Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

.
This is a Skeptics forum.
We all know that!
And we know there was no Divine J either.
What are doing here, telling us, that?

You don't know that there was and HJ!!

Robert Eiseman, an historian, claims that NO-ONE has solved the question of the Historical Jesus.

What are you doing here? This is a Skeptic Forum.

Some posters here want to give the impression that they are Skeptics but still admit they BELIEVE the Bible contains the history of the SKEPTIC HJ.

Some are Skeptic about the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost but NOT about Jesus while it is admitted the evidence is TERRIBLE , very weak and quietly contradictorily NEVER claimed to have had evidence.

We all know you DON'T know that there was an HJ.

We ONLY KNOW what is found WRITTEN in the Recovered dated NT manuscripts and Codices.

HERE we are doing HISTORY.

This is what is found in the CODEX SINAITICUS about Jesus.

ALL we know is that Jesus was described a PHANTOM, the Son of God, in the earliest dated recovered Codices .

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...chapter=6&lid=en&side=r&verse=49&zoomSlider=0

Codex Sinaiticus Mark 6

46 And having sent them away he went into the mountain to pray.

47 And when evening had come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and himself alone on the land.

48 And seeing them toiling in rowing, for the wind was against them, about the fourth watch of the night he came to them walking on the sea. And he intended to pass by them.

49 But seeing him walking on the sea they thought that it was a specter, and cried out;

50 for they all saw him and were alarmed. But he immediately talked with them, and said to them: Take courage, it is I, be not afraid.

Codex Sinaiticus Mark 9

2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter, and James, and John, and led them up into a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them.

Codex Sinaiticus Mark 16

But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here[/I]: see the place where they laid him.

This is a SKeptic Forum and I REJECT the ENTIRE Jesus story. It is compilation of Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

What are you doing here if you BELIEVE the NT contains the history of HJ?

It would appear to me that you are really a Skeptic of Skepticism.

You really don't want Skeptics here who are Skeptic of the ENTIRE Jesus story based on the abundance of evidence.

 

[jhunter1163]

Sigh.

Do not use excessive capitalization and bolding. Such formatting is disruptive and a breach of Rule 6. Further such posts beyond this mod box will be infracted. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[I Ratant]

...

This is a SKeptic Forum and I REJECT the ENTIRE Jesus story. It is compilation of Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.
.
No one is arguing with you about that! MOF no one is arguing with you at all.. just amused tolerance.
.

What are you doing here if you BELIEVE the NT contains the history of HJ?

.
Further cognitive dissonance noted.
.

It would appear to me that you are really a Skeptic of Skepticism.

You really don't want Skeptics here who are Skeptic of the ENTIRE Jesus story based on the abundance of evidence.

.
Gibberish.
There is a "Jesus story". What or who if anyone was "Jesus"... who gives a ****? The story has shaped civilization ever since, regardless of the existence or none of the principal subject.

 

[David Mo]

No David. It is you who is wrong if you say, as I think you are saying, that historians claim to believe that Thermopylae is true on the basis of evidence no better than that for Jesus.

But I'm not saying that. I only say that the standards of evidence of a court are not appropriate to resolve the question of the existence of historical events such like the Battle of Thermopylae or the crucifixion of Jesus. Note it's a different statement of this you are attributing to me. I have not matched the probability of Thermopylae and Jesus death. I have only discussed what the method of evidence applicable to both cases is.

But what I said about that, is that we should be using that same legal standard as our criteria here. Not that bible scholars or so-called bible-“historians” do use that same legal standard in the case of Jesus.

I do not know why. If we know what is the method of historians we should apply here, even to the extent of our knowledge.

I suspect that if Thermopylae is believed by historians, then that belief can only credibly be based on significantly better evidence than mere anonymous hearsay alone.

I do not know if you call ‘hearsay’ Herodotus' books. They aren't of first hand testimonies, of course. As the practical totality of ancient texts are. But what I am sure is that historians do not use criteria of evidence similar to those of the natural sciences and Law. The criteria of Ancient History are far less harsh and often simply indicate a more likely explanation than the opposite. Naturally I can not convince here. An Ancient History course would be needed. And I'm surely not the appropiate person to do it. I simply point out to some cases and if you knew something more of the methods of ancient history, you would realize that your demands for evidence are excessive and your initial intention to refuse the search for some historical data on Gospels is inappropriate. No matter these historical facts result to be practically non-existent. But this is not an a priori point.

More I can not do.

 

[dejudge]

But I'm not saying that. I only say that the standards of evidence of a court are not appropriate to resolve the question of the existence of historical events such like the Battle of Thermopylae or the crucifixion of Jesus. Note it's a different statement of this you are attributing to me. I have not matched the probability of Thermopylae and Jesus death. I have only discussed what the method of evidence applicable to both cases is.

We already know that the question of an historical Jesus has not been resolved by historians so a study into Ancient History will not help.

Robert Eiseman has admitted "no one has solved it".

The problem for an HJ is very basic and is also applicable in the courts.

There is NO data for an HJ. There is NO corroborative evidence for an HJ.

One is not likely to be even charged with a crime without evidence to support the charge.

One is not likely to be arrested without supporting evidence.

The HJ argument would be instantly thrown out of any court as soon as it was admitted that there was really no corroborative evidence [no witnesses].

Who in antiquity admitted that they saw HJ alive in the NT?

Only Paul-- but probably years after he was supposedly dead and then resurrected.

The HJ argument is baseless and un-evidenced that is precisely why historians are inventing multiple versions of HJ by guessing.

 

[Foster Zygote]

We already know that the question of an historical Jesus has not been resolved by historians so a study into Ancient History will not help.

That's a bit like saying that we already know that the nature of abiogenesis has not been resolved by biologists, so further study of biochemistry will not help.

Robert Eiseman has admitted "no one has solved it".

Meaning that no one has proved either the existence of Jesus, nor his nonexistence.

The problem for an HJ is very basic and is also applicable in the courts.

There is NO data for an HJ. There is NO corroborative evidence for an HJ.

There is evidence, it just isn't proof.

One is not likely to be even charged with a crime without evidence to support the charge.

One is not likely to be arrested without supporting evidence.

But one might be investigated as a suspect based on available evidence. No one here has claimed to have proved that a living Jesus was the genesis of Christianity. But he is a plausible suspect.

The HJ argument would be instantly thrown out of any court as soon as it was admitted that there was really no corroborative evidence [no witnesses].

No one has "brought it to court".

Who in antiquity admitted that they saw HJ alive in the NT?

No one. But then no one wrote anything that has survived the last two millennia until years after Jesus is said to have died.

The HJ argument is baseless and un-evidenced that is precisely why historians are inventing multiple versions of HJ by guessing.

And if only those stupid historians would avail themselves of your great wisdom and academic training, then they could all stop asking questions.

It's very simple: So much is missing from the earliest history of Christianity that we can't say with any certainty exactly how it started. Historians love to deal with hard evidence whenever they can find it, but the hard truth is that it is usually impossible to reconstruct exactly what happened hundred or thousands of years ago. So historians propose what they can best determine to be possible scenarios. Because they know they are dealing with uncertainties, they will often propose multiple scenarios as being plausible explanations for what is observed. They don't declare these scenarios to be certain, and they remain open to revision or contradiction in the face of new evidence. If you think that making educated guesses isn't a component of historical analysis, or the scientific method in general, then you should probably take an introductory history course. It's better to say, "This could be true based on what we do know, but we don't have enough evidence to prove it", than to pretend to know something based on fallacious and ignorant arguments.

 

[Belz...]

The HJ argument would be instantly thrown out of any court

"Hey, this other poster is using that argument. Sounds good to me, so I'll use it, too."

History isn't a court.

 

[Craig B]

The problem for an HJ is very basic and is also applicable in the courts.
There is NO data for an HJ. There is NO corroborative evidence for an HJ.
One is not likely to be even charged with a crime without evidence to support the charge.
One is not likely to be arrested without supporting evidence.
The HJ argument would be instantly thrown out of any court as soon as it was admitted that there was really no corroborative evidence [no witnesses]

Considering that's a response to David Mo's sensible observation:

I only say that the standards of evidence of a court are not appropriate to resolve the question of the existence of historical events such like the Battle of Thermopylae or the crucifixion of Jesus.

I can only assume, dejudge, that you're having a laugh.

 

[dejudge]

Considering that's a response to David Mo's sensible observation: I can only assume, dejudge, that you're having a laugh.

I am actually laughing at your absurd notion that claims in the NT are evidence that Jesus was a figure of history.

It is the complete opposite.

The claims in the NT describe Jesus as a figure of mythology.

You will be NOT able to demonstrate that Jesus was a figure of history. It is virtually impossible for you to do so if you employ the claims about Jesus in the NT.

You know it is claimed Jesus was crucified!!

You know it is claimed Jesus walked on the sea!!

You know it is claimed Jesus was transfigured!!

You know it is claimed Jesus resurrected!!

You know the evidence for myth Jesus when you argue that claims are evidence.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am actually laughing at your absurd notion that claims in the NT are evidence that Jesus was a figure of history.

Like it or not, they are. You simply don't comprehend the difference between evidence and proof.

The claims in the NT describe Jesus as a figure of mythology.

There are obviously mythical accounts of things that Jesus was said to have done, but then there are obviously mythical accounts of things that Joseph Smith was said to have done.

You will be NOT able to demonstrate that Jesus was a figure of history. It is virtually impossible for you to do so if you employ the claims about Jesus in the NT.

Nothing gets by you, does it? Maybe that's why we haven't claimed to have proved that Jesus was a figure of history, but rather that his historicity is plausible.

You know it is claimed Jesus was crucified!!

And people didn't get crucified?

You know it is claimed Jesus walked on the sea!!

Yes, and no one here actually believes that he did.

You know it is claimed Jesus was transfigured!!

Yes, and no one here actually believes that he was.

You know it is claimed Jesus resurrected!!

Yes, and no one here actually believes that he did.

You know the evidence for myth Jesus when you argue that claims are evidence.

That sentence doesn't parse.

Your argument hasn't changed. It is still, "Jesus wasn't real because superstitious people made up magical stories about him".

 

[dejudge]

Your argument hasn't changed. It is still, "Jesus wasn't real because superstitious people made up magical stories about him".

Your statement is a fallacy.

I have never argued that Jesus existed and that people made up magical stories about him.

I have always argued that I consider Jesus as a Myth like Romulus, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and Adam.

They all have NO history--just magic.

Plus, your obscure dead is not found in or out the Bible.

Your obscure dead was NOT the Christ.

Your obscure dead is unknown.

You cannot use the NT, Josephus and Tacitus for your obscure dead.

Your obscure dead was NOT the King of the Jews or a High Priest.

Your obscure dead HJ argument is dead.

 

[I Ratant]

...

Your obscure dead HJ argument is dead.

.
For you.
No one else cares.

 

[dejudge]

.
For you.
No one else cares.

Your statement is illogical. You are right now engaged in a thread where people are arguing about the question of the existence of Jesus.

Why are you posting here if you don't care?

May I remind you Foster Zygote has even made up stories about his OWN hypothetical Jesus.

Posters here really care about the existence/non existence of Jesus.

 

[I Ratant]

Monomania, etc.
Possibly you can go on for another 67 pages explaining the true roots of the legend.
Who, what, when, where, why.
With links.
It'd be 50% of a vast improvement of the thread so far.

 

[Foster Zygote]

May I remind you Foster Zygote has even made up stories about his OWN hypothetical Jesus.

Don't lie, dejudge. The hypothetical scenario that I have challenged you to merely prove implausible is a paraphrasing of a standard model among academic New Testament scholars. You have evaded all requests that you point out any aspects of that scenario that are not possible. That's curious, because it should be easy for you to do so, especially given that those scholars must be so stupid compared to you.

 

[dejudge]

Don't lie, dejudge. The hypothetical scenario that I have challenged you to merely prove implausible is a paraphrasing of a standard model among academic New Testament scholars. You have evaded all requests that you point out any aspects of that scenario that are not possible. That's curious, because it should be easy for you to do so, especially given that those scholars must be so stupid compared to you.

What standard are you talking about?? New Testament Scholars has no standard Jesus story. You appear unwilling to take responsibility for your own posts.

You want to blame others for what you write here.

Are you not aware that Bart Ehrman, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, Robert Price and Robert Eiseman do not have a standard Jesus?

Which NT Scholars have a standard Jesus story? Please, don't lie!!


Now, I have told you already that your HJ is not plausible because it is un-evidence.

 

[Foster Zygote]

What standard are you talking about?? New Testament Scholars has no standard Jesus story. You appear unwilling to take responsibility for your own posts.

You want to blame others for what you write here.

Are you not aware that Bart Ehrman, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, Robert Price and Robert Eiseman do not have a standard Jesus?

Which NT Scholars have a standard Jesus story? Please, don't lie!!


Now, I have told you already that your HJ is not plausible because it is un-evidence.

Dejudge, the vast majority of academic New Testament scholars support the hypothetical Jesus that I've described. That is a religious figure with a small following and big delusions who went to Jerusalem expecting to really shake things up but was promptly put to death by the Romans instead, and who's followers dealt with the failure of their beliefs with denial and post hoc rationalizations. You can try to pin that hypothesis on me, but you are just lying.

Why don't you take responsibility for your own posts and openly state what you must believe, namely that the vast majority of academic New Testament scholars are a bunch of idiots who have something very important to learn from you.

And you still haven't explained why that scenario is not possible.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge, the vast majority of academic New Testament scholars support the hypothetical Jesus that I've described. That is a religious figure with a small following and big delusions who went to Jerusalem expecting to really shake things up but was promptly put to death by the Romans instead, and who's followers dealt with the failure of their beliefs with denial and post hoc rationalizations. You can try to pin that hypothesis on me, but you are just lying.

You keep repeat the same fallacy. You cannot produce any standard story for your HJ.

You forgot what you posted. You forgot you specifically stated that historians propose multiple scenarios.

You forgot that you admitted historians were making educated guesses about HJ.

You know that there is no standard for guessing.

Examine your own post.

So historians propose what they can best determine to be possible scenarios. Because they know they are dealing with uncertainties, they will often propose multiple scenarios as being plausible explanations for what is observed.

Your HJ argument is just a fishing expedition.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You keep repeat the same fallacy. You cannot produce any standard story for your HJ.

There is a standard hypothesis. It is that Jesus was a preacher with a small following who got himself killed by the Romans. That is the core that the vast majority of academic New Testament scholars agree on. Other aspects of the story are less certain, and the more details that they try to fill in, the less certain they are, and the more options become plausible.

You forgot what you posted. You forgot you specifically stated that historians propose multiple scenarios.

You sound like a creationist arguing that evolution is falsified by the fact that biologists disagree about various aspects of the theory.

You forgot that you admitted historians were making educated guesses about HJ.

You clearly ignored that this is also a part of virtually all investigatory disciplines.

You know that there is no standard for guessing.

That is a completely false statement. The standard for "guessing", whether in history, science, or even criminal investigations, is that the guesses have to be plausible based on available evidence, and that they are to be regarded only as possible explanations pending further evidence.

Examine your own post.

You mean the statement where I referred to the historical discipline in general. I know you think you're really on to something here, but you're not, and the more you pursue this line of argument the more you betray your own ignorance. Like it or not, history is often about proposing more than one possible explanation for something because it is simply not possible to know with certainty.

 

[dejudge]

There is a standard hypothesis. It is that Jesus was a preacher with a small following who got himself killed by the Romans. That is the core that the vast majority of academic New Testament scholars agree on. Other aspects of the story are less certain, and the more details that they try to fill in, the less certain they are, and the more options become plausible.

What fallacies you post. You have never shown the data for your claims. You are promoting Chisnese Whispers. There is no standard for HJ in NT Academia.

The NT Scholars and historians who are Agnostic about HJ do not claim Jesus was a preacher man.

The NT Scolars and historians who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology do not argue that Jesus was a preacher man.

You seem not to understand that we know you have no evidence for your dead obscure HJ and is now inventing your own "vast majority" without the supporting data.

How many NT Academics and Historians in the world are Agnostic about the existence of an HJ?

How many NT Academics and Historians in the world argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology?

Your HJ argument is dead because you never had any evidence from the beginning.