Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Belz...]

Q. E. D.

What is it that you think is QED ? I've asked you a clear question and you ran away.

 

[pipelineaudio]

As you put it You're an admirably quick reader of fifteen threads!

Quick???
These have been going on for years at the jref

 

[pipelineaudio]

but what do you mean by "rely"

Use the bible as evidence for an HJ in any way shape or form whatsoever

 

[pipelineaudio]

None of them "relies" on the bible. They are derived from analysis of the text. The material in the gospels contains plausible evidence, but not because the bible is "reliable". Do you understand that? I think you do as do the others who eternally repeat this canard. And when did you read the thread? In the last half hour? Before that you were asking me to summarise it for you

Just dishonest word dancing.

This line of reasoning most CERTAINLY relies on the bible

 

[The Norseman]

None of them "relies" on the bible. They are derived from analysis of the text. The material in the gospels contains plausible evidence, but not because the bible is "reliable". Do you understand that?

How is the plausibility derived from the unreliability?

No, it wouldn't. That's my entire point.

Since at least one poster who would be satisfied would be myself, then you're unfortunately wrong in your statement that it wouldn't satisfy at least one person.

At any rate, I appreciate your polite interactions with me.

 

[tsig]

Just dishonest word dancing.

This line of reasoning most CERTAINLY relies on the bible

HJers do not rely on the bible for evidence of an HJ except where they rely on the bible as evidence of an HJ.

Clear?

 

[Belz...]

Use the bible as evidence for an HJ in any way shape or form whatsoever

That's a bit broad, don't you think ? Furthermore you didn't address the rest of my post. Why ?

But ok:

1) Do you think that's a problem ?
2) How about arguments from Tacitus and Josephus, unconvincing as they may be ? Do they rely on the bible ?

 

[pipelineaudio]

That's a bit broad, don't you think ? Furthermore you didn't address the rest of my post. Why ?

Because it all depended on the point I was making about relying on the bible

1) Do you think that's a problem ?
2) How about arguments from Tacitus and Josephus, unconvincing as they may be ? Do they rely on the bible ?

Josephus is the one that matters to me, if he really wrote that, I certainly believe in a historical jesus that was an inspiration for the new testament

But it seems so shoehorned in and so strange a way to say things for a person in his position, I doubt its authenticity

Does josephus rely on the bible? Does the bible rely on josephus? good questions! I think a good case can be made that luke read josephus

 

[Craig B]

Quick???
These have been going on for years at the jref

Yes but a short time ago you were stating

So without handwaving me away to read the fifteen other threads, or some paper somewhere, can you simply summarize one of these arguments that doesnt rely on the bible?

Evidently you hadn't read this material then.

 

[Craig B]

Just dishonest word dancing.

This line of reasoning most CERTAINLY relies on the bible

if you think I am lying in what I say about my attitude to the origin and nature of the gospel account, then there is no basis for discussion of the topic.

 

[IanS]

None of them "relies" on the bible.

What? Who do you mean by "them"? None of them who/what "relies" on the bible?

And if you are not relying on the biblical writing for your knowledge of Jesus, then where else are you or any scholars getting your beliefs about Jesus?

They are derived from analysis of the text.

What? What do you mean by "They". Who is this "they" that are "derived from analysis of the text"?

If you are deriving any analysis from the text of the biblical writing, then you most definitely are relying on that biblical text as your source, aren’t you.

The material in the gospels contains plausible evidence, but not because the bible is "reliable".

What do you mean by “plausible”? If you simply mean that some things in the biblical writing are plausible in the sense of not being physically impossible, then that is not by any means a basis for believing Jesus was probably real.

Just because the gospels and letters mention the names of real places such as Jerusalem, does not mean that is any evidence that Jesus ever went to Jerusalem. The existence of Jerusalem or the existence of Pontius Pilate or the fact of Romans using crucifixion, is not evidence of Jesus, and it does not make anything said about Jesus any more “plausible”.


I'd say that both you and these bible scholars most are definitely “relying” on the gospels and letters that comprise what we call the ”Bible”, for your belief in Jesus. And things only become “plausible” if they are supported by reliable and credible evidence …

... but the problem is that you don’t have any reliable source of credible evidence about Jesus, except for a wholly unreliable and incredible bible.

And by the way, you can add me to Norseman on the list of people who would be happy to accept that Jesus was probably real, providing you can produce any evidence at all to show that he probably was real … but the fact of the matter is that you actually have no evidence of anyone ever knowing a living Jesus at all (certainly not in the bible).

 

[Craig B]

... but the problem is that you don’t have any reliable source of credible evidence about Jesus, except for a wholly unreliable and incredible bible.

No statement in that huge collection of ancient works is in any way a reflection of reality? Nothing related there is in any sense factual?

And by the way, you can add me to Norseman on the list of people who would be happy to accept that Jesus was probably real, providing you can produce any evidence at all to show that he probably was real … but the fact of the matter is that you actually have no evidence of anyone ever knowing a living Jesus at all (certainly not in the bible).

So, what you seem to mean is:

There is no statement in the NT that anyone ever knew a living Jesus, or that Paul ever met any person named as having known a living Jesus, or that Paul ever did anything that may be associated with any real historical context.

And anyway, Paul, the NT, the whole lot, are all intentional falsehoods compiled centuries later by unknown persons for the purposes of deception.

And anyone who disagrees in any way with any bit of the above scenario is a Bible believer, functionally equivalent to the craziest fundie. That is, if they're even being honest, which is doubtful.

 

[Belz...]

Because it all depended on the point I was making about relying on the bible



Josephus is the one that matters to me, if he really wrote that, I certainly believe in a historical jesus that was an inspiration for the new testament

But it seems so shoehorned in and so strange a way to say things for a person in his position, I doubt its authenticity

Does josephus rely on the bible? Does the bible rely on josephus? good questions! I think a good case can be made that luke read josephus

I'd still like you to tell me why you think that partial reliance on the bible for arguments is bad. I get the fact that it's generally unreliable, but I did mention the semi-independance of the various books, and I'd like to know if you think that every single line of text in the whole thing is a lie.

 

[zugzwang]

I'd still like you to tell me why you think that partial reliance on the bible for arguments is bad. I get the fact that it's generally unreliable, but I did mention the semi-independance of the various books, and I'd like to know if you think that every single line of text in the whole thing is a lie.

Also, the phrase 'relying on the bible' is an odd phrase, when HJ is in part an attempt to explain the existence of early Christian documents, and the development of Christianity. The parsimonious explanation is that these documents refer to an actual Jewish preacher, Jesus. Some mythical accounts strike me as either non-parsimonious or extremely speculative.

I suppose for some atheists, 'relying on the bible' is a kind of gasp, horror, oh no, phrase, as if historians must scrupulously avoid any material which is - gasp, horror, oh no - religious. This is quite odd when one is attempting to explain the development of a religion!

 

[Craig B]

... I suppose for some atheists, 'relying on the bible' is a kind of gasp, horror, oh no, phrase, as if historians must scrupulously avoid any material which is - gasp, horror, oh no - religious. This is quite odd when one is attempting to explain the development of a religion!

Very odd indeed. The expression "relying on the Bible" is not a valid way of expressing the idea that theories about the origin of a religion or the degree of historicity of its foundation stories may be derived from an examination of its sacred texts. The expression "relying" is intended to mean that anyone who draws a conclusion from the content of these texts assumes them to be reliable.

Of course that is not so, and that must be made clear at once, or the mythicists will spend the next hundred pages saying, yah-boo the HJers believe in the Bible; they're nothing but Christian fundies.

 

[pakeha]

Very odd indeed. The expression "relying on the Bible" is not a valid way of expressing the idea that theories about the origin of a religion or the degree of historicity of its foundation stories may be derived from an examination of its sacred texts. The expression "relying" is intended to mean that anyone who draws a conclusion from the content of these texts assumes them to be reliable.

Of course that is not so, and that must be made clear at once, or the mythicists will spend the next hundred pages saying, yah-boo the HJers believe in the Bible; they're nothing but Christian fundies.

"theories about the origin of a religion or the degree of historicity of its foundation stories may be derived from an examination of its sacred texts."

Granted, of course.
Every time on these numerous threads we look into what historicity may be derived from those sacred texts in question, we come with practically no detail that corresponds to historical reality.
I say practically no detail because it seems to me we can and do find the sort of details you'd expect in any work of fiction and/or hagiography.

 

[zugzwang]

Very odd indeed. The expression "relying on the Bible" is not a valid way of expressing the idea that theories about the origin of a religion or the degree of historicity of its foundation stories may be derived from an examination of its sacred texts. The expression "relying" is intended to mean that anyone who draws a conclusion from the content of these texts assumes them to be reliable.

Of course that is not so, and that must be made clear at once, or the mythicists will spend the next hundred pages saying, yah-boo the HJers believe in the Bible; they're nothing but Christian fundies.

Yes, 'relying on the Bible' is a kind of scare story, which might make atheists think that it equates to believing in the Bible! It's truly bizarre, since part of the task of HJ is to explain how the various early Christian documents came into being. It's like saying, 'explain how Shakespeare is the author of 'Hamlet' without referring to any of the plays'.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I'd still like you to tell me why you think that partial reliance on the bible for arguments is bad. I get the fact that it's generally unreliable, but I did mention the semi-independance of the various books, and I'd like to know if you think that every single line of text in the whole thing is a lie.

I don't have to go thinking every single line of text is a lie, the null hypothesis is that none of it has any evidence for it.

Sure there is some historical corroboration of place names and such, but it doesnt matter for the same reason that there being a New York doesnt mean spider man is true

 

[pipelineaudio]

Yes, 'relying on the Bible' is a kind of scare story, which might make atheists think that it equates to believing in the Bible! It's truly bizarre, since part of the task of HJ is to explain how the various early Christian documents came into being. It's like saying, 'explain how Shakespeare is the author of 'Hamlet' without referring to any of the plays'.

Thats YOUR strawman. The fact is these arguments DO rely on the bible. Sorry, but its true

That doesn't mean that anyone using the arguments believes everything in the bible, thats your strawman

Its as simple as this: If there were no bible, would these arguments be used?

That's why we, on the critical thinking side ask for any extra biblical evidence. Josephus is the only thing I've ever seen come close

 

[Craig B]

... Its as simple as this: If there were no bible, would these arguments be used?

Eh? Are you sure you've thought about that? Of course there would be no such arguments, because the name of Jesus would never have been heard. It would have vanished, just as - how many? We can never know - the names of other peripatetic apolcalypticists of the period, and other periods, have completely vanished from the record without trace.

If there were no gospels there would be no cause to argue about someone whose very name has been forgotten.