Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Belz...]

What a big lie.

I'm seeing a pattern, here.

 

[dejudge]

I do not believe such absurdities.

Yes you do.

Another blatant big lie.

The same fundies that you are calling crazy are on your side arguing that HJ did exist using the same Bible too.

Therefore I am a fundie. OK?

OK? Maybe you are a Fake Fundie.

You talk like a fundie.

You Use the same bible like a fundie.

You use the Gospels like a fundie.

You believe there are authentic Pauline letters like a fundie.

You believe there was an HJ like a fundie.

The same fundies that you call crazy argue like you.


What quacks like a duck and walks like a duck but is not a duck?

A FAKE Duck.

 

[pakeha]

Yes, but that's not what people here are saying.

The point is that the existence of the text itself, and the religion that corresponds to it, is evidence. What conclusion can we draw from that ?

Well, some people think it's insufficient to reach any conclusion. Others, who seem a bit more knowledgeable on the topic, from my point of view, seem to conclude a minimal Jesus. But ideologues on both sides of the debate will assert certainty: that there definitely WAS a Jesus, dammit, or that he's all-myth, full stop, also dammit.

I think the latter two positions are untenable. The two former are at least debatable

.

Is there any other piece of hagiography that would be whose very existence would be considered evidence of the saint-in-question's historicity?

Actually, there have been attempts to infer aspects of Shakespeare's character from the plays - for example, quite a common idea is that he was a secret Catholic, based on various Catholic-sounding ideas in the plays.

But it's a risky business. For example, if a novelist writes about dodgy semi-criminal characters (as Joseph Conrad does sometimes), does this mean either he is a dodgy character, or wants to be? Not really.

But this is quite different from HJ, where we have actual documents which describe somebody (Jesus), and historians can argue about whether such a character did exist, or is mythical, or gasp! forged.

Unfortunately, those documents are hagiography, aren't they?

 

[Belz...]

Is there any other piece of hagiography that would be whose very existence would be considered evidence of the saint-in-question's historicity?

That's not what I said: I said the text is evidence. I didn't say it was evidence FOR historicity. I simply asked what conclusions we can draw from that evidence (biblical and otherwise) ?

 

[zugzwang]

Is there any other piece of hagiography that would be whose very existence would be considered evidence of the saint-in-question's historicity?





Unfortunately, those documents are hagiography, aren't they?

Why is it unfortunate? I don't think anybody is claiming that the early Christian documents are factual documentaries, are they?

It's up to the historians, to evaluate such texts, and any other material, and then make various arguments, as to historicity, legendary or mythical status, forgery, and so on.

 

[Craig B]

Another blatant big lie.





OK? Maybe you are a Fake Fundie.

You talk like a fundie.

You Use the same bible like a fundie.

You use the Gospels like a fundie.

You believe there are authentic Pauline letters like a fundie.

You believe there was an HJ like a fundie.

The same fundies that you call crazy argue like you.


What quacks like a duck and walks like a duck but is not a duck?

A FAKE Duck.

I believe there are authentic Pauline letters, and (less tenaciously) that there was a real person behind the Jesus stories, like most scholars. Scholars are fake fundies too? How fascinating. You should write a book.

 

[zugzwang]

It might sell - 'Fake Fundies - or, The Bible is a Pack of Lies', by one who knows. Soon to be filmed in Hollywood with major stars and minor stars and dogs, and other stuff.

 

[pakeha]

That's not what I said: I said the text is evidence. I didn't say it was evidence FOR historicity. I simply asked what conclusions we can draw from that evidence (biblical and otherwise) ?

No, Belz... you wrote
"...The point is that the existence of the text itself, and the religion that corresponds to it, is evidence. What conclusion can we draw from that ? "
Is there some reason to take hagiography seriously as history?

 

[pakeha]

Why is it unfortunate? I don't think anybody is claiming that the early Christian documents are factual documentaries, are they?

It's up to the historians, to evaluate such texts, and any other material, and then make various arguments, as to historicity, legendary or mythical status, forgery, and so on.

You wrote:
"But this is quite different from HJ, where we have actual documents which describe somebody (Jesus), and historians can argue about whether such a character did exist, or is mythical, or gasp! forged."

In what other discipline are we expected to take hagiography seriously?
After all, those documents you mentioned are simply hagiography, aren't they?

 

[Craig B]

In what other discipline are we expected to take hagiography seriously?

Study of the biographies of saints.

 

[Belz...]

That's not what I said: I said the text is evidence. I didn't say it was evidence FOR historicity. I simply asked what conclusions we can draw from that evidence (biblical and otherwise) ?

No, Belz... you wrote
"...The point is that the existence of the text itself, and the religion that corresponds to it, is evidence. What conclusion can we draw from that ? "

That's exactly the same thing. The text is evidence, from which you draw a conclusion. What is the distinction you're seeing ?

 

[dejudge]

It might sell - 'Fake Fundies - or, The Bible is a Pack of Lies', by one who knows. Soon to be filmed in Hollywood with major stars and minor stars and dogs, and other stuff.

Starring the author of " Forged" Bart Ehrman as HJ of Nazareth?

1.Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.

2. Jesus was not born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

3.Jesus was not the Son of God.

4. Jesus was NOT the Logos, God Creator.

5. There was no Temptation by the Devil.

6 There was no census in the time of Cyrenius. as described

7.Jesus did not walk for 3 miles on the sea of Galilee.

8.Jesus did not transfigure with the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

9. The miracles of Jesus did not happen.

10. There was no triumphal entry of Jesus as described.

11.There was NO offer to exchange Barabbas for Jesus.

12. Jesus did not resurrect.

13. Jesus did not ascend in a cloud.

14. The Gospels are forgeries or false attribution.

15. The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts.

Thanks to Bart Ehrman I must say that the Jesus story is ALMOST certainly a pack of lies.

 

[zugzwang]

You wrote:
"But this is quite different from HJ, where we have actual documents which describe somebody (Jesus), and historians can argue about whether such a character did exist, or is mythical, or gasp! forged."

In what other discipline are we expected to take hagiography seriously?
After all, those documents you mentioned are simply hagiography, aren't they?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'simply hagiography'; also, you don't present any reasoning behind this view.

If you are referring to the literary genre of hagiography, they contain miracles and so on, but also accounts of the lives of the people concerned.

If you are saying that the gospels are 100% supernatural, I don't think that's correct. They also describe Jesus teaching, preaching, telling parables, interpreting the Torah, arguing with another Jewish sect about Jewish law, and so on. As far as I can see, in my limited reading, these are plausible activities for a 1st century charismatic and apocalyptic preacher.

If you are referring to the Christian view of Jesus, then that is quite different from the historical view.

 

[dejudge]

If you are referring to the Christian view of Jesus, then that is quite different from the historical view.

You seem to have forgotten that there are Christian Scholars who argue that Jesus did exist. Christians use the very same NT that you use.

You are now admitting that there are different historical Jesus characters?

Please, enlighten us!!

Tell us about the Christian HJ.

Where was the Christian HJ born and how did it happen?

You don't have to tell me about your Jesus because we already know that your HJ is based on your imagination.

 

[dejudge]

...But this is quite different from HJ, where we have actual documents which describe somebody (Jesus), and historians can argue about whether such a character did exist, or is mythical, or gasp! forged.

The actual recovered documents of the Jesus story and cult have been dated to the 2nd century or later and they describe a character who was the Son of God born of a Ghost and a Virgin and the Logos, God Creator.

Virtually all Christian writers did accept the story of Jesus the Son of God born of a Ghost.

The claim that an HJ is plausible is worthless without evidence.

The recovered actual dated evidence in NT manuscripts and Codices show that a Mythical Jesus was indeed plausible and was believed in antiquity.

In fact, Christian writers argued against the plausibility of an HJ who was a mere human being.

In antiquity, HJ must be God in order to be plausible and to compete with the existing belief in Myth Gods.

In any event, the only actual recovered dated evidence shows Jesus as a Ghost or his Son.

Ghost stories were plausible in antiquity.

In a 4th century dated Codex, the Sinaiticus Codex, a writer under the name of Paul claimed Jesus was a Spirit.

Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15

45 So also it is written: The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

Jesus of Nazareth was a well established Ghost story since the 2nd century or later.

 

[pakeha]

That's not what I said: I said the text is evidence . I didn't say it was evidence FOR historicity. I simply asked what conclusions we can draw from that evidence (biblical and otherwise) ?

No, Belz... you wrote
"...The point is that the existence of the text itself, and the religion that corresponds to it, is evidence. What conclusion can we draw from that ? "

That's exactly the same thing. The text is evidence, from which you draw a conclusion. What is the distinction you're seeing ?

No it isn't exactly the same thing, Belz...
Observe the hilited bits.
You might as well argue that the existence of the Harry Potter texts and the fanclubs all over the world is evidence of the existence of Harry Potter.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, though.
What do you think the existence of the NT texts is evidence of?

 

[Craig B]

... You might as well argue that the existence of the Harry Potter texts and the fanclubs all over the world is evidence of the existence of Harry Potter.

The existence of the texts, like the existence of anything else, has to be explained. In the HP case an explanation is easily found, and it excludes the reality of the hero. The books are intentionally composed as fiction.

But this is not evidently the case with the gospels, dejudge's forged false fiction hoax thesis aside. One possible explanation is that there really was a Jesus figure. Another possible explanation is the "pre-existing myth" hypothesis, and in these threads other proposals have been advanced. Thus the gospels are "evidence" for these explanations, including the not outrageous or impossible proposal that a Jesus really existed.

 

[pakeha]

You wrote:
"But this is quite different from HJ, where we have actual documents which describe somebody (Jesus), and historians can argue about whether such a character did exist, or is mythical, or gasp! forged."

In what other discipline are we expected to take hagiography seriously?
After all, those documents you mentioned are simply hagiography, aren't they?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'simply hagiography'; also, you don't present any reasoning behind this view.

If you are referring to the literary genre of hagiography, they contain miracles and so on, but also accounts of the lives of the people concerned.

If you are saying that the gospels are 100% supernatural, I don't think that's correct. They also describe Jesus teaching, preaching, telling parables, interpreting the Torah, arguing with another Jewish sect about Jewish law, and so on. As far as I can see, in my limited reading, these are plausible activities for a 1st century charismatic and apocalyptic preacher.

If you are referring to the Christian view of Jesus, then that is quite different from the historical view.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'simply hagiography'; also, you don't present any reasoning behind this view.

Very true.
It didn't occur to me that 2nd century hagiography was something anyone took seriously.
Is there any reason to see the gospels as other than hagiography?
Is there any reason to see hagiography relating to the early saints, as anything but pious fiction?

If you are referring to the literary genre of hagiography, they contain miracles and so on, but also accounts of the lives of the people concerned.

Accounts which I think you'll find are generally discounted as fiction, especially with the tales concerning the earlier saints.

If you are saying that the gospels are 100% supernatural, I don't think that's correct. They also describe Jesus teaching, preaching, telling parables, interpreting the Torah, arguing with another Jewish sect about Jewish law, and so on. As far as I can see, in my limited reading, these are plausible activities for a 1st century charismatic and apocalyptic preacher.

Strawman, don't you think?
When did I write the gospels are 100% supernatural?
The author of the Harry Potter series portrays the main character doing non-magical things as well.
That's evidence of what?

If you are referring to the Christian view of Jesus, then that is quite different from the historical view.

Both views are based on the same documents, aren't they?
I'm questioning the validity of seeing those documents as other than hagiography as well as the validity of trying to excavate a historical figure from the hagiography of Jesus, especially without evidence to Jesus' existence from outside the literature.

 

[zugzwang]

pakeha

I don't see it as 'excavating a historical figure'. Historians of the period are faced with some undoubted facts - there is a collection of early Christian documents, and there is the beginning of Christianity.

How can these developments be explained? It strikes me as plausible that the Jesus described in those documents actually existed, although not as described in Christian theology, e.g. as the pre-existent Logos. This also has the virtue of parsimony.

I find that the work done by scholars of Judaism, such as Vermes, and Paula Fredriksen, adds to this, in their arguments that the portrayal of Jesus in the synoptics fits quite well with what is known about charismatic and apocalyptic Jewish preachers of the first century.

However, I don't think you can go beyond 'plausible'.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, though.

That much is obvious.

What do you think the existence of the NT texts is evidence of?

Sheesh, Pakeha, that was the whole point of my post.

The sun moving across the sky is evidence. It's an observation. What conclusion can we draw from that ? Well at some point it was evidence for the conclusion that the sun moved. Later we made other observations that made the sun moving across the sky evidence for a different conclusion.

The text is an observation. We observe that it's there, in the form that it is, and that it was a bit different in ages past. We observe Christianity and its early centuries and apologetics, etc. All those are observations. They are evidence.