Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Elagabalus]

Why do I have to take it up with Ehrman? That's another total irrelevance.

The point is that when people here keep saying that a very good reason to believe in Jesus is that "historians" all agree that Jesus was real, what they really mean is that bible-studies scholars like Bart Ehrman believe that he was real and where he further claimed that "all properly trained scholars on the planet agree" .... those ARE the vast majority of the people you are talking about when you say "all historians agree".

But when people here make that claim, they can never cite any credible evidence ever produced by those experts to show that Jesus probably existed. In fact, the best that has appeared is what I had to quote myself from Bart Ehrman who says his two main pieces of evidence which make Jesus "certain" are that the bible says that Paul met James, and that the four canonical gospels count as seven independent "attestations", which he says is an exceptionally good and convincing number .

So where is this (reliable & credible) "expert" evidence of Jesus? We are still waiting for any hint of it.

Sigh ...

This really is becoming tiresome. You keep asking this question and every time the evidence has been provided including links to the "experts" you dismiss it outright. So what's the point?

We're not convinced of your arguments. They amount to little more than silly and pointless ankle biting around the periphery of the more plausible (to us) HJ.

How about you come up with your own theory? As JaysonR said it only has to be the vaguest of outlines. But don't forget to try and hit some of the dates. You know, like Christians being in Rome by around 62 C.E. and being numerous enough to be singled out and identified as an offshoot of Judaism but regarding themselves as a separate movement. Get yourself a big ol' map of the Mediterranean and see if the journeys of Paul are, at least, plausible. Posit your own ideas of to explain the data. Would your theory compare favorably or unfavorably to what we know as the basic story line of HJ? Would it fit better? Would it be more parsimonious?

It's not enough to say you're skeptical. You need to convince us.

 

[dejudge]

Sigh ...

This really is becoming tiresome. You keep asking this question and every time the evidence has been provided including links to the "experts" you dismiss it outright. So what's the point?

We're not convinced of your arguments. They amount to little more than silly and pointless ankle biting around the periphery of the more plausible (to us) HJ.

How about you come up with your own theory? As JaysonR said it only has to be the vaguest of outlines. But don't forget to try and hit some of the dates. You know, like Christians being in Rome by around 62 C.E. and being numerous enough to be singled out and identified as an offshoot of Judaism but regarding themselves as a separate movement. Get yourself a big ol' map of the Mediterranean and see if the journeys of Paul are, at least, plausible. Posit your own ideas of to explain the data. Would your theory compare favorably or unfavorably to what we know as the basic story line of HJ? Would it fit better? Would it be more parsimonious?

It's not enough to say you're skeptical. You need to convince us.

You forget that JaysonR is not an expert. He is not an historian.

There was NO Jesus cult UNTIL the 2nd century. ALL the recovered manuscripts do not support any 1st century Jesus since 37-41 CE--None.

You forget that Acts of the Apostles is not regarded as a credible source.

You must remember that even fiction stories are far more credible than the NT.

Nothing about Jesus, the disciples and Paul has been ccorroborated by non-apologetics.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are characters of FAITH--NOT of history.

 

[Brainache]

You forget that JaysonR is not an expert. He is not an historian.

There was NO Jesus cult UNTIL the 2nd century. ALL the recovered manuscripts do not support any 1st century Jesus since 37-41 CE--None.

You forget that Acts of the Apostles is not regarded as a credible source.

You must remember that even fiction stories are far more credible than the NT.

Nothing about Jesus, the disciples and Paul has been ccorroborated by non-apologetics.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are characters of FAITH--NOT of history.

And still no one finds this idiotic argument convincing.

I wonder why?

 

[dejudge]

And still no one finds this idiotic argument convincing.

I wonder why?

You seem not to have a clue that you are openly displaying that your statement is void of logical.

Has it not dawned upon you that it is virtually impossible for you know what everyone finds convincing?

It is as if you are lying to yourself and don't know.

Please, review your statment because it is an obvious failure of logic.

I wonder why you repeat it?

 

[Brainache]

You seem not to have a clue that you are openly displaying that your statement is void of logical.

Has it not dawned upon you that it is virtually impossible for you know what everyone finds convincing?

It is as if you are lying to yourself and don't know.

Please, review your statment because it is an obvious failure of logic.

I wonder why you repeat it?

Has anyone at all agreed with your position on this subject here?

You have failed to convince anyone of your silly idea, repeating it over and over again just makes it look even sillier.

Keep it up.

 

[dejudge]

Has anyone at all agreed with your position on this subject here?

You have failed to convince anyone of your silly idea, repeating it over and over again just makes it look even sillier.

Keep it up.

Again, you repeat your fallacy. You have no data, you have no statistics, nothing. Your objective is clear.

 

[Brainache]

Again, you repeat your fallacy. You have no data, you have no statistics, nothing. Your objective is clear.

How is it a fallacy to say your argument is stupid and unconvincing?

You have been told what is wrong with it many times, but you persist.

 

[dejudge]

How is it a fallacy to say your argument is stupid and unconvincing?

You have been told what is wrong with it many times, but you persist.

No, No, No!! You may be lying to yourself.

You ONLY say the argument is stupid but cannot ever point out what is wrong with it.

That may have been your only move but it is too late now.

Robert Eiseman the historian have destroyed your claim of a consensus for HJ.

The historian has the declared the question of an historical Jesus is very controversial and no-one has been able to solve it.

It is evident that there was NEVER any evidence for an HJ by the MULTIPLE VERSIONS presented.

HJ is a product of the INVENTOR'S IMAGINATION.

HJers, after having claimed their HJ was NOT the Christ are now using forgeries with JESUS the Christ as evidence.

HOW SAD!!!

 

[Brainache]

No, No, No!! You may be lying to yourself.

You ONLY say the argument is stupid but cannot ever point out what is wrong with it.

That may have been your only move but it is too late now.

Robert Eiseman the historian have destroyed your claim of a consensus for HJ.

The historian has the declared the question of an historical Jesus is very controversial and no-one has been able to solve it.

It is evident that there was NEVER any evidence for an HJ by the MULTIPLE VERSIONS presented.

HJ is a product of the INVENTOR'S IMAGINATION.

HJers, after having claimed their HJ was NOT the Christ are now using forgeries with JESUS the Christ as evidence.

HOW SAD!!!

I'm not sure that you actually understand some of the words you are using, because they don't make sense the way you put them together.

I can't stop you from saying this stuff, but then why would I want to? You are doing a great job of destroying the MJ case all by yourself.

 

[dejudge]

I'm not sure that you actually understand some of the words you are using, because they don't make sense the way you put them together.

I can't stop you from saying this stuff, but then why would I want to? You are doing a great job of destroying the MJ case all by yourself.

You are attempting to divert attention from the fact that your HJ is far worse than a Myth.

At least, even historians mention the Myth characters of antiquity.

But, nobody mentioned Jesus of Nazareth the itinerant preacher.

Your HJ is worse than a myth--an unknown dead.

 

[Brainache]

You are attempting to divert attention from the fact that your HJ is far worse than a Myth.

At least, even historians mention the Myth characters of antiquity.

But, nobody mentioned Jesus of Nazareth the itinerant preacher.

Your HJ is worse than a myth--an unknown dead.

This is just bonkers.

Sorry.

 

[dejudge]

This is just bonkers.

Sorry.

That is all you can say because you have no evidence whatsover from antiquity for YOUR UNKNOWN dead.

How is it possible for there to have been actual known evidence for an HJ and Historians don't know who he was up to this very day?

Hundreds of years have passed and HJ is still unknown--the Quest is still on.

It is all over for the HJ argument.

There NEVER was any evidence from the start--just a massive fishing expedition.

 

[Brainache]

That is all you can say because you have no evidence whatsover from antiquity for YOUR UNKNOWN dead.

How is it possible for there to have been actual known evidence for an HJ and Historians don't know who he was up to this very day?

Hundreds of years have passed and HJ is still unknown--the Quest is still on.

It is all over for the HJ argument.

There NEVER was any evidence from the start--just a massive fishing expedition.

I'm wondering if you think empty pronouncements like this actually mean anything?

 

[dejudge]

I'm wondering if you think empty pronouncements like this actually mean anything?

Why are those "empty pronouncements" bothering you? Your statement is void of logical.

You spend your time responding to "empty prouncements" which you claim do not convince anyone.

Something is obviously illogical about your claims.

My posts must be of grave concern to you.

 

[Brainache]

Why are those "empty pronouncements" bothering you? Your statement is void of logical.

You spend your time responding to "empty prouncements" which you claim do not convince anyone.

Something is obviously illogical about your claims.

My posts must be of grave concern to you.

Not really.

I'd be putting in a bit more effort if I thought any of these idiotic ideas required rebuttal.

 

[dejudge]

Not really.

I'd be putting in a bit more effort if I thought any of these idiotic ideas required rebuttal.

You are constantly making statements that are void of logic. You are incapable of presenting any evidence from antiquity for your unknown dead so it is virtually impossible for you to do more than what you are doing now.

It is obviously the end of your HJ argument--all your fallacies have been exposed.

The HJ argument was never based on evidence--always logical fallacies.

There are no more logical fallacies left for HJ.

Your HJ was NOT the Christ so it was ALWAYS illogical to use Tacitus Annals 15.44 and Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 for your HJ.

 

[Brainache]

You are constantly making statements that are void of logic. You are incapable of presenting any evidence from antiquity for your unknown dead so it is virtually impossible for you to do more than what you are doing now.

It is obviously the end of your HJ argument--all your fallacies have been exposed.

The HJ argument was never based on evidence--always logical fallacies.

There are no more logical fallacies left for HJ.

Your HJ was NOT the Christ so it was ALWAYS illogical to use Tacitus Annals 15.44 and Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 for your HJ.

You can't be serious.

If you are serious, you have my sympathy.

 

[dejudge]

You can't be serious.

If you are serious, you have my sympathy.

You will not ever be able to use your favorite logical fallacies again as evidence for your HJ. We know that you never had any evidence for your HJ.

We know that NO manuscripts for the Jesus story and cult have ever been found and paleographically dated to the 1st century before c 70 CE.

HJ is an matter of Faith--Not History.

 

[Brainache]

You will not ever be able to use your favorite logical fallacies again as evidence for your HJ. We know that you never had any evidence for your HJ.

We know that NO manuscripts for the Jesus story and cult have ever been found and paleographically dated to the 1st century before c 70 CE.

HJ is an matter of Faith--Not History.

I might be worried, if I thought you knew what you were talking about.

 

[dejudge]

I might be worried, if I thought you knew what you were talking about.

Again, your statement is void of logical. You are obviously worried by my posts and that is precisely why you are always responding to them.

But, the more you respond it is exposed and confirmed that you never ever had any evidence for your HJ.

You could have easily won the argument if you could have only found evidence for HJ.