Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[David Mo]

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.

I have too explained my position at length so I was surprised by your questions. I thought perhaps something was not clear. It seems it is so, because you avoid again and again what is the cornerstone of my argument: "shameful punishment typical of people of low quality" (I say) is not “persecution and even execution" as you answer. You avoid "shameful" and "people of low quality". If someone as Paul was inventing a new sect with loaning passages from the Old Testament and was trying to wipe out a divine Jesus, there is no understandable reason why he searched two or three marginal and not clear fragments of the Old Testament to provide his divine Jesus with a shameful and low quality end. If Paul wanted to condemn the Jews, there are a lot of biblical chapters showing the divine anger against the Hebrews. If he wanted to kill his invented Jesus by the Jews' hands there was a lot of alternatives to a shameful death.

Yes, you can suppose that Paul was a twisted fool and his followers too. He may invent a dead god who was a unique case in the history of Mediterranean religions. But it is simpler to suppose that this twisted and foolish belief was the result of a desperate attempt to overcome the real difficulty of a real death of a real man. And it was so insane because his point of departure was forced and not willingly invented. And the simpler supposition has preference in science , you know.

And I agree with you. To repeat the same thing time and again is tired, particularly when no well directed answer arrives.

 

[David Mo]

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.

I agree.
There is a big difference between trusting someone and analyze what he says to see what's behind.

ETA: It would be like as refusing to see a pharaonic stela because include mythical accounts.

 

[Brainache]

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.

Why are you obsessed with Bart Ehrman?

I have read other Scholars, I haven't read Ehrman's books.

I couldn't give a toss what Bart Ehrman thinks.

He could think Jesus was a tap-dancing Goblin who lived on the Moon, for all I care.

 

[jhunter1163]

Dejudge, please stop with the random bolding and capitalizations. It's disruptive.

I'm asking nicely this time. Please don't make me put on my Mod Hat.

 

[David Mo]

By way of adieu or closure.

1. It is possible that a bunch of illuminated gathered in Palestine in the first century, and imagined that an emanation of Yahveh came down to Earth or similar .
1.b ETA: It is (less) possible that they invented that he was killed.
2. It is possible, although unlikely, that they invented for him a humiliating death. ("Shameful punishment typical of people of low quality" )
3. It is possible, but very unlikely, that wanting to condemn the Jews and to found a universal religion, they invented a death that involved the Romans.
4. It is much more likely their leader was crucified and then they devoted to justify his death desperately.

How the rabbit said:

That's all folks!​

NOTA BENE: I shall answer to objections to these points and only these points.

 

[IanS]

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.)

OK, so you are clearly unable to give any credible answer at all on that.

You have made no such check or confirmation on whether the author of (say) g-Mark (or any of the others) was trustworthy in any measure at all. And nor can you cite any such checks or confirmation ever made by any so-called “historian”.

You have not checked or confirmed their veracity in any measure at all. And on that basis it’s good enough for you to put your faith in their writing of religious faith, and hence declare your belief in Jesus.


For the sake of others who may be reading here on the side lines - what we should clearly note here, is that the one thing we can say for certain about the trustworthiness and credibility of those gospel writers, is that far from being trustworthy in any measure at all, they were so demonstrably unreliable and untrustworthy as to fill their gospels with manifestly untrue and literally impossible beliefs on page after page.

 

[Brainache]

OK, so you are clearly unable to give any credible answer at all on that.

You have made no such check or confirmation on whether the author of (say) g-Mark (or any of the others) was trustworthy in any measure at all. And nor can you cite any such checks or confirmation ever made by any so-called “historian”.

You have not checked or confirmed their veracity in any measure at all. And on that basis it’s good enough for you to put your faith in their writing of religious faith, and hence declare your belief in Jesus.


For the sake of others who may be reading here on the side lines - what we should clearly note here, is that the one thing we can say for certain about the trustworthiness and credibility of those gospel writers, is that far from being trustworthy in any measure at all, they were so demonstrably unreliable and untrustworthy as to fill their gospels with manifestly untrue and literally impossible beliefs on page after page.

Is this argument a deliberate insult to everyone's intelligence, or is it your serious considered opinion?

 

[pakeha]

Why are you obsessed with Bart Ehrman?

I have read other Scholars, I haven't read Ehrman's books.

I couldn't give a toss what Bart Ehrman thinks.

He could think Jesus was a tap-dancing Goblin who lived on the Moon, for all I care.

I share your passionate disinterest in BA's conjectures. Unfortunately, he's now an 'authority' on the subject.
Have you read what he has to say about the DSS?

...
1. It is possible that a bunch of illuminated gathered in Palestine in the first century, and imagined that an emanation of Yahveh came down to Earth or similar .
1.b ETA: It is (less) possible that they invented that he was killed.
2. It is possible, although unlikely, that they invented for him a humiliating death. ("Shameful punishment typical of people of low quality" )
3. It is possible, but very unlikely, that wanting to condemn the Jews and to found a universal religion, they invented a death that involved the Romans.
4. It is much more likely their leader was crucified and then they devoted to justify his death desperately. ...

I think you've done an excellently comprehensive collation of the possibilities surrounding Jesus' death.
Some questions which have been gnawing at me are the following:
Why were the Romans introduced into the tale at all?
Why was Jesus not beheaded, as was his cousin, JtB?
If Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition, why weren't his followers rounded up and crucified as an example?
Would Pontius Pilate have mentioned Jesus in an official report to Tiberius if he was such small beer?

 

[Brainache]

I share your passionate disinterest in BA's conjectures. Unfortunately, he's now an 'authority' on the subject.
Have you read what he has to say about the DSS?

No. I don't particularly want to either. I heard he got into some problem over the DSS, but I never looked into it.

I think you've done an excellently comprehensive collation of the possibilities surrounding Jesus' death.
Some questions which have been gnawing at me are the following:
Why were the Romans introduced into the tale at all?
Why was Jesus not beheaded, as was his cousin, JtB?
If Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition, why weren't his followers rounded up and crucified as an example?
Would Pontius Pilate have mentioned Jesus in an official report to Tiberius if he was such small beer?

JTB wasn't caught red-handed in the Temple making a big fuss on Passover.

The Romans were there to punish Sedition. The Jews had no Authority there, except Theological authority. Jesus wasn't guilty of Blasphemy.

His followers, no doubt, melted back into the crowd as quickly as they could. The Romans probably didn't have the manpower to track them all down.

 

[Belz...]

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

Well we know your contribution in this thread certainly keeps coming down to that.

 

[tsig]

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

But we take the bible and apply the oil of Criterion of Embarrassment, the magic of Multiple Attestations and the balm of Historical Consensus and arrive at the Truth^TM.


If you don't agree with that then you are an evolution denier, a 911 truther or just really, really stupid.

 

[tsig]

I have too explained my position at length so I was surprised by your questions. I thought perhaps something was not clear. It seems it is so, because you avoid again and again what is the cornerstone of my argument: "shameful punishment typical of people of low quality" (I say) is not “persecution and even execution" as you answer. You avoid "shameful" and "people of low quality". If someone as Paul was inventing a new sect with loaning passages from the Old Testament and was trying to wipe out a divine Jesus, there is no understandable reason why he searched two or three marginal and not clear fragments of the Old Testament to provide his divine Jesus with a shameful and low quality end. If Paul wanted to condemn the Jews, there are a lot of biblical chapters showing the divine anger against the Hebrews. If he wanted to kill his invented Jesus by the Jews' hands there was a lot of alternatives to a shameful death.

Yes, you can suppose that Paul was a twisted fool and his followers too. He may invent a dead god who was a unique case in the history of Mediterranean religions. But it is simpler to suppose that this twisted and foolish belief was the result of a desperate attempt to overcome the real difficulty of a real death of a real man. And it was so insane because his point of departure was forced and not willingly invented. And the simpler supposition has preference in science , you know.

And I agree with you. To repeat the same thing time and again is tired, particularly when no well directed answer arrives.

Paul's theology demanded that Jesus die a shameful death, how else was he supposed to redeem mankind?

 

[tsig]

By way of adieu or closure.

1. It is possible that a bunch of illuminated gathered in Palestine in the first century, and imagined that an emanation of Yahveh came down to Earth or similar .
1.b ETA: It is (less) possible that they invented that he was killed.
2. It is possible, although unlikely, that they invented for him a humiliating death. ("Shameful punishment typical of people of low quality" )
3. It is possible, but very unlikely, that wanting to condemn the Jews and to found a universal religion, they invented a death that involved the Romans.
4. It is much more likely their leader was crucified and then they devoted to justify his death desperately.

How the rabbit said:

That's all folks!​

NOTA BENE: I shall answer to objections to these points and only these points.

If they found the crucifixion embarrassing they would have expunged it from the records instead of making it the centerpiece of their religion.

 

[Craig B]

For the sake of others who may be reading here on the side lines - what we should clearly note here, is that the one thing we can say for certain about the trustworthiness and credibility of those gospel writers, is that far from being trustworthy in any measure at all, they were so demonstrably unreliable and untrustworthy as to fill their gospels with manifestly untrue and literally impossible beliefs on page after page.

As before: Originally Posted by Craig B : 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.

 

[pakeha]

No. I don't particularly want to either. I heard he got into some problem over the DSS, but I never looked into it.

I think I may have posted links to the brouhaha on another thread some time ago.
They're interesting, in a 'pride goeth' way.

JTB wasn't caught red-handed in the Temple making a big fuss on Passover..

Was it during Passover prior to his death?
John didn't think so.

The Romans were there to punish Sedition. The Jews had no Authority there, except Theological authority. Jesus wasn't guilty of Blasphemy..

Are you quite sure of that?
Mathew 26:66

"63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I [a]adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, [c]hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his [d]robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”"

Luke 22:67-71

"67 “If You are the [a]Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I ask a question, you will not answer. 69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” 70 And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” 71 Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”"

As you know, I'm having doubts about the Roman involvement in Jesus' death. Possibly unfounded and leaning to crankdom, but there you are.

His followers, no doubt, melted back into the crowd as quickly as they could. The Romans probably didn't have the manpower to track them all down.

Dunno, Brainache. Wait til the festival wound down, use informants and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Brainache]

But we take the bible and apply the oil of Criterion of Embarrassment, the magic of Multiple Attestations and the balm of Historical Consensus and arrive at the Truth^TM.


If you don't agree with that then you are an evolution denier, a 911 truther or just really, really stupid.

Or be determined to ignore everything anyone says on the subject, lie and distort their arguments and pretend to be really really clever.

This willful ignorance of yours is disgusting.

 

[Brainache]

I think I may have posted links to the brouhaha on another thread some time ago.
They're interesting, in a 'pride goeth' way.






Was it during Passover prior to his death?
John didn't think so.

John doesn't seem to know much about Judaism generally.

Are you quite sure of that?
Mathew 26:66

"63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I [a]adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, [c]hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his [d]robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”"

Luke 22:67-71

"67 “If You are the [a]Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I ask a question, you will not answer. 69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” 70 And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” 71 Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”"

If Eisenman is to be believed, when you compare those texts to the Clementine account of the death of James, you will see that they have taken a story about James and applied it to Jesus. They also stole the "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" line from Clement's James.

As you know, I'm having doubts about the Roman involvement in Jesus' death. Possibly unfounded and leaning to crankdom, but there you are.

You don't think he was crucified?

How did that bit get into the story?

Dunno, Brainache. Wait til the festival wound down, use informants and Bob's your uncle.

Maybe the Israelis should try that with Hamas too...

 

[IanS]

As before: Originally Posted by Craig B : 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.

Well everyone who has eyes and brain can see very clearly that you have no answer at all, and that you have never checked to see if any of those gospels you are totally reliant upon, were written by anyone who was anything other than completely unreliable and untrustworthy.

You have absolutely no idea why any of them should be trustworthy in an single thing any of them ever said. And that, but your own admission, is the entire basis of your belief.

Your position on this is 100% untenable, to the point of being rather sad (in which respect, it just looks worse every time you keep repeating yourself only to show the entirely vacuous untrue nature of your Jesus beliefs).

 

[Brainache]

Well everyone who has eyes and brain can see very clearly that you have no answer at all, and that you have never checked to see if any of those gospels you are totally reliant upon, were written by anyone who was anything other than completely unreliable and untrustworthy.

You have absolutely no idea why any of them should be trustworthy in an single thing any of them ever said. And that, but your own admission, is the entire basis of your belief.

Your position on this is 100% untenable, to the point of being rather sad (in which respect, it just looks worse every time you keep repeating yourself only to show the entirely vacuous untrue nature of your Jesus beliefs).

What a load of bollocks you just poured into the forum.

Who's going to clean that mess up?

Not Me!

 

[pakeha]

If Eisenman is to be believed, when you compare those texts to the Clementine account of the death of James, you will see that they have taken a story about James and applied it to Jesus. They also stole the "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" line from Clement's James.

Wait.
Clement has priority over the gospels?
Even though we know Clement's works are epiwhatsit aka forgeries?

But thinking it over, Brainache, that information you posted up makes the gospel account of Jesus' death even dodgier.

You don't think he was crucified?

How did that bit get into the story?

I have doubts about Jesus' crucifixion, yes. I have doubts about the Roman involvement in Jesus' death, too.

How did that bit get into the story?
Who knows?
The same way as did the zombies, the blasted fig tree, the adulterous woman, the resurrection, the two donkeys, the massacre of the innocents, Salome's dance, the magi, the entombment, and a long etc.?

Maybe the Israelis should try that with Hamas too...

Errr....