Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[NearlySane]

Oh, I'm sure that historians are forced to rely upon a standard of evidence far below that which is required to establish scientific theory. But then, I have said exactly that already many times here. So that is not something about which you and I have ever disagreed.

We are not asking bible scholars for rigorous science "Theory" and mathematical "proofs".

But equally that does not mean anyone here should be so naïve as to accept the biblical writing as if it were reliable evidence for a supernatural messiah figure believed by religious fanatics none of whom had ever known any such person in any way at all (except through religious faith).

You do realise this isn't the HJ position? If not, can I suggest you read through some of the posts? If you do, why misrepresnt the poistion?

 

[Belz...]

Well he's got some of us on ignore.

 

[Elagabalus]

You find that sort of passage (highlighted) impressive? That passage is not only manifestly dishonest, but also just an undisguised religious rant.

- firstly “mythicists” (whoever they are supposed to be) are not “forced to manufacture unknown proto-Christians who build up an unattested myth” - no sceptic needs to say anything at all about any comments in Paul’s letters concerning any earlier groups of believers who Paul says he had once persecuted before his conversion...

So...you...didn't read it then....?

 

[Brainache]

So...you...didn't read it then....?

Welcome to the Historical Jesus "debate"...

 

[IanS]

Oh, I'm sure that historians are forced to rely upon a standard of evidence far below that which is required to establish scientific theory. But then, I have said exactly that already many times here. So that is not something about which you and I have ever disagreed.

We are not asking bible scholars for rigorous science "Theory" and mathematical "proofs".

But equally that does not mean anyone here should be so naïve as to accept the biblical writing as if it were reliable evidence for a supernatural messiah figure believed by religious fanatics none of whom had ever known any such person in any way at all (except through religious faith).

You do realise this isn't the HJ position? If not, can I suggest you read through some of the posts? If you do, why misrepresnt the poistion?

I have not misrepresented any such position. I am talking about the bible as evidence of Jesus. In the bible the Jesus that people said they knew about and that disciples had witnessed, was a supernatural messiah from Yahweh in heaven.

You are talking about some other messiah called a HJ. Well where did that HJ come from? Who ever claimed to have witnessed any so-called non-supernatural HJ? Or is this HJ something than bible scholars and theologians simply invented as an un-evidenced un-corroborated idea in relatively recent times?

 

[Brainache]

I have not misrepresented any such position. I am talking about the bible as evidence of Jesus. In the bible the Jesus that people said they knew about and that disciples had witnessed, was a supernatural messiah from Yahweh in heaven.

Who ate, drank, broke bread with his bare hands, and could turn over tables in a fit of pique?

That's some Ghost!

Why do you have to ignore so much to maintain your position?

You are talking about some other messiah called a HJ. Well where did that HJ come from? Who ever claimed to have witnessed any so-called non-supernatural HJ? Or is this HJ something than bible scholars and theologians simply invented as an un-evidenced un-corroborated idea in relatively recent times?

Please learn about the subject called "History", which is taught at Universities. It will profit you greatly.

 

[Craig B]

IanS

Whom are you accusing of doing this?

But equally that does not mean anyone here should be so naïve as to accept the biblical writing as if it were reliable evidence for a supernatural messiah

 

[dejudge]

Please learn about the subject called "History", which is taught at Universities. It will profit you greatly.

The evidence for HJ is found in Universities?

Robert Eisenman an Historian attended University and admitted no-one has solved the HJ question.

It is quite illogical and absurd to assume that there is evidence for an HJ because "History" is taught at Universities.

Richard Carrier an Historian attended University and he argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

The history of an HJ requires evidence from antiquity not Universities.

Which University provides evidence for the history of Adam, Eve, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost?

 

[Brainache]

The evidence for HJ is found in Universities?

Yes. It's called an education.

Robert Eisenman an Historian attended University and admitted no-one has solved the HJ question.

That is because people are still debating who he was, not whether he existed.

It is quite illogical and absurd to assume that there is evidence for an HJ because "History" is taught at Universities.

Well, don't assume that then. Go and find out. Ask a University Professor of History.

No use talking to me.

Richard Carrier an Historian attended University and he argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

He doesn't teach it anywhere though. Never has.

The history of an HJ requires evidence from antiquity not Universities.

Where do you think all of the History that you know of came from? Down the Pub?

Which University provides evidence for the history of Adam, Eve, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost?

None of them. Why would they? That would be stupid.

 

[David Mo]

But equally that does not mean anyone here should be so naïve as to accept the biblical writing as if it were reliable evidence for a supernatural messiah figure believed by religious fanatics none of whom had ever known any such person in any way at all (except through religious faith).

I agree, but I have to do some precision about “supernatural”.

The word “supernatural” has a pejorative sense between atheists or agnostics. You intend to disqualify the position of those who defend the existence of Jesus and are atheists or agnostics. Dejudge is more radical when uses the word “ghost”.

Both positions are based on an incorrect use of the language. Dejudge is more manipulative but you manipulate the words also.

To say that Jesus was considered “supernatural” by evangelists and early Christians is a very ambiguous sentence, because “supernatural” might mean many different things:

1. Jesus is a part of eternal God equal or subordinated to the Father.
2. Jesus was an angelic or similar entity.
3 Jesus was a man deified by God.
4. Jesus was a man “divine” in the same sense than were divine the prophets, philosophers, kings and other exceptional men.

Since Jesus adopted a human appearance there are also diverse possibilities:
a. The human appearance of Jesus was a ghost.
b. A real human body was produced to host the divine entity.
c. A pre-existent man was chosen to be endowed with divine features.

Only the a alternative is not present in the Gospels and the Pauline epistles, if we do not consider some post mortem appearances. It is clear that evangelists and Paul were thinking in some special being with a dual condition: human and divine. There is not contradiction for atheists in believing that the evangelists were speaking about a real man (human condition) which was present who they endowed with divine features in any of the possible combinations I have presented above. Of course, an atheist will criticise the supernatural deeds that the evangelists attributed to Jesus as mere delusion. Of course, an atheist will be careful or sceptic about marvelous sayings and outstanding psychological features attributed to Jesus by evangelists. Of course, an atheist must consider the apologetic sense of Gospel narrative and the fervent component that coats the Gospels. But he mustn’t necessarily deny the existence of Jesus in his human 'appearance'. This is not an a priori atheistic position.

That is why your almost maniacal insistence in the supernatural or “ghostly” character is not sufficient to solve the question of the Jesus’ existence. We need to consider other arguments.

 

[dejudge]

.....That is why your almost maniacal insistence in the supernatural or “ghostly” character is not sufficient to solve the question of the Jesus’ existence. We need to consider other arguments.

What other arguments can be considered when the only evidence is that of mythology?

Myth Jesus has answered all questions about the existence/non-existence of Jesus?

Do you not understand the History of the Quest for an HJ?

The Jesus of Faith--Myth Jesus is already established and is the default position.

It is the acknowledgment of the Jesus of Faith that has caused a Quest [a search] for a New Jesus.

There is no argument of the divinity of Jesus in the NT it is his Flesh that is in question. Did it ever Exist?

There is no corroborative evidence to support the argument that the Jesus of Faith had Flesh.

Effectively, Jesus in the NT, was ONLY a product of Belief, a product of Faith, a product of Mythology.

That is exactly why NO HJ has ever been found.

We are now in the THIRD Quest for an HJ and nothing has changed after hundreds of years.

Only the Jesus of Faith--- Only Myth Jesus is established in the NT.

 

[dejudge]

The evidence for HJ is found in Universities?

Yes. It's called an education.

No, No!!!! Education is not evidence for an HJ.

Robert Eisenman an Historian attended University and admitted no-one has solved the HJ question.

That is because people are still debating who he was, not whether he existed.

You mean they don't know who he was but ASSUME he existed.

Christian people claimed Jesus existed but as the Logos and God Creator. They say Jesus came into existence after he came down from heaven and became Flesh.

Tell us of your assumed Jesus because we know you don't have any evidence.

The assumed father of your Jesus was .......................................

The assumed place of birth........................................................

The assumed time of death..........................................................

The assumed manner of death.........................................................

 

[Belz...]

What other arguments can be considered when the only evidence is that of mythology?

Hasn't anybody told you to stop lying, sir ?

 

[IanS]

IanS

Whom are you accusing of doing this?

Quote:
But equally that does not mean anyone here should be so naïve as to accept the biblical writing as if it were reliable evidence for a supernatural messiah

The bible describes peoples beliefs in a supernatural messiah, not any so called HJ.

As dejudge has emphasised to you countless times - if you rely on the bible as your evidence then that claims people had witnessed a messiah who was repeatedly and constantly supernatural.

I am saying it is naïve to treat the bible as if it is reliable evidence of a messiah which it describes as an impossible figure of the supernatural.

It would be more than naïve to treat it as evidence of a so-called HJ, because it does not attempt to describe a HJ. On the contrary it repeatedly describes a figure who was supernatural in the extreme.

 

[dejudge]

Hasn't anybody told you to stop lying, sir ?

Hasn't anybody told you to stop lying , sir?

You claimed everyone has agreed the evidence for HJ is Terrible but contradict yourself by admitting you never claimed to have had evidence for HJ.

Which is it?

The evidence is terrible or you never had evidence?

Who has the terrible evidence for HJ? It's not you!!

Tell us who has it?

 

[eight bits]

David

... if we do not consider some post mortem appearances. It is clear that evangelists and Paul were thinking in some special being with a dual condition: human and divine.

It is not at all clear of Paul or Mark. Of the two, Paul is repeatedly insistent about his Jewishness. "A dual condition: human and divine" doesn't even parse as a coherent idea in Jewish thinking. One might as well be discussing a quadrilateral pentagon.

It is the post-mortem "appearances" that persuade Paul that the human Jesus had and still has some special relarionship with God. The Jewish religion, in a nutshell, is that many human beings have some special relationship with God. Nothing whatsoever would persuade an observant Jew that some human being is God.

Mark is less talkative about himself and his religious predispositions. What is clear, however, is that the plot problem of Mark is "Suppose that so-and-so was in fact the Messiah, and that Paul was right that the role could be filled by somebody who was killed. How then would anybody, including so-and-so, know that so-and-so was the Messiah before he was killed?"

It is the clarity and insistence with which the earliest survivng Christian literature focuses on a fully natural man leading a typical tzedek's life that creates a suspicion that one particular human being may stand at the the root of the Christian-Islamic innovations in Abrahamic religion. All those innovations, however, occur after and chiefly because of the "appearances."

 

[Craig B]

The bible describes peoples beliefs in a supernatural messiah, not any so called HJ.

As dejudge has emphasised to you countless times - if you rely on the bible as your evidence then that claims people had witnessed a messiah who was repeatedly and constantly supernatural.

I am saying it is naïve to treat the bible as if it is reliable evidence of a messiah which it describes as an impossible figure of the supernatural.

It would be more than naïve to treat it as evidence of a so-called HJ, because it does not attempt to describe a HJ. On the contrary it repeatedly describes a figure who was supernatural in the extreme.

That's not what I asked. You are inferring motives in this post, from what you take to be their consequences. A preposterous procedure; but let it go. What, on the other hand I mentioned in my post was your view that

But equally that does not mean anyone here should be so naïve as to accept the biblical writing as if it were reliable evidence for a supernatural messiah

That is, that people here accept the reliability of "the bible" which describes only a supernatural messiah. This is not my view. Now you may disagree with my view, although you refuse to discuss it, which is your choice. But you must not misrepresent it.

I do not believe in a supernatural messiah, let alone a divine Jesus.
I do not accept that there is such a thing as the "bible" as an integrated series of statements of uniform credibility or reliability.
An analysis of the different NT sources (even if they are not reliable) reveals phenomena (which I and others have discussed here exhaustively) which may possibly be accounted for by the presence of a historical figure and historical events underlying the various, often contradictory, accounts given in these sources.

This is asserted as a probability, not something proven by the sources; and above all not something that is believed because of an assumption that the sources are reliable. I'm sorry that you and dejudge can't grasp that, and therefore have to misrepresent it and spout drivel about it hundreds and hundreds of times. Much better would be to discuss these theories rationally, but you refuse to do that, which is, as I have stated, your right.

 

[IanS]

I agree, but I have to do some precision about “supernatural”.

The word “supernatural” has a pejorative sense between atheists or agnostics. You intend to disqualify the position of those who defend the existence of Jesus and are atheists or agnostics. Dejudge is more radical when uses the word “ghost”.

Both positions are based on an incorrect use of the language. Dejudge is more manipulative but you manipulate the words also.

To say that Jesus was considered “supernatural” by evangelists and early Christians is a very ambiguous sentence, because “supernatural” might mean many different things:

1. Jesus is a part of eternal God equal or subordinated to the Father.
2. Jesus was an angelic or similar entity.
3 Jesus was a man deified by God.
4. Jesus was a man “divine” in the same sense than were divine the prophets, philosophers, kings and other exceptional men.

Since Jesus adopted a human appearance there are also diverse possibilities:
a. The human appearance of Jesus was a ghost.
b. A real human body was produced to host the divine entity.
c. A pre-existent man was chosen to be endowed with divine features.

Only the a alternative is not present in the Gospels and the Pauline epistles, if we do not consider some post mortem appearances. It is clear that evangelists and Paul were thinking in some special being with a dual condition: human and divine. There is not contradiction for atheists in believing that the evangelists were speaking about a real man (human condition) which was present who they endowed with divine features in any of the possible combinations I have presented above. Of course, an atheist will criticise the supernatural deeds that the evangelists attributed to Jesus as mere delusion. Of course, an atheist will be careful or sceptic about marvelous sayings and outstanding psychological features attributed to Jesus by evangelists. Of course, an atheist must consider the apologetic sense of Gospel narrative and the fervent component that coats the Gospels. But he mustn’t necessarily deny the existence of Jesus in his human 'appearance'. This is not an a priori atheistic position.

That is why your almost maniacal insistence in the supernatural or “ghostly” character is not sufficient to solve the question of the Jesus’ existence. We need to consider other arguments.

My "supernatural" comment is both easy to understand, obvious and inescapable, and it does not need a list such as your 7 properties above. The simple fact about it is this - the people who wrote the gospels claimed that Jesus had done all sorts of things which are physically impossible - that makes him "supernatural".

As far as your last sentence is concerned (it's highlighted) - it's not a "maniacal insistence" at all. The vital point in all these discussions, which should be apparent to everyone here as THE crucial factor, is that if you use the biblical writing as your only primary evidence of the existence of Jesus, then that biblical writing is completely discredited by what it actually says (not to mention its' entirely anonymous hearsay nature).

And what it actually says is that there was once a supernatural messiah from God, walking about amongst the men of earth, performing numerous impossible miraculous feats.

That is just not possible. And it is naïve in the extreme to think that sort of ancient superstitious writing could ever be considered as a reliable or a credible source of any real facts about a very different Jesus, which it never described, but which Christians and Theologians had to invent a couple of centuries ago, called a HJ. That biblical writing describes the very opposite of a HJ, it describes an overtly supernatural J.

Now, what I think you want to say, and what most HJ people here have tried to say, is that the bible still might have been talking about a real human figure called Jesus, providing we ignore the constant description of him as a miracle worker. OK, fine. I don’t have a problem with that. But in that case you MUST have some reliable credible EXTERNAL evidence of people describing a living Jesus. But what you cannot do is to use that same biblical writing as evidence of a human figure that it most certainly does not describe!

So it comes down to a question of evidence, as everyone on the sceptical side here said from the very fist few posts in each of these threads. But the bible cannot be a source of any such evidence of a HJ, because it describes a very different non-HJ. And for what it does say, what it does claim about Jesus, it has been found (only slowly realised in relatively recent times, eg say from about 1800) to be completely untrue and physically impossible - that is by no sane measure a reliable or credible source for anything it’s 1st century writers (or rather their 4th- 6th century copyists) wrote about their ignorant fanatical beliefs in the prophecies of a messiah from their ancient OT.

IOW - if you say there is credible reliable evidence for a living person named Jesus who was actually the person upon whom the mistaken and untrue biblical writing was later based, then fine, absolutely no problem with that. But in that case, where is this reliable credible evidence? Please don’t go round the same impossible circle again and tell me that evidence is the hopelessly unreliable and completely non-credible stories of a non-HJ in the bible, because that is NOT admissible as reliable source of evidence of a messiah which it repeatedly described as impossible and not by any means a HJ.

 

[Belz...]

Hasn't anybody told you to stop lying, sir ?

Hasn't anybody told you to stop lying , sir?

Guess not, then.

Ok, stop lying, sir.

 

[Belz...]

You claimed everyone has agreed the evidence for HJ is Terrible but contradict yourself by admitting you never claimed to have had evidence for HJ.

Which is it?

Both. It's not my fault you have reading comprehension and logic issues.