Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

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.

Of course you have no evidence for any 1st century writings about Jesus.

Why can't you present the actual situation?

It is already known that there are NO 1st century manuscripts of the Jesus story so it would be very difficult to convince anyone that there is.

Please examine the registered list of NT manuscripts--they are all 2nd century or later--NONE from the 1st century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

 

[pipelineaudio]

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

I'm perfectly happy with this, and like in all other cases where we don't know, I don't assume something into existence

 

[davefoc]

...
Please examine the registered list of NT manuscripts--they are all 2nd century or later--NONE from the 1st century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

And of course Josephus didn't exist because all of his works were forged sometime in the tenth century because that is when the oldest Josephus manuscripts known to exist date from.

And Pliny the elder also seems not to have existed except in the imagination of some unknown 9th century CE hoaxer because that is when the earliest known copies of his work date from.

When historians discover what you've found out, the entire field of ancient history is going to be stood on end. Up to now historians have assumed when an earlier copy of something wasn't known it still might have existed. What a bunch of maroons huh? If only they had the analytical powers of dejudge to guide them.

 

[dejudge]

And of course Josephus didn't exist and because all of his works were forged sometime in the tenth century because that is when the oldest Josephus manuscripts known to exist date from.

Your statement is completely non-productive. I have not claimed Josephus did not exist.

You seem not to understand that the contents of the writings of Josephus are being questioned.

If there are only 10th century copies of Josephus then it is not really known what they contained in the 1st century since there is evidence that they were manipulated.

And Pliny the elder also seems not to have existed except in the imagination of some unknown 9th century CE hoaxer because that is when the earliest known copies of his work date from.

Again, you produce another unproductive post. I have not claimed Pliny the elder did not exist.

HJers are arguing that there were Christians in the 1st century yet have NO 1st century dated manuscripts.

When historians discover what you've found out, the entire field of ancient history is going to be stood on end. Up to now historians have assumed when an earlier copy of something wasn't known it still might have existed. What a bunch of maroons huh? If only they had the analytical powers of dejudge to guide them.

You are not really making much sense. You seem to have no idea that Scholars themselves have already deduced that even the NT and Non Apologetic writings are riddled with forgeries.

Do you understand that forgeries are deliberately fabricated to deceive?

The four Gospels of the NT are forgeries or falsely attributed to 1st century authors. This implies that the Gospels were most likely written LATER than the 1st century. The Pauline writings had perhaps seven different authors.

No Apologetic writing was immune from manipulation.

 

[davefoc]

Your statement is completely non-productive. I have not claimed Josephus did not exist.

...

Ah, I see I didn't quite understand the dejudge principle of historicity. Now I think I do.

If dejudge thinks somebody didn't exist then the earliest documents about that individual could have been written is constrained by the oldest version of those documents that have been found. But if dejudge thinks that somebody did exist then other methods can be used to determine the date that the original documents were written.

 

[Craig B]

... Again, you produce another unproductive post. I have not claimed Pliny the elder did not exist.
HJers are arguing that there were Christians in the 1st century yet have NO 1st century dated manuscripts.

Now this is absolutely crazy. Of the Elder Pliny there are a few fifth century fragments with the major texts much later. Of the NT we have second century fragments and a complete text from the fourth century. So how can you possibly accept Pliny in spite of the absence of first century texts and reject the NT on the grounds that there are no first century texts? It's nuts.

You are not really making much sense.

No comment.

 

[IanS]

RIght. IanS doesn't seem to like him either based on earlier posts.

I don’t really have a strong opinion on Carrier either way. And the only thing I have read from him is his book on Bayes Theorem, which to me seemed poorly written and labouring endlessly over what is actually a very simple arithmetic method of approximation.

The other off-putting thing about Carrier is that, in filmed talks he often seems incapable of avoiding quite a lot of swearing and scornful abuse of other peoples writing. And that seems rather childish and unhelpful.

He also seems never to miss an opportunity at self publicity, and never fails to stick his PhD qualification on his opening slides etc. Afaik, he is just someone who has a doctorate in some branch of ancient historical studies. That does not really make him an expert working academic historian specialising in any particular area of research. That’s fine, and I would not normally criticise anyone for that, but Carrier seems to be setting himself up as an expert academic in this field, where he frequently tries to denigrate anyone else who does not have a degree or PhD specifically in history or religious studies etc, eg afaik he is happy to aim that criticism at authors like GA Wells who imho is probably far better qualified as an academic, and certainly a far better academic writer, than Carrier.

None of that is a huge criticism of Carrier. Rather it’s just explaining the sort of reason why he would not necessarily be my first choice if I am looking for the most objective, educated, and careful academic writing on why Jesus may only be a mythical figure.

 

[IanS]

This 'genuine historian' stuff is just an extended ad hom, isn't it? As others have said, it also seems to rule out Carrier and Doherty, who at least have developed an MJ theory with some legs, rather than just snips and snipes.

If a greengrocer in deepest Surrey presents an interesting argument about HJ/MJ, I would listen to it; as also in fact, a vicar in deepest Surrey; or an atheist.

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?

Sure, I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I would read Wells, Ellegard or Helms, if I wanted a carefully researched and clearly written academic explanation of the problems with claims of evidence of a HJ.

But I think the context in which David Mo originally asked me to clarify what I meant when I had earlier used the phrase "genuine historian" is that I was asking for information or evidence from someone who was actually working as an academic university historian as opposed to people like Bart Ehrman and all the others who have been cited here, who are almost without exception all bible-studies lectures in bible-studies departments.

So it’s not any kind of “ad hom” as you put it. I’m just drawing a distinction between bible-studies lecturers and lectures in secular mainstream history departments. If I want to know what “historians” actually think is the historical evidence for Jesus, then I want to see what historians have written about it (ie people whose qualifications are in history and not in religious studies) and not the views of people teaching bibles studies where their qualifications and background are in religious studies.

 

[Brainache]

Sure, I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I would read Wells, Ellegard or Helms, if I wanted a carefully researched and clearly written academic explanation of the problems with claims of evidence of a HJ.

But I think the context in which David Mo originally asked me to clarify what I meant when I had earlier used the phrase "genuine historian" is that I was asking for information or evidence from someone who was actually working as an academic university historian as opposed to people like Bart Ehrman and all the others who have been cited here, who are almost without exception all bible-studies lectures in bible-studies departments.

So it’s not any kind of “ad hom” as you put it. I’m just drawing a distinction between bible-studies lecturers and lectures in secular mainstream history departments. If I want to know what “historians” actually think is the historical evidence for Jesus, then I want to see what historians have written about it (ie people whose qualifications are in history and not in religious studies) and not the views of people teaching bibles studies where their qualifications and background are in religious studies.

Here ya go:
http://www.roberteisenman.com/

http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/robin-lane-fox

And you can ask yourself just how biased in favour of Jesus the Jews are:

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

 

[dejudge]

Ah, I see I didn't quite understand the dejudge principle of historicity. Now I think I do.

If dejudge thinks somebody didn't exist then the earliest documents about that individual could have been written is constrained by the oldest version of those documents that have been found. But if dejudge thinks that somebody did exist then other methods can be used to determine the date that the original documents were written.

Again, you produce another unproductive post. Do you not understand that the NT has been deduced by Scholars to be riddled with forgeries or falsely attributed writings?

Do you know that Scholars have deduced that at least 19 books in the NT are forgeries or falsely attributed writings?

Read Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" page 181-182

You seem to have no idea that none of the authors of the books of the NT have ever been found in any non-apologetic writings.

You seem to have no idea that Jesus of Nazareth, the 12 disciples and Paul, the main characters in the NT, are unknown outside of apologetics.

You need to read Origen's "Against Celsus" and you will see that Celsus "True Discourse" did not mention any Gospels identified as according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and did NOT know of was not influenced by Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

Origen's "Against Celsus" corroborates the writings attributed to Justin Martyr---up to c 180 CE there were no Gospels identified as according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus were not yet composed.

 

[Craig B]

Origen's "Against Celsus" corroborates the writings attributed to Justin Martyr---up to c 180 CE there were no Gospels identified as according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus were not yet composed.

That's not clear. Are you saying the gospels had not been named, but did exist in some form at least; while Acts and the Pauline Corpus existed in no form whatsoever until c 180, whereupon they were entirely forged from the imagination of falsifiers and written on blank sheets? This applies also to the non-Pauline epistles, and to Revelation, I think you maintain.

 

[dejudge]

Here ya go:
http://www.roberteisenman.com/

http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/robin-lane-fox

And you can ask yourself just how biased in favour of Jesus the Jews are:

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

It is most fascinating that you actually provided a link that openly contradicts your claim of consensus.

Robert Eiseman actually stated the no-one has been able to solve the question of the historical Jesus. In fact, he also claimed the subject is very controversial.

 

[dejudge]

That's not clear. Are you saying the gospels had not been named, but did exist in some form at least; while Acts and the Pauline Corpus existed in no form whatsoever until c 180, whereupon they were entirely forged from the imagination of falsifiers and written on blank sheets? This applies also to the non-Pauline epistles, and to Revelation, I think you maintain.

Why don't you read "Against Celsus"? You will see that Celsus NEVER identified any Gospel as written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and NEVER referred to any passages or events in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

This is precisely what is also found in writings attributed to Justin Martyr--No named Gospel and nothing about Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

It was Origen, supposedly writing in the mid-3rd century, who assumed Celsus used Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Origen also admitted that Celsus wrote NOTHING about Paul.

Origen's Against Celsus 1

And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.

I know how Justin Martyr, a Christian, and Celsus a non-Christian, should have forgotten or not thought of saying something about Paul.

Up to c 180 CE, Paul and the Pauline Corpus was unknown by Christians and non-Christian writers.

 

[maximara]

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.

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...

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

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.

This was the point Resmburg made over hundred years ago:

"That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written."

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.

Again we run into the misuse of the word "myth"; it does NOT mean fictional story but rather traditional story believed to be true. A myth can be historical in nature with the narrative nearly true or the narrative effectively fictional.

Christopher Columbus sailing West to prove the world was round is a myth toward the narrative nearly true end of the spectrum while the stories of Robin Hood and King Arthur are myths on the narrative effectively fictional end of the spectrum.

If the Gospels are on the Robin Hood and King Arthur end of the historical myth spectrum that means they may tell us nothing about a HJ. The details to time and place and even manner of his life and death could be totally fictional...an effort to take many oral stories of several would be messiahs and fit them into Paul's account.

 

[dejudge]

Again we run into the misuse of the word "myth"; it does NOT mean fictional story but rather traditional story believed to be true. A myth can be historical in nature with the narrative nearly true or the narrative effectively fictional.

Myths can be entirely fictional like Romulus, the Myth founder of Rome and Adam and Eve the first human Myth beings.

There are hundreds of entirely fictional myth characters in Jewish, Roman, Greek and Egyptian Mythology.

All myth characters have one thing in common---NO actual history.

Jesus is one of them Myths--No actual history.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

Could you point to anyone saying "we have tons of proof"?

I haven't seen anyone argue that there is any certainty regarding the identity, or even existence, of an historical Jesus. The position that's been presented is that it's quite plausible that there was an historical personage who was mythologized by his religious followers and subsequent generations of believers. It is also possible that Jesus was entirely mythical, but this hypothesis is less parsimonious than the historical Jesus hypothesis. But even so, the best we can say about an historical Jesus is very minimalistic: He seems to have been an itinerant preacher, most likely from the Jewish apocalyptic movement, who attracted the attention of the Roman authority under Pontius Pilatus and was executed for sedition. This scenario fits with the apocalyptic sayings attributed to Jesus by various authors, and it explains why the narratives about Jesus depict him being executed by the Romans. It would be wonderful to have some contemporaneous reference to Jesus' life and identity, even just a list of names on a Roman account of executed criminals including, "Jesus of Nazareth - High Treason". But we don't have anything of the sort, not only owing to the remote history and rarity of ancient texts, but due to the virtually total destruction of any official records during the 1st Jewish-Roman war. So all we have are the religious writings that Christians were producing in the decades after Jesus is said to have been executed.

No one that I've seen in this thread has said that an historical Jesus is a certainty. What has been disputed most has been the claim that Jesus was certainly mythical. And even then, it isn't the possibility that Jesus could have been entirely mythical that has been objected to, but rather the fallacious nature of the arguments employed. I have no problem attributing a measure of probability to the mythical Jesus scenario, but when someone claims that Jesus has to have been mythical by employing appallingly bad arguments, like, "They said he performed miracles", or, "There are no surviving texts from the 1st Century", or, "Nobody famous referenced him during his life", then I have to point out that those are not valid arguments. It doesn't mean that I'm arguing the opposite, that Jesus was therefor historical. It just means that I'm pointing out that the arguments being presented against Jesus' historicity are, in this case, fallacious.

 

[Craig B]

<snip>

Are you agreeing with my post or not?

 

[dejudge]

Could you point to anyone saying "we have tons of proof"?

I haven't seen anyone argue that there is any certainty regarding the identity, or even existence, of an historical Jesus. The position that's been presented is that it's quite plausible that there was an historical personage who was mythologized by his religious followers and subsequent generations of believers. It is also possible that Jesus was entirely mythical, but this hypothesis is less parsimonious than the historical Jesus hypothesis. But even so, the best we can say about an historical Jesus is very minimalistic: He seems to have been an itinerant preacher, most likely from the Jewish apocalyptic movement, who attracted the attention of the Roman authority under Pontius Pilatus and was executed for sedition.

It is already known that there are TWO arguments:

1. It is likely that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

2. It is likely that Jesus was a figure of history.

You are clearly arguing that Jesus was likely a figure of history but will not ever present the supporting history.

You are using the very same books of Mythology that support myth Jesus from conception to Ascension.

It is already known that all you have are two pieces of forgeries or questionable sources which either have been rejected by Apologetics or was unknown for hundreds of years.

HJers DENY that their Jesus was the Christ so it makes no sense whatsoever to even consider using forgeries or questionable sources with a character called Christ for a little known preacher.

Your little know rabbi is unknown. Your little known preacher has no history in or out the Bible.

The HJ argument for the little known preacher can be dimissed as a "fishing expedition".

 

[zugzwang]

Could you point to anyone saying "we have tons of proof"?

I haven't seen anyone argue that there is any certainty regarding the identity, or even existence, of an historical Jesus. The position that's been presented is that it's quite plausible that there was an historical personage who was mythologized by his religious followers and subsequent generations of believers. It is also possible that Jesus was entirely mythical, but this hypothesis is less parsimonious than the historical Jesus hypothesis. But even so, the best we can say about an historical Jesus is very minimalistic: He seems to have been an itinerant preacher, most likely from the Jewish apocalyptic movement, who attracted the attention of the Roman authority under Pontius Pilatus and was executed for sedition. This scenario fits with the apocalyptic sayings attributed to Jesus by various authors, and it explains why the narratives about Jesus depict him being executed by the Romans. It would be wonderful to have some contemporaneous reference to Jesus' life and identity, even just a list of names on a Roman account of executed criminals including, "Jesus of Nazareth - High Treason". But we don't have anything of the sort, not only owing to the remote history and rarity of ancient texts, but due to the virtually total destruction of any official records during the 1st Jewish-Roman war. So all we have are the religious writings that Christians were producing in the decades after Jesus is said to have been executed.

No one that I've seen in this thread has said that an historical Jesus is a certainty. What has been disputed most has been the claim that Jesus was certainly mythical. And even then, it isn't the possibility that Jesus could have been entirely mythical that has been objected to, but rather the fallacious nature of the arguments employed. I have no problem attributing a measure of probability to the mythical Jesus scenario, but when someone claims that Jesus has to have been mythical by employing appallingly bad arguments, like, "They said he performed miracles", or, "There are no surviving texts from the 1st Century", or, "Nobody famous referenced him during his life", then I have to point out that those are not valid arguments. It doesn't mean that I'm arguing the opposite, that Jesus was therefor historical. It just means that I'm pointing out that the arguments being presented against Jesus' historicity are, in this case, fallacious.

A sensible post. I wonder what are the positive arguments for MJ? As you say, arguments of the form, 'Jesus is described as doing miracles, therefore he is mythical' are beyond inane, and I'm not sure anyone says anything so absurd.

I suppose if you negate HJ, you might then conclude that MJ is correct, but that seems a bit fuzzy.

Then there is the Doherty stuff, that Jesus is actually described as a celestial figure in some places, e.g. as a pre-existent deity who created the world, and as the Logos.

But this can be assimilated into HJ quite easily, if one accepts the 'standard trajectory' - Jewish charismatic preacher, to whom miracles are ascribed (in the normal Jewish manner), then becomes subject to a Hellenistic divinization, after death.

But Stone did point out a while ago, that some early textual layers may point to an early divine Jesus, which seems unpalatable in Judaism, so that complicates matters, if correct.

 

[dejudge]

A sensible post. I wonder what are the positive arguments for MJ? As you say, arguments of the form, 'Jesus is described as doing miracles, therefore he is mythical' are beyond inane, and I'm not sure anyone says anything so absurd.

The argument that Jesus was a figure of history although there is no known history and using books of mythology is extremely illogical.

Jesus is actually described by the Church and Apologetics--the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator.

The God of the Jews is considered a Myth and he too was God Creator.

Romulus is a considered a Myth and he too was the Son of God.

Adam is considered a Myth and he was a mere man.

Jesus of Nazareth is God Creator, the Son of God and also a man..

Jesus is a purer myth than God, Romulus and Adam.

Jesus is THREE Myths in ONE.

Jesus is the TRINTY of Mythology.