge]

Yes, but in fairness, even if you accept the standard dates for stuff there is no documentation or discussion of an HJ before the writings of Paul which are usually dated to begin about twenty years after the death of the hypothetical HJ.

The Pauline writers do not discuss an HJ. The Pauline writers discuss a Myth character called the Son of God, and God Creator.

When Jews, Romans and Greek talk about the activities of Gods they are not discussing history.

The earliest work that has a possibly reliable attribution is 1 Clement that is dated 80-140 CE.

Where do you get your information that Clement is a reliable source?

There is not even any letter which is authored by Clement. The Clement letter is actually ANONYMOUS but was attributed to Clement.

The Church writers do not even know when Clement was really Bishop of Rome.


Clement's First Epistle is indeed a forgery written no earlier than the end of the 4th century.

Writings that have come down to us with any kind of reliable provenance probably date not much earlier than 100 CE and even then all that is available is reconstructions based on later authors quotations from these works.

Where do you get your information about reliable provenance?

There is no provenance of any apologetic writings up to 100 CE.

Please name the provenance manuscripts up to 100 CE?

I think the truth about this is a truth that nobody in this thread seems to be particularly happy with: We just don't friggin know.

Your statement is illogical. You put forward the absurd notion that whatever you don't KNOW about the Jesus story that no-one else knows.

.