Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[I Ratant]

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

.
Zinger!

 

[IanS]

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.

It's been explained here many times David, in great detail, and I'm not going to waste my life going through it all again for the umpteenth time. You should know very well that Paul could easily find what he believed to passages in the OT which he could interpret as that persecution and even execution of Jesus.

 

[IanS]

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

I don't know who or what you are referring to as a "talking ass", but it's perfectly obvious that the sceptic side here (and in sceptic books) does not accept that the holy bible is "plausible" evidence of it's own fanatical religious preaching of divine belief in a miraculous messiah of God in the skies.

I expect all sceptics think it’s quite astonishing that anyone in this day and age would fall for such an absurd suggestion as the claim that the bible could ever be regarded as reliable or credible evidence of what it’s fanatical religious authors believed about their ancient God superstitions.

 

[dejudge]

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

Why do you accept the Bible as a source of history when you know it documented a talking Cloud and a TALKING ASS?

I do not accept the TALKING ASS Bible as history BUT you do so without corroborative evidence.

Mark 9:7 KJV

And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying , This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Numbers 22:28 KJV

And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?


And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.


And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said , Nay.

Why do you accept the ASS TALKING Bible as a source of history for your Itinerant preacher? Why.

The ASS TALKING Bible does not even make sense.

 

[Brainache]

I don't know who or what you are referring to as a "talking ass", but it's perfectly obvious that the sceptic side here (and in sceptic books) does not accept that the holy bible is "plausible" evidence of it's own fanatical religious preaching of divine belief in a miraculous messiah of God in the skies.

I expect all sceptics think it’s quite astonishing that anyone in this day and age would fall for such an absurd suggestion as the claim that the bible could ever be regarded as reliable or credible evidence of what it’s fanatical religious authors believed about their ancient God superstitions.

And by "sceptic" you mean denialist.

You are not being sceptical here IanS.

 

[Craig B]

I don't know who or what you are referring to as a "talking ass", but it's perfectly obvious that the sceptic side here (and in sceptic books) does not accept that the holy bible is "plausible" evidence of it's own fanatical religious preaching of divine belief in a miraculous messiah of God in the skies.

I expect all sceptics think it’s quite astonishing that anyone in this day and age would fall for such an absurd suggestion as the claim that the bible could ever be regarded as reliable or credible evidence of what it’s fanatical religious authors believed about their ancient God superstitions.

I have made my position clear on this on umpteen occasions, most recently at #2343. Now, you may if you wish refute or at least challenge what I and others have stated about this. But your tactic has been to refuse to engage in any discussion, and simply to repeat time after time that I and others are depending on the authenticity or dependability of any part of that collection known as the Bible. You would know that is not true, if you examined what is being said. I conclude that you are unable or unwilling to engage this question, and I will let you repeat your utterances without further intervention.

 

[IanS]

I have made my position clear on this on umpteen occasions, most recently at #2343. Now, you may if you wish refute or at least challenge what I and others have stated about this. But your tactic has been to refuse to engage in any discussion, and simply to repeat time after time that I and others are depending on the authenticity or dependability of any part of that collection known as the Bible. You would know that is not true, if you examined what is being said. I conclude that you are unable or unwilling to engage this question, and I will let you repeat your utterances without further intervention.

We have already spent many hundreds of pages here engaging in very detailed examination of the claimed evidence. And so far, afaik, your claim is that the bible contains the evidence of a human Jesus.

That is your evidence, is it not? The holy bible?

 

[pakeha]

... 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. ...

Thanks for making that clear.
Do you reckon this is a view held by mainstream scholars?

 

[Brainache]

We have already spent many hundreds of pages here engaging in very detailed examination of the claimed evidence. And so far, afaik, your claim is that the bible contains the evidence of a human Jesus.

That is your evidence, is it not? The holy bible?

What's your source for the historicity of Pythagoras?

The mystic ravings of people who never met him and thought the planets were the resting place of dead souls?

How preposterous!

 

[IanS]

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.

That seems to be a fairly clear statement that you are in fact relying entirely on the NT bible as your source of evidence for Jesus. Yes?

If you believe that the individuals who wrote any of the gospels and letters were reliable in whatever they wrote, then how did you check those individuals to confirm that they are/were indeed known as credible and reliable sources of whatever they said about anything?

Take for example the writer of g-Mark (or any of them) - how did you confirm that the writer of g-Mark was indeed a reliable source of anything? How reliable was he? And how did you check to confirm that?

 

[Craig B]

That seems to be a fairly clear statement that you are in fact relying entirely on the NT bible as your source of evidence for Jesus. Yes?

With the possible exception which I have given, yes. Of course yes. Do you not understand what I have written? How can you possibly be in the least doubt about the meaning of the words that you yourself describe as "fairly clear"?

If you believe that the individuals who wrote any of the gospels and letters were reliable in whatever they wrote, then how did you check those individuals to confirm that they are/were indeed known as credible and reliable sources of whatever they said about anything?

Take for example the writer of g-Mark (or any of them) - how did you confirm that the writer of g-Mark was indeed a reliable source of anything? How reliable was he? And how did you check to confirm that?

That a critical analysis of the gospels contains no assumption that the authors of the sources are intrinsically reliable, is a point made here or in the other threads several times, and I'm not going over it again. This is quite nonsensical. All this has been aired. You refuse to read it; so spare me this nonsense, if you don't mind.

 

[pipelineaudio]

That is your evidence, is it not? The holy bible?

This is the meat of the matter. Threads and pages of obfuscation, its what it really keeps coming down to

 

[IanS]

If you believe that the individuals who wrote any of the gospels and letters were reliable in whatever they wrote, then how did you check those individuals to confirm that they are/were indeed known as credible and reliable sources of whatever they said about anything?

Take for example the writer of g-Mark (or any of them) - how did you confirm that the writer of g-Mark was indeed a reliable source of anything? How reliable was he? And how did you check to confirm that?

That a critical analysis of the gospels contains no assumption that the authors of the sources are intrinsically reliable, is a point made here or in the other threads several times, and I'm not going over it again. This is quite nonsensical. All this has been aired. You refuse to read it; so spare me this nonsense, if you don't mind.

That is not an answer. It’s not any sort of explanation of how you confirmed that the authors you are relying upon are reliable as sources of whatever they said.

So, again - you are relying entirely upon the gospel authors being reliable as a source of what they wrote.

How did you check & confirm the veracity of those individuals who wrote those gospels?

 

[Brainache]

That is not an answer. It’s not any sort of explanation of how you confirmed that the authors you are relying upon are reliable as sources of whatever they said.

So, again - you are relying entirely upon the gospel authors being reliable as a source of what they wrote.

How did you check & confirm the veracity of those individuals who wrote those gospels?

By taking what they wrote with a grain of salt and putting it into its proper cultural context.

Mostly...

 

[Craig B]

That is not an answer. It’s not any sort of explanation of how you confirmed that the authors you are relying upon are reliable as sources of whatever they said.

So, again - you are relying entirely upon the gospel authors being reliable as a source of what they wrote.

How did you check & confirm the veracity of those individuals who wrote those gospels?

That a critical analysis of the gospels contains no assumption that the authors of the sources are intrinsically reliable, is a point made here or in the other threads several times, and I'm not going over it again. This is quite nonsensical. All this has been aired. You refuse to read it; so spare me this nonsense, if you don't mind. (Again.)

 

[dejudge]

That a critical analysis of the gospels contains no assumption that the authors of the sources are intrinsically reliable, is a point made here or in the other threads several times, and I'm not going over it again. This is quite nonsensical. All this has been aired. You refuse to read it; so spare me this nonsense, if you don't mind. (Again.)

So you RELIED on known unreliable sources. That is quite nonsensical.

Those who argue for an HJ are really exposing that their history of their Jesus is based entirely on known unreliable sources or forgeries in Josephus and Tacitus.

HJ the itinerant preacher cannot be plausible using the unreliable ASS-TALKING Bible or highly questionable sources.

 

[Brainache]

So you RELIED on known unreliable sources. That is quite nonsensical.

Those who argue for an HJ are really exposing that their history of their Jesus is based entirely on known unreliable sources or forgeries in Josephus and Tacitus.

HJ the itinerant preacher cannot be plausible using the unreliable ASS-TALKING Bible or highly questionable sources.

This argument can never work, because it is stupid.

 

[dejudge]

This argument can never work, because it is stupid.

Your statement is illogical and stupid. That is exactly what you can't know. You have no evidence for what you say about your HJ.

It is quite illogical and stupid to argue that an HJ is plausible without a shred of evidence while using an unreliable ASS TALKING Bible filled with historical problems, discrepancies, forgeries, false attribution and events that could not have happened.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is illogical and stupid. That is exactly what you can't know. You have no evidence for what you say about your HJ.

It is quite illogical and stupid to argue that an HJ is plausible without a shred of evidence while using an unreliable ASS TALKING Bible filled with historical problems, discrepancies, forgeries, false attribution and events that could not have happened.

You think it was all faked by a few people in the second century.

You have offered no valid reasoning.

Your dismissals are laughable.

Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[dejudge]

You think it was all faked by a few people in the second century.

You have offered no valid reasoning.

Your dismissals are laughable.

Thanks for the entertainment.

You think quite a few people LIED or Embellished your Itinerant preacher in the 1st century

You have NO evidence whatsoever that Jesus and Paul are figures of history in the 1st century and NO existing recovered dated manuscript from the 1st century about Jesus or Paul

Why don't you read what Scholars themselves claim about the authorship and contents of the Gospels?

1. Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist? claims the Gospels are forgeries or mis-attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

2. Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist? claims the NT accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions.

3. Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist? claims the Gospels are riddled with historical problems.