Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

Where does the Gospel of Mark claim to be written by the Apostle Mark? Or Matthew for that matter...

That is one of the reason why they are deduced to be forgeries. The Christian Community knew they were Anonymous but attributed the Gospels to FAKE 1st century unknown characters.

Apologetics for hundreds of years like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome claimed the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Just because later tradition assigned names to the Authors, doesn't make the writings "forgeries".

You seem to have no idea that Scholars like Bart Ehrman have admitted that the Gospels were either forged or mis-attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[Brainache]

That is one of the reason why they are deduced to be forgeries. The Christian Community knew they were Anonymous but attributed the Gospels to FAKE 1st century unknown characters.

Apologetics for hundreds of years like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome claimed the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.



You seem to have no idea that Scholars like Bart Ehrman have admitted that the Gospels were either forged or mis-attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Do you know what the word "forgery" means?

This all seems bizarre to you, because you don't understand how History is studied at a University level.

That is not my problem.

 

[Craig B]

Lets be clear and no more beating around the bush. You mean the bible right?

Yes. I have given a very detailed analysis of the NT sources, and the means by which they can be compared and analysed. The "Bible" is a collection of different writings put together at different times, as you may have learned. What's this "beating about the bush"? I have been banging on for page after page in these threads about gospel sources! I could not have been more "clear".

As to other sources, here is my tentative opinion: the Tacitus source is authentic, but refers to Christians, not directly to Jesus. The source of Tacitus' information was early second century Christian informants. Likewise Pliny. The Suetonius reference Chrestos is probably to Christians, but not to Jesus in particular. It means simply messianic. His Nero reference is probably an interpolation. Josephus' TF is entirely bogus, and may have been inserted by Eusebius or his school. The "brother of Christ" reference to James may be authentic, but I am more inclined to believe it is an assimilated scribal gloss. The presence of another Jesus in the passage (son of Damneus) is a possible source of the perplexity which would induce a later copyist to add such an "explanatory" marginal note.

So I place little weight on the early non-apologetic notices.

If you require other confessions from me about sources, you only have to ask.

 

[dejudge]

As to other sources, here is my tentative opinion: the Tacitus source is authentic, but refers to Christians, not directly to Jesus. The source of Tacitus' information was early second century Christian informants.

You really have no evidence to support your assumptions. Plus, you have already been notified that it is highly illogical to assume that ALL mention of Christians mean that they were followers of the Jesus cult.

Please, there are MANY books about so-called Heretics.

There were many Christian cults who did NOT Believe the story of Jesus and had developed their OWN Gods.

Please, I had enough of the propaganda that Christians must mean those who believe the Jesus story.

Read Refutation of All Heresies, Against Heresies, Prescription Against the Heretics and they will silence you.

 

[Brainache]

You really have no evidence to support your assumptions. Plus, you have already been notified that it is highly illogical to assume that ALL mention of Christians mean that they were followers of the Jesus cult.

Please, there are MANY books about so-called Heretics.

There were many Christian cults who did NOT Believe the story of Jesus and had developed their OWN Gods.

Please, I had enough of the propaganda that Christians must mean those who believe the Jesus story.

Read Refutation of All Heresies, Against Heresies, Prescription Against the Heretics and they will silence you.

The HJ is just a modern Heresy?

 

[eight bits]

zugzwang

Well, an obscure HJ is not palatable for most Christians, who generally want to say that Jesus is acclaimed as God from the beginning.

Really? Do you evidence that most Christians prefer this view?

Is it possible that you misspoke, and meant to say "most Christian advocates of sola scriptura?" That would be close to self-proving, since if Jesus' divinity were not consistently presented in the canon, then his divinity could not be inferred from those writings and so, as the slogan suggests, his divinity could not be dogma, or dogma only with plausibly aversive mental gymnastics.

Most living Christians (including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans, among others) belong to churches which allow Tradition and Reason to supplement Scripture (using the Anglican Communion's formula for the principle). There would be no reason for these people to be especially concerned how Jesus' divinity was initially understood. On the contrary, "an ever-deepening undersatnding of God's tuth" over intergenerational time is plainly one of the products these organizations sell. If, nevertheless, their customers "generally want" to say that Jesus is acclaimed as God from the beginning, then there should be evidence to that effect.

 

[Craig B]

You really have no evidence to support your assumptions. Plus, you have already been notified that it is highly illogical to assume that ALL mention of Christians mean that they were followers of the Jesus cult.

Please, there are MANY books about so-called Heretics.

There were many Christian cults who did NOT Believe the story of Jesus and had developed their OWN Gods.

Please, I had enough of the propaganda that Christians must mean those who believe the Jesus story.

Read Refutation of All Heresies, Against Heresies, Prescription Against the Heretics and they will silence you.

These are very strange remarks. I have been notified ... You have had enough of the propaganda ... (Then retire from the thread, is my advice) ... the books will silence me. All I can say is, I'm glad you're not the Minister for Public Enlightenment in some authoritarian régime.

 

[zugzwang]

zugzwang


Really? Do you evidence that most Christians prefer this view?

Is it possible that you misspoke, and meant to say "most Christian advocates of sola scriptura?" That would be close to self-proving, since if Jesus' divinity were not consistently presented in the canon, then his divinity could not be inferred from those writings and so, as the slogan suggests, his divinity could not be dogma, or dogma only with plausibly aversive mental gymnastics.

Most living Christians (including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans, among others) belong to churches which allow Tradition and Reason to supplement Scripture (using the Anglican Communion's formula for the principle). There would be no reason for these people to be especially concerned how Jesus' divinity was initially understood. On the contrary, "an ever-deepening undersatnding of God's tuth" over intergenerational time is plainly one of the products these organizations sell. If, nevertheless, their customers "generally want" to say that Jesus is acclaimed as God from the beginning, then there should be evidence to that effect.

That's an interesting argument. My take on some of the modern scholars, such as Vermes, is that they are saying that in the early texts, such as Mark and Paul, Jesus is not seen as divine, but as an agent of God. This fits in with Jewish theology of the time (I think), where for example, the messiah might be sent from God, but could not be God.

Certainly, evangelicals will object strenuously to that, but I would think that the more 'Catholic' denoms would also. Don't they argue that in fact in Mark and Paul Jesus is presented as 'son of God', which for nearly all Christians, refers to divinity? I have certainly heard Catholics argue that Paul embraced Catholic teaching, which to me, sounds a bit anachronistic, but I get what they are getting at.

 

[Belz...]

Never mind.

 

[dejudge]

As you have been told numerous times, it also includes all of the Apocrypha and early Church Historians, Tacitus and Josephus.


ETA: Start with the texts here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

Your statement is most bizarre. Surely you could not have read ALL of the Apocrypha, early Church Historians, Tacitus and Josephus because NONE of those sources wrote about an obscure itinerant preacher.

You seem to have no idea that Jesus himself declared he was the Son of God and the Logos in Apocryphal writings.

Examine The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour

1. We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to you; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.

We know EXACTLY who Jesus was according to Apocrypha.

Jesus was the Son of God and the Logos.

Jesus was pure corroborated MYTH.

 

[dejudge]

That's an interesting argument. My take on some of the modern scholars, such as Vermes, is that they are saying that in the early texts, such as Mark and Paul, Jesus is not seen as divine, but as an agent of God. This fits in with Jewish theology of the time (I think), where for example, the messiah might be sent from God, but could not be God.

We have gone through this already. Please, stop the Chinese Whispers. You should know the NT is riddled with Forgeries or falsely attributed writings by FAKE 1st century authors.

It is already known that there are no early texts of Mark and Paul. The earliest recovered texts of Paul and gMark is from around 2nd - 3rd century.

Let us deal with evidence and not Chinese Whispers.

Look at the evidence itself.

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

I am afraid that you can no longer use the Pauline Corpus and gMark as early texts. They appear to have been forged to give the false impression that they were from the 1st century. NOT one book in the Bible has ever been found and dated to anytime before c 70 CE.

 

[Craig B]

... You seem to have no idea that Jesus himself declared he was the Son of God and the Logos in Apocryphal writings.

Examine The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour
We know EXACTLY who Jesus was according to Apocrypha.
Jesus was the Son of God and the Logos.

Jesus was pure corroborated MYTH.

"Corroborated myth", eh? Well, anyway, not content with the apocrypha and the apologetic writers of the second to fourth centuries as the basis for your "Christology", you are now resorting to the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour! Where will this all end? I ask.

 

[zugzwang]

'Corroborated myth' is a nice fat juicy plum, all right. Well, I certainly corroborated the myth of Robin Hood the other day, when I drove to Sherwood Forest, and there was a big fat notice-board, talking about Robin Hood and his merry men. So I thought to myself, hello, here we have a corroborated myth, unless my name is Friar Tuck, which it isn't.

 

[dejudge]

"Corroborated myth", eh? Well, anyway, not content with the apocrypha and the apologetic writers of the second to fourth centuries as the basis for your "Christology", you are now resorting to the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour! Where will this all end? I ask.

Brainache is the one who is actively telling people about Apocrypha. Perhaps he doesn't know that Apocrypha describes Jesus as a Myth.


Examine more Apocrypha. Jesus is a Multiple attested myth in and out the Bible.

The Gospel according to Peter

3. And he delivered him to the people on the day before the unleavened bread, their feast. And they took the Lord and pushed him as they ran, and said, Let us drag away the Son of God, having obtained power over him.

 

[Craig B]

Brainache is the one who is actively telling people about Apocrypha. Perhaps he doesn't know that Apocrypha describes Jesus as a Myth.


Examine more Apocrypha. Jesus is a Multiple attested myth in and out the Bible.

The Gospel according to Peter

What a source!?! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

The text is unusual at this point in describing the Cross itself as speaking, and even floating out of the tomb, which has led some scholars to suspect it of gnostic sympathies.

It leads me to suspect it of being totally crazy.

 

[David Mo]

When you say "people that wrote about the HJ were making stuff up" and say "I realized I haven't presented good evidence for this", why don't you just note the fact that the biblical writers were very clearly taking their Jesus stories from the OT?

It's fairly obvious that the OT was a source for the biblical stories of Jesus, is it not?

Paul even repeatedly says he obtained all his knowledge of Jesus from “scripture“, from what “is written” and from “revelation”.

Where is the great mystery in guessing where the Jesus stories came from?

I do not know of any Old Testament passage in which a divine messiah was subjected to a shameful punishment typical of low quality people . Moreover, I do not know any case of a god at the time and Mediterranean area who had been killed by a shameful punishment typical of people of low quality .
This suggests that loans that early Christians took from the Old Testament were not chosen to invent the figure of Jesus from nothing, since this would only have been a hindrance in his preaching. They are rather fragments chosen to justify the shameful death of a real religious leader who they could not ignore. They chose them to overcome a real hindrance to his preaching and his polemics with Orthodox Jews.

I'm surprised you ask on something already discussed. You seem to have discovered a great argument.

 

[dejudge]

What a source!?! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter It leads me to suspect it of being totally crazy.

Now, you understand what is in Apocrypha!! It is PLAUSIBLE--Not Crazy.

There were very Plausible TALKING CLOUDS in the NT and a PLAUSIBLE Talking Ass in the OT.

People in antiquity accepted Myths as figures of history.

It would appear that HJ the itinerant preacher was NOT Plausible--Not even Apocrypha wrote about your Dead Obscure itinerant preacher because it would not make sense.

Please, tell us what your HJ did because we have nothing about him. The Pauline Jesus was an Hallucination.

 

[Craig B]

Now, you understand what is in Apocrypha!! It is PLAUSIBLE--Not Crazy.

There were very Plausible TALKING CLOUDS in the NT and a PLAUSIBLE Talking Ass in the OT.

People in antiquity accepted Myths as figures of history.

It would appear that HJ the itinerant preacher was NOT Plausible--Not even Apocrypha wrote about your Dead Obscure itinerant preacher because it would not make sense.

Please, tell us what your HJ did because we have nothing about him. The Pauline Jesus was an Hallucination.

I wonder if we agree on the meaning of the word "plausible". Maybe it's just another case of a talking ass.

 

[I Ratant]

That's an interesting argument. My take on some of the modern scholars, such as Vermes, is that they are saying that in the early texts, such as Mark and Paul, Jesus is not seen as divine, but as an agent of God. This fits in with Jewish theology of the time (I think), where for example, the messiah might be sent from God, but could not be God.

Certainly, evangelicals will object strenuously to that, but I would think that the more 'Catholic' denoms would also. Don't they argue that in fact in Mark and Paul Jesus is presented as 'son of God', which for nearly all Christians, refers to divinity? I have certainly heard Catholics argue that Paul embraced Catholic teaching, which to me, sounds a bit anachronistic, but I get what they are getting at.

.
The Nicene creed which was pounded into me by Sister Agnes Caligula says "son of god", which is a statement saying Jesus was not "sent", but made to be the son (only begotten), and the figure we have in the Book(s).

 

[I Ratant]

'Corroborated myth' is a nice fat juicy plum, all right. Well, I certainly corroborated the myth of Robin Hood the other day, when I drove to Sherwood Forest, and there was a big fat notice-board, talking about Robin Hood and his merry men. So I thought to myself, hello, here we have a corroborated myth, unless my name is Friar Tuck, which it isn't.

.
On robbin' Robin, taking from the rich makes more sense than from the poor, who one relies for cover from that sheriff!