Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Foster Zygote]

What fallacies you post. You have never shown the data for claims. You are promoting Chisnese Whispers.

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.

So, who were those Christians whom Nero was persecuting in the mid 1st Century?

 

[dejudge]

So, who were those Christians whom Nero was persecuting in the mid 1st Century?

You don't know whether the word was Chrestians or Christians.

You don't know that earliest known copy of Tacitus Annals show that the word E was manipulated.

You do not know whether or not the Chrestians/Christians believed in YOUR HJ.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

You keep forgetting your "standard" HJ story.

You standard HJ was not the Christ.

Why can't you even remember your own standards?

There is a standard hypothesis. It is that Jesus was a preacher with a small following who got himself killed by the Romans.

What is the point in arguing about Christus in Tacitus' Annals when Christus in Annals had a large following so much so that Pilate killed Christus?

Please, just forget about Tacitus Annals with Christus. It does not help your standard dead obscure HJ who was not the well known Christus and with a large following.

 

[I Ratant]

The field of interest is religion.
Religions were started by liars, and liars ever since have lied about the lies.
The lies can be dismissed with just a bit of study, to clear the entire field of any substance.

YouSome don't know whether the word was Chrestians or Christians.

You Some don't know that earliest known copy of Tacitus Annals show that the word E was manipulated.

.
And at least one doesn't if or when that "manipulation" occured.. a scribe doing it incorrectly and a later scribe fixing it.. for one, with the second scribe using older (and unknown documents as his reason). With apparently no earlier description to compare Tacitus with, as you claim, A change in A manuscript is not the swallow that will make the summer.
Instead of shouting at the choir here, why not make waves on the 1000s of Xtian sites about this.
Shurley you will encounter some opposition.

 

[IanS]

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 with respect, that is not the point! And it was not your point either (at least not if you were objecting to what I had said about the inadmissibility of anonymous hearsay as reliable evidence of what a witnesses claims).

What I said about it was that, in the case of Jesus, the only evidence we have in the gospels, is anonymous hearsay alone. And there is no other “evidence” of Jesus at all except for the bible (all other mention of Jesus comes, as far anyone can tell, from the bible as the actual primary source). And that is not good enough to conclude that Jesus probably existed.

And the reason it’s not good enough is the same reason that such evidence is not even allowed before a jury in trial. I.e. because anonymous hearsay is a type of testimony which is so inherently unreliable and unsupported by any “facts”, that it has been “proved” over centuries of legal cases to be highly likely to mislead a jury into entirely wrong conclusions. It’s completely and entirely 100% inadmissible for that reason.

And that’s the reason why such unacceptable wholly unreliable testimony “offered as “evidence”, should also be unacceptable to us here in the case of Jesus.

The fact that bible scholars are very clearly operating a vastly lower standard, such that they do not merely accept and use anonymous hearsay as their evidence, but in fact use that as their only evidence, and moreover use it to conclude that Jesus was a “certainty” (as Ehrman very specifically tells us repeatedly, and as he says “all other properly trained scholars agree with him“, and as Dominic Crossan and others all say so too), the fact that these bible scholars do draw that conclusion from such wholly and completely inadmissible evidence, should be no business of ours here if we are honestly trying to determine what is likely and what value such testimony as that has … it has zero value as reliable or credible testimony, and that conclusion has long since been shown to be true and established in law in every developed democratic court in the western world.

What you were trying to tell me in respect of Thermopylae, was that you said historians DID in fact say that Thermopylae was probably true on the basis of precisely that sort of anonymous hearsay evidence alone. And your point in saying that was to tell me that such history would have to be discarded if those historians could not rely upon such anonymous hearsay alone as their only source of claimed evidence sufficient to conclude that Thermopale and similar events did actually happen.

Well that is simply wrong isn’t it!

First of all, as I said above - I do not believe you if you claim that genuine academic historians (not bible scholars!) rely on such anonymous hearsay alone, and from that alone (with no other external supporting evidence) say that is good enough for history to say that Thermopylae was probably true (i.e. more likely than not). I simply do not believe that any sane genuine historian could ever claim anything so manifestly absurd and mistaken as that.

If they say that they do have evidence sufficient to conclude that Thermopylae was true, then they are surely relying upon much more than mere unsupported un-evidenced anonymous hearsay alone. So, history and events such as Thermopylae would NOT collapse if that sort of legal test of anonymous hearsay was being used.

None of ancient history would have to be discarded. Because, outside of biblical studies, historians do not claim positive belief (in fact, claiming “certainty” as Ehrman repeatedly emphasises) on the basis of such inadmissible testimony as entirely anonymous hearsay alone. Genuine historians do not rely on that that sort of testimony alone, and what they conclude about history would not collapse at all.

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 do not even know what your words are supposed to mean there. The reason we should apply that same legal consideration here is because it rules out types of testimony (i.e. claims offered as if they were “evidence”) which are so inherently unreliable as to have been proved over centuries in law to be likely to mislead you into falsely believing that such inadmissible testimony is actually evidence of what is being claimed, when in fact it is NOT reliable or credible as evidence of what of being claimed.

Unless you deliberately wish to draw false conclusions, you should not rely on that sort of anonymous hearsay testimony alone. And certainly not in the case of the biblical writing, where that testimony is certainly claiming untrue religious superstitious fiction on every page, and where (moreover) it is now known that the superstitious ignorant religious fanatics who wrote those fictional stories of a miraculous Jesus, were taking their stories from what had already been written centuries before in their ancient book of divine religious revealed prophecy.

That’s why it’s wholly inadmissible as “evidence” of what it claims.

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.

I think the above is the same point which I just addressed above several times, and in fact I addressed this same general point in all of these posts I have explained why that legal precedent IS appropriate to the way we should consider the bible as evidence here in discussions such as this.

Repeat - genuine academic historians are in fact using precisely that same sort of legal approach of refusing to believe historical claims which come from anonymous hearsay testimony alone. They do NOT claim that such wholly unacceptable testimony is good enough to say that events such as Thermopylae actually happened.

Scientific standards of evidence are a different matter entirety. That is far above the standards required in legal cases. Nobody is saying that Jesus can only be judged if we have the equivalent of a scientific “Theory” and a mathematical “Proof”. That is just a complete red-herring of an argument which nobody here has proposed.

However, having said that, we certainly should be far more scientific here about the issue Jesus historicity, if we honestly want to decide whether the bible should be considered as reliable and credible evidence of its utterly fantastic untrue claims from the anonymous hearsay of people who knew nothing at all of the things they wrote about as their religious beliefs of supernatural divine prophecy … that is not credible as “evidence”, and it’s just about the most unreliable source that it’s possible to imagine.

 

[Craig B]

However, having said that, we certainly should be far more scientific here about the issue Jesus historicity, if we honestly want to decide whether the bible should be considered as reliable and credible evidence of its utterly fantastic untrue claims from the anonymous hearsay of people who knew nothing at all of the things they wrote about as their religious beliefs of supernatural divine prophecy … that is not credible as “evidence”, and it’s just about the most unreliable source that it’s possible to imagine.

As I have stated before, I simply don't accept that there is such a thing as "the Bible" that can uniformly be characterised in the terms you use; and the value to scholars of this compilation of ancient writings is not in any way dependent on their acceptance of its being "reliable or credible". I have argued this point in detail; and I note that you have no response but vehement assertion of your own (unsound, it seems to me) notions on the topic.

 

[dejudge]

As I have stated before, I simply don't accept that there is such a thing as "the Bible" that can uniformly be characterised in the terms you use; and the value to scholars of this compilation of ancient writings is not in any way dependent on their acceptance of its being "reliable or credible". I have argued this point in detail; and I note that you have no response but vehement assertion of your own (unsound, it seems to me) notions on the topic.

Your statement is illogical, contradictory and baseless. If you do not accept that there is a "Bible" then I am afraid your HJ argument is of no value.

Hundreds of Codices have been found with NT books in the Bible.

Apologetic writings do confirm that around the 4th century the Church of Rome there was a Christian Bible.

The Quest for an HJ was initiated because of the Christian Bible.

The Christian Bible describes a Jesus of Faith.

So far no evidence has been found for an HJ.

The Quest for an HJ continues after hundreds of years and no-one has been able to find their assumed HJ.

Based on the existing evidence there was NO HJ or an HJ is not plausible.

The Christian Faith was based on entirely on BELIEF--not historical facts.

In fact, in the Pauline Corpus of the Christian Bible, the life of Jesus was irrelevant, it was the Resurrection, a non-historical event, that was the foundation of the Pauline Faith.

Romans 10:9 NAS

..that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins

Galatians 1:1 KJV

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.)

1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .[/I][/b]

Philippians 3.10

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death..

 

[Foster Zygote]

You don't know whether the word was Chrestians or Christians.

Neither do you. Yet you are the one making the claim of certainty.

You quoted that article, yet you left out all the parts that disagree with you.

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.
In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing". The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.

It has been stated that both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians. Robert Van Voorst says that many sources indicate that the term Chrestians was also used among the early followers of Jesus by the second century. The term Christians appears only three times in the New Testament, the first usage (Acts 11:26) giving the origin of the term. In all three cases the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus in Greek reads Chrestianoi. In Phrygia a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".
Adolf von Harnack argued that Chrestians was the original wording, and that Tacitus deliberately used Christus immediately after it to show his own superior knowledge compared to the population at large. Robert Renehan has stated that it was natural for a Roman to mix the two words that sounded the same, that Chrestianos was the original word in the Annals and not an error by a scribe. Van Voorst has stated that it was unlikely for Tacitus himself to refer to Christians as Chrestianos i.e. "useful ones" given that he also referred to them as "hated for their shameful acts". Paul Eddy sees no major impact on the authenticity of the passage or its meaning regardless of the use of either term by Tacitus.

Then there's the fact that Suetonius also mentions Christians in the 16th chapter of his book on Nero Caesar.

The Nero 16 passage refers to a series of rulings by Nero for public order, one of which being the punishment of Christians. These punishments are generally dated to around AD 64, the year of the Great Fire of Rome. In this passage Suetonius describes Christianity as a superstition (superstitio) as do his contemporaries, Tacitus and Pliny.

So, how do you address this regarding your assertion that Christianity was a 2nd Century invention?

 

[dejudge]

Neither do you. Yet you are the one making the claim of certainty.

Your statement is illogical. You are the one who introduced the "Christians" when you had no idea who they were and what they believed.

Examine your own question.

So, who were those Christians whom Nero was persecuting in the mid 1st Century?

You are not doing history because if you were you would have realized that the passage appears to have been manipulated and the earliest copy is from around the 11th century.

You really have no knowledge of any contemporary evidence to support your HJ--the dead obscurity.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your statement is illogical. You are the one who introduced the "Christians" when you had no idea who they were and what they believed.

Examine your own question.



You are not doing history because if you were you would have realized that the passage appears to have been manipulated and the earliest copy is from around the 11th century.

You really have no knowledge of any contemporary evidence to support your HJ--the dead obscurity.

So you're just going to ignore all the references that I posted. Well, everyone else can read them. They can also clearly see you ignoring them. You didn't even address my closing question, you just inserted an earlier question in a clumsy slight of hand and then repeated your mantra that no one has any evidence, even though everyone can clearly see you ignoring a bunch of evidence that I just pointed to. You might as well post a photo of yourself sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes.

Tell us, how is it that the experts who study this issue professionally can reach such a different opinion from you? Why are they so dumb and you're so smart?

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is illogical. You are the one who introduced the "Christians" when you had no idea who they were and what they believed.

Examine your own question.



You are not doing history because if you were you would have realized that the passage appears to have been manipulated and the earliest copy is from around the 11th century.

You really have no knowledge of any contemporary evidence to support your HJ--the dead obscurity.

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is illogical.

I really wish you'd make an effort to learn what that adjective means.

 

[dejudge]

So you're just going to ignore all the references that I posted. Well, everyone else can read them. They can also clearly see you ignoring them. You didn't even address my closing question, you just inserted an earlier question in a clumsy slight of hand and then repeated your mantra that no one has any evidence, even though everyone can clearly see you ignoring a bunch of evidence that I just pointed to. You might as well post a photo of yourself sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes.

You have not posted any evidence from antiquity for your dead HJ obscurity. You do not understand the difference between evidence and opinion.

Under ultra-violet light it is clear that letter "E" in the word Chrestian/Christian was altered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown....

The fact that there is conclusive evidence of tampering Tacitus Annals 15.44 is now a questionable source and does not help the HJ argument for a little known dead preacher man.

 

[Tom Skylark]

2 Peter 3:3-4 the words are correct as we see in this debate.

 

[Craig B]

2 Peter 3:3-4 the words are correct as we see in this debate.

Yes. The author of the later work 2 Peter (it most certainly wasn't the first Apostle) had a problem. The End of Time predicted by Jesus for his own generation was stubbornly refusing to arrive. Nor has it arrived to this day, two millennia later.

3 ... there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

He's right! That's exactly what the scoffers say. Only, the scoffers came, and still it wasn't "the last days". It didn't happen in the days of Jesus' generation, as promised. They "fell asleep" indeed. It didn't happen in the days of 2 Peter, and it hasn't happened since. Looks like the scoffers got it right.

 

[zugzwang]

But history itself is not about scoffing. It's a naturalistic discipline; therefore while it examines people's beliefs in miracles and other supernatural stuff, it does not examine miracles and so on, since they are non-naturalistic. In fact, there appears to be no methodology whereby one could examine miracles, except, 'it's true because I say so', which is totally unconstrained. I could also claim that I go astrally travelling every night, because I say so, or anything you like. It's the Nigerian holy termite god wot done it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You have not posted any evidence from antiquity for your dead HJ obscurity. You do not understand the difference between evidence and opinion.

Under ultra-violet light it is clear that letter "E" in the word Chrestian/Christian was altered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ



The fact that there is conclusive evidence of tampering Tacitus Annals 15.44 is now a questionable source and does not help the HJ argument for a little known dead preacher man.

How can you have presented the Wiki article about Tacitus on Christ, provided the quote-mined statement about Georg Andresen, and not have seen any of the information pointing out that "Chrestian" was a word commonly used interchangeably with "Christians". How could you not have seen that the alteration isn't seen as evidence that someone changed the text to make it look like some mysterious group called "Chrestions" were actually a completely different group called "Christians", but that it is most likely simply a matter of a scribe correcting what he felt to be a misspelling in the text.

Read this:

It has been stated that both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians. Robert Van Voorst says that many sources indicate that the term Chrestians was also used among the early followers of Jesus by the second century. The term Christians appears only three times in the New Testament, the first usage (Acts 11:26) giving the origin of the term. In all three cases the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus in Greek reads Chrestianoi. In Phrygia a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".
Adolf von Harnack argued that Chrestians was the original wording, and that Tacitus deliberately used Christus immediately after it to show his own superior knowledge compared to the population at large. Robert Renehan has stated that it was natural for a Roman to mix the two words that sounded the same, that Chrestianos was the original word in the Annals and not an error by a scribe. Van Voorst has stated that it was unlikely for Tacitus himself to refer to Christians as Chrestianos i.e. "useful ones" given that he also referred to them as "hated for their shameful acts". Paul Eddy sees no major impact on the authenticity of the passage or its meaning regardless of the use of either term by Tacitus.

So, why are the experts wrong?

 

[zugzwang]

Why are the experts wrong? Because I say so.

 

[dejudge]

So, why are the experts wrong?

You seem to arguing against this expert. Robert Eiseman, an historian, has declared that no-one has solved the question of an historical Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU8uKFtxgU

Why is Robert Eiseman wrong? Because you say so.

You seem to be arguing against Richard Carrier, an historian.

Richard Carrier argues that Jesus was most likely a figure of mythology.

All you do is argue against the experts and others that do not agree with your un-evidenced obscure dead HJ.

You have no evidence so your arguments are really worthless.

Your HJ is not even plausible.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You seem to arguing against this expert. Robert Eiseman, an historian, has declared that no-one has solved the question of an historical Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU8uKFtxgU

Why is Robert Eiseman wrong? Because you say so.

You are dishonestly attempting to hide your errors. Eiseman points out the historical Jesus hypothesis is not certain, yet he is still of the opinion that such a person most likely existed.

You seem to be arguing against Richard Carrier, an historian.

Richard Carrier argues that Jesus was most likely a figure of mythology.

Actually, it's the vast majority of academic New Testament scholars who argue against Carrier, who is an historian, but not an expert of New Testament textual criticism.

All you do is argue against the experts and others that do not agree with your un-evidenced obscure dead HJ.

What are you talking about? the vast majority of experts think that an historical Jesus is the most likely explanation for the origin of Christianity.

You have no evidence so your arguments are really worthless.

I've just shown you evidence and you've ignored it completely. You are a liar and an intellectual coward.

Your HJ is not even plausible.

Yet you can't point out any part of the historical Jesus scenario that is not plausible.

 

[David Mo]

But with respect, that is not the point! And it was not your point either (at least not if you were objecting to what I had said about the inadmissibility of anonymous hearsay as reliable evidence of what a witnesses claims).

I do not know what you mean by 'hearsay'. In legal terms it means a second hand testimony. Ancient History is often based on analysis of second-hand texts which in many cases are anonymous, seudoepigraphics or of doubtful authorship. I insist: critical analysis. If you do not recognize that we have no more to discuss.