Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Foster Zygote]

Why did you edit out the second paragraph? Are you unable to address the points raised therein?

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

Several people have pointed out elements of the Jesus narratives that are compatible with an historical Jesus, including Paul's awkward explanation of why his readers should believe him rather than those who actually knew Jesus, and the Roman execution of their "prophet of peace, love paying taxes". You've simple chosen to ignore all these points because, to you, admitting error is "losing".

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

What would you suggest we use? The Early Christian writings are virtually all we have. We come in late to the Christian narrative. Our earliest accounts are from a time when Jesus has been dead for decades, at least, and Christianity is already fragmenting into different groups, as well as beginning to split away from Judaism proper. The question is: what started it all? Jesus may have been a myth created by Paul, but it is also reasonable to propose the possibility that there was an historical Jesus.

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.

As already mentioned to you, the majority of historians consider those non-Christian references to be reliable. Your refusal to abandon erroneous arguments demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.

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.

I've asked you a few times now to explain that argument to us, because what you seem to be saying is ludicrous. Are you able to extrapolate your point for us?

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

Your mistake is assuming that this proves that no historical Jesus ever existed.

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

Actually, it can be described as legitimate speculation, based on observed social phenomena, in the interest of proposing a plausible explanation for an aspect of human history. As I mentioned a long time ago, sometimes educated people have to admit that the best we can do is narrow down the possibilities to the most likely scenarios, without claiming epistemological certainty of any one explanation.

Your mythical Jesus argument can be summed up as a pretentious attempt to appear intellectual by making an unsupported claim to certainty based on utterly ridiculous arguments.

Or maybe you'd like to have another go at explaining why it is not possible that a Jewish preacher was executed and then mythologized by his followers and subsequent generations of spiritualists. I don't think you can do it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Sadly, dejudge has offered just that argument repeatedly.

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.

Which textual layers are those? I'm not being confrontational, I'm just genuinely curious.

There are examples of apocalyptic writings that portray a messiah as a person granted astonishing supernatural powers by God, such as destroying whole armies with fire from his mouth. It seems to me that it is one thing to say that someone is given god-like powers as a tool of God, and another to proclaim someone as divine.

 

[zugzwang]

Sadly, dejudge has offered just that argument repeatedly.


Which textual layers are those? I'm not being confrontational, I'm just genuinely curious.

There are examples of apocalyptic writings that portray a messiah as a person granted astonishing supernatural powers by God, such as destroying whole armies with fire from his mouth. It seems to me that it is one thing to say that someone is given god-like powers as a tool of God, and another to proclaim someone as divine.

I'm a bit rushed right now, but I will look for Stone's post later. Yes, good points about 'tool of God'. In fact, these terms like 'son of God', 'son of man', and messiah all apply to humans in Judaism; indeed, the idea of a divine man would horrify Jews then and now, I think. So presumably there is some kind of Hellenistic process at work later, towards Logos and so on.

 

[Craig B]

I'm a bit rushed right now, but I will look for Stone's post later. Yes, good points about 'tool of God'. In fact, these terms like 'son of God', 'son of man', and messiah all apply to humans in Judaism; indeed, the idea of a divine man would horrify Jews then and now, I think. So presumably there is some kind of Hellenistic process at work later, towards Logos and so on.

Yes. It's the "earlier" bit that's interesting, if you can direct us to it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm a bit rushed right now, but I will look for Stone's post later. Yes, good points about 'tool of God'. In fact, these terms like 'son of God', 'son of man', and messiah all apply to humans in Judaism; indeed, the idea of a divine man would horrify Jews then and now, I think. So presumably there is some kind of Hellenistic process at work later, towards Logos and so on.

Yes. The idea of a divine Jesus would be blasphemous to religious Jews, but to people coming from a more Hellenic background, the idea of heros who were part divine was de rigueur. I even wonder of the passing down of Jewish references to Jesus as a "son of God" were interpreted in an entirely different context by later pagan converts to Christianity, contributing to the eventual deification of Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

Sadly, dejudge has offered just that argument repeatedly.

Your claim is knowingly false. Why can't you repeat what I wrote?

I have repeated that Jesus of the NT is Myth --ALL Woo-Woo and NO history.

Jesus of the NT is Myth just like the God of the Jews--All Woo-Woo and No History.

Jesus of the NT is Myth just like the Angel Gabriel--All Woo-Woo and No History.

Jesus of the NT is Myth just like Satan the Devil--All Woo--Woo and NO History.

Jesus of the NT is Myth just like Adam--All Woo--Woo and No history.

Jesus of the NT is Myth just like Romulus--All Woo-Woo and No history

 

[Craig B]

I even wonder of the passing down of Jewish references to Jesus as a "son of God" were interpreted in an entirely different context by later pagan converts to Christianity, contributing to the eventual deification of Jesus.

Surely you're right about that! When Jews heard "Son of God" they would have been reminded of David or Solomon. When pagans heard it they thought of Hercules or Alexander.

 

[IanS]

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

Indeed. In fact “know” is the wrong word anyway, because we can’t actually “know” anything as a matter of the certainty a word like “know” implies. And that’s why it’s a matter of evidence. And that does not mean just anything at all that is claimed to be “evidence” of various things. It means (if it means anything useful and genuine at all), evidence which is reliable and credible in showing that Jesus was probably a living human figure.

And whilst there actually is no such reliable and credible evidence in the biblical writing about Jesus, there is of course plenty of very good and quite irrefutable evidence to show why the biblical writing about Jesus is neither reliable nor credible.

Does that mean we should conclude that Jesus did not exist? Well I think that must be a matter for individual personal decision as to whether anyone wants to say that. I would not make a blank statement saying I don‘t believe he existed, because apart from anything else, I think it’s unnecessary to say that (because it requires unnecessary guessing). But I think it does mean, on all known evidence, that the biblical story is highly suspect (and there is actually no other story of Jesus except for that biblical story).

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your claim is knowingly false. Why can't you repeat what I wrote?

You've repeated your objection that the Bible portrays Jesus as the "Son of a Ghost and God Creator" many times. You've made manifold references to depictions of Jesus as a magical being, and always in reference to your claims that he can't have had any historicity. You are either being dishonest, or you are so inept at articulating your arguments that you don't know how to say what you mean.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Surely you're right about that! When Jews heard "Son of God" they would have been reminded of David or Solomon. When pagans heard it they thought of Hercules or Alexander.

That's a keeper. Very succinct.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. The idea of a divine Jesus would be blasphemous to religious Jews, but to people coming from a more Hellenic background, the idea of heros who were part divine was de rigueur. I even wonder of the passing down of Jewish references to Jesus as a "son of God" were interpreted in an entirely different context by later pagan converts to Christianity, contributing to the eventual deification of Jesus.

That's a very reasonable assumption. That's the kind of thing we need in discussions like this.

 

[Stone]

Yes. The idea of a divine Jesus would be blasphemous to religious Jews, but to people coming from a more Hellenic background, the idea of heros who were part divine was de rigueur. I even wonder of the passing down of Jewish references to Jesus as a "son of God" were interpreted in an entirely different context by later pagan converts to Christianity, contributing to the eventual deification of Jesus.

The post that ZugZwang (sp.?) references is over in another thread --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9261094&highlight=GThomas#post9261094

-- It's rather a long posting. But the main section, in which I address the vaguely divine intimations in the earliest textual strata, starts when I address DaveFoc's question: "Do you think Jesus himself played a significant role in the formation of Christian ideology?"

Essentially, the earlier the apparent stratum of a given passage, the fewer the number of dubious magic stunts in the narrational material. But what my referenced post concentrates on are a few of the remarks accredited to Jesus the rabbi in the most colloquial strata. There, we have the occasional odd reference to God as a "father" of Jesus and the notion that Jesus is somehow in a position to "bequeath" an "inheritance" from God that others cannot, necessarily, provide.

Now all that is a far cry from the highly developed "Son-of-God" formulations in something like GJohn, for instance (in fact, there is no trace at all of the colloquial earliest strata anywhere in GJohn). But it sheds some light on how come the notion of Jesus being somehow a "Son-of-God" grew such legs later on after Jesus was safely dead and could no longer say, "Hold on one minute".

Stone

 

[dejudge]

As already mentioned to you, the majority of historians consider those non-Christian references to be reliable. Your refusal to abandon erroneous arguments demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.

Why are you talking about dishonesty when Robert Eiseman a historian who wrote about an Historical Jesus admitted no-one has been able to solve the question of the historical Jesus and that the matter is very controversial?

It is a known fallacy the majority of historians take Tacitus Annals with Christ and Antiquities of the 20.9.1 as reliable when the majority of historians DENY that THEIR HJ was the Christ.

If you you want to talk about dishonesty it is recommended that you first understand what honesty is.

 

[dejudge]

The post that ZugZwang (sp.?) references is over in another thread --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9261094&highlight=GThomas#post9261094

-- It's rather a long posting. But the main section, in which I address the vaguely divine intimations in the earliest textual strata, starts when I address DaveFoc's question: "Do you think Jesus himself played a significant role in the formation of Christian ideology?"

Essentially, the earlier the apparent stratum of a given passage, the fewer the number of dubious magic stunts in the narrational material. But what my referenced post concentrates on are a few of the remarks accredited to Jesus the rabbi in the most colloquial strata. There, we have the occasional odd reference to God as a "father" of Jesus and the notion that Jesus is somehow in a position to "bequeath" an "inheritance" from God that others cannot, necessarily, provide.

Now all that is a far cry from the highly developed "Son-of-God" formulations in something like GJohn, for instance (in fact, there is no trace at all of the colloquial earliest strata anywhere in GJohn). But it sheds some light on how come the notion of Jesus being somehow a "Son-of-God" grew such legs later on after Jesus was safely dead and could no longer say, "Hold on one minute".

Stone

The HJ argument is a futile contradiction--upside down and back to front.

HJers typically argue that the Pauline Corpus predates gMark yet conveniently use gMark as the earliest source for their Dead HJ.

How absurd and illogical. HJers seem to have forgotten that they argue that Pauline writings are AUTHENTIC and was composed BEFORE gMark.

HJers seem to have forgotten that they argue that Paul actually LIVED, preached since 37-41 CE and did document his teachings about Jesus the Son of God, the Last Adam to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians and Thessalonians BEFORE gMark was written.

Do NOT the Pauline writers claim Jesus was the Son of God WITHOUT a human father? See Galatians 4.4

In Galatians 4.4 the Pauline writer specifically IDENTIFIED the parents of his Jesus.

It was GOD and a Woman.

Galatians 4:4 KJV

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..

The Pauline writer confirmed that his Jesus was a Created Spirit by God and referred to him as the LAST ADAM.

Jesus was the LAST CREATED BEING of God--THE SPIRITUAL ADAM.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

HJers DENY their HJ was the Christ but conveniently use forgeries about the Christ in Tacitus and Josephus.

Now, HJers are conveniently using gMark as the first to mention Jesus as the Son of God when they simultaneously argue for Pauline Priority of the Entire NT and that the author of gMark knew of the Pauline Corpus.

The HJ argument has been exposed as a baseless contradiction but it was expected.

 

[Craig B]

Why are you talking about dishonesty when Robert Eiseman a historian who wrote about an Historical Jesus admitted no-one has been able to solve the question of the historical Jesus and that the matter is very controversial?

I simply can't make any sense of that question.

 

[Foster Zygote]

delete

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your claim is knowingly false. Why can't you repeat what I wrote?

And you just did it again in the Bart Ehrman thread.

When you call me a liar, then again do exactly what I said you've been doing, it makes you look, as charitably as I can describe it, rather silly.

 

[dejudge]

And you just did it again in the Bart Ehrman thread.

When you call me a liar, then again do exactly what I said you've been doing, it makes you look, as charitably as I can describe it, rather silly.

You have never ever presented any data or statistics to show that "the majority of historians consider those non-Christian references to be reliable" .

How many historians are there in the world?

How many have looked into the question of the historicity or non-historicity of Jesus in the NT?

How many are Agnostic about the historicity of Jesus in the NT?

Please, stop making claims for which you have no data and for which there is no known data.

Why do you keep on repeating Chinese Whispers without any supporting data?

 

[Brainache]

You have never ever presented any data or statistics to show that "the majority of historians consider those non-Christian references to be reliable" .

How many historians are there in the world?

How many have looked into the question of the historicity or non-historicity of Jesus in the NT?

How many are Agnostic about the historicity of Jesus in the NT?

Please, stop making claims for which you have no data and for which there is no known data.

Why do you keep on repeating Chinese Whispers without any supporting data?

I wonder if this style of argumentation has ever convinced anyone to change their minds?

I'm willing to bet "no".

 

[pipelineaudio]

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

On almost every page of everyone of these threads we are told that there exist all sorts of proofs and evidence, and that we just chose not to look at them. Many times we are referenced to other threads, or other posts, but as it turns out, my point being, it all ends up being the bible

I am probably misinterpreting what you are asking