Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[pakeha]

eight bits, isn't the word gospel defined as the hagiography of Jesus? Is there any reason to see "gospel" as anything but hagiography applied specifically to Jesus?

 

[Brainache]

eight bits, isn't the word gospel defined as the hagiography of Jesus? Is there any reason to see "gospel" as anything but hagiography applied specifically to Jesus?

I know this question wasn't for me, but I'd like to try to answer:

If the Gospel of Mark was written to be recited aloud, as some Scholars say, I guess that means it was used for "Sermons" or whatever they were called back then.

Is that the same as "Hagiography"? Building little moral lessons from the teachings into small narratives for ease of memory and clarity of message?

So these little "pericopes" in the Gospel were only ever meant as teaching devices, not Historical narratives. Although they might be based in locations and with a cast of characters associated with him because Historically, they were the places and people associated with Jesus.

Or, it was invented by Paul (James and Co. included).

Maybe. Or, something else... (cue the Hoax Theory...)

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Thank you for the link to the masters' thesis on Perpetua and Felicitas. I'll read that with interest. For those looking for a good translation of the text, I would suggest

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/perpetua.asp

eight bits, isn't the word gospel defined as the hagiography of Jesus? Is there any reason to see "gospel" as anything but hagiography applied specifically to Jesus?

The word just means "good news," not necessarily biographical news. For example, Paul uses it at Galatians 1:11, and refers to 2:15 ff - the good news there being Paul's interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death, but nothing about Jesus' biography, except how he died.

The capital-G Gospels, the pious biographies of Jesus in the canon, seem to me to be exactly hagiography, just as Acts is literally hagiography. Some of the later "gospels" and apostolic "acts" from apparently proto- or periorthodox sources seem to be for entertainment, to be enjoyed by people who already know the characters and "real" story. The Gospel of Thomas, a sayings gospel, has no biographical content at all, except that Jesus supposedly this or that. Some of the Gnostic gospels read like dramatized sayings gospels, and some of the action takes place nowhere near Palestine, but in Woo-woo Land. I don't take that to be hagiography of Jesus, but putting some writer's words in Jesus' mouth for the "authority" benefit.

Does that help?

It's why I anticipate significant finds from that library from the Villa De Papyri.

I remember the first time I heard about that - it's like a dream that may come true.

 

[pakeha]

...
Is that the same as "Hagiography"? Building little moral lessons from the teachings into small narratives for ease of memory and clarity of message?

So these little "pericopes" in the Gospel were only ever meant as teaching devices, not Historical narratives. Although they might be based in locations and with a cast of characters associated with him because Historically, they were the places and people associated with Jesus...

This is what I'm thinking as the most plausible explanation of the NT literature.

...The capital-G Gospels, the pious biographies of Jesus in the canon, seem to me to be exactly hagiography, just as Acts is literally hagiography. Some of the later "gospels" and apostolic "acts" from apparently proto- or periorthodox sources seem to be for entertainment, to be enjoyed by people who already know the characters and "real" story. The Gospel of Thomas, a sayings gospel, has no biographical content at all, except that Jesus supposedly this or that. Some of the Gnostic gospels read like dramatized sayings gospels, and some of the action takes place nowhere near Palestine, but in Woo-woo Land. I don't take that to be hagiography of Jesus, but putting some writer's words in Jesus' mouth for the "authority" benefit.

Does that help?


I remember the first time I heard about that - it's like a dream that may come true.

Yes, indeed, eight bits, it does.
And yes, that library is like a dream come true, especially now they have the technology to read the scrolls. How is it there isn't a mort of paleographers, historians etc. howling for access to the scrolls is beyond me.

 

[dejudge]

You have confirmed the HJ argument is a failed dead end argument with no established evidence in the history of mankind.

You are 100% wrong.

These arguments you produce just don't work at all.

Why bother?

ETA: Just so it isn't a total waste:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegesippus_(chronicler)

Saint Hegesippus (Ἅγιος Ἡγήσιππος) (c. 110 — c. April 7, 180 AD[1]), was a Christian chronicler of the early Church who may have been a Jewish convert[2] and certainly wrote against heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion.

The date of Hegesippus is insecurely fixed by the statement of Eusebius[ that the death and apotheosis of Antinous (130) occurred in Hegesippus' lifetime,[3] and that he came to Rome under Pope St. Anicetus and wrote in the time of Pope St. Eleuterus (Bishop of Rome, ca 174-189).
Hegesippus' works are now entirely lost, save eight passages concerning Church history quoted by Eusebius,[4] who tells us that he wrote Hypomnemata (Ὑπομνήματα; "Memoirs" or "Memoranda"[5]) in five books, in the simplest style concerning the tradition of the Apostolic preaching.

Through Eusebius Hegesippus was also known to Jerome,[6] who is responsible for the idea that Hegesippus "wrote a history of all ecclesiastical events from the passion of our Lord down to his own period... in five volumes", which has established the Hypomnemata as a Church history.[7] St. Hegesippus appealed principally to tradition as embodied in the teaching which had been handed down through the succession of bishops, thus providing for Eusebius information about the earliest bishops that otherwise would have been lost.

Someone else invented by your Hoaxers?

Ridiculous.

Your supposed 2nd century Hegesippus does not help your dead end HJ argument.

All writings of Hegesippus are Lost except in "Church History" composed no earlier than the 4th century.

You have presented a supposed 2nd century source of INSECURE dating by a supposed 4th century source ,Eusebius, who gave bogus information about the authors, date of authorship ,and contents of the Gospels, the Pauline Corpus, the General Epistles and Revelation.

In fact, Scholars today REJECT virtually all the claims of Eusebius in "Church History" about authorship, date of authorship and contents of the NT.

Eusebius' "Church History" has virtually zero historical credibility for the Jesus story and cult.

You must have forgotten that in Eusebius' "Church History" it is claimed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels and that ALL 14 Epistles, including Hebrews, were composed by Paul.

You must have forgotten that in Eusebius' Church History it is claimed Josephus wrote the "TF".

Scholars today REJECT Eusebius' claims in Church History.

Eusebius in "Church History" got a lot of things wrong about authorship, date of authorship and contents.

"Church History" may be the Flagship of the HOAX.

What did he get wrong with Hegesippus?

What is the provenance of "Church History"?

What is the earliest dated copy of Church History"

Who mentioned Hegesippus before Eusebius in Church History?

Hegesippus is really unknown--all his supposed 2nd century writings are LOST.

 

[Brainache]

Your supposed 2nd century Hegesippus does not help your dead end HJ argument.

All writings of Hegesippus are Lost except in "Church History" composed no earlier than the 4th century.

You have presented a supposed 2nd century source of INSECURE dating by a supposed 4th century source ,Eusebius, who gave bogus information about the authors, date of authorship ,and contents of the Gospels, the Pauline Corpus, the General Epistles and Revelation.

In fact, Scholars today REJECT virtually all the claims of Eusebius in "Church History" about authorship, date of authorship and contents of the NT.

Eusebius' "Church History" has virtually zero historical credibility for the Jesus story and cult.

You must have forgotten that in Eusebius' "Church History" it is claimed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels and that ALL 14 Epistles, including Hebrews, were composed by Paul.

You must have forgotten that in Eusebius' Church History it is claimed Josephus wrote the "TF".

Scholars today REJECT Eusebius' claims in Church History.

Eusebius in "Church History" got a lot of things wrong about authorship, date of authorship and contents.

"Church History" may be the Flagship of the HOAX.

What did he get wrong with Hegesippus?

What is the provenance of "Church History"?

What is the earliest dated copy of Church History"

Who mentioned Hegesippus before Eusebius in Church History?

Hegesippus is really unknown--all his supposed 2nd century writings are LOST.

Why would any of that be written into a hoax?

Why did these hoaxers who wrote all of this stuff to deceive people include all of this in their forgeries?

You think your idea makes more sense?

Really?

 

[dejudge]

Why would any of that be written into a hoax?

Why did these hoaxers who wrote all of this stuff to deceive people include all of this in their forgeries?

You think your idea makes more sense?

Really?

Your rhetorical questions are useless.

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

"A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth."

You may have been duped into believing a 2nd century or later story of the Son of God born of a Ghost was an historical account of an obscure criminal.

The deception has been exposed.

Writings of the 2nd century or later were attributed to Fake pre 70 CE characters under the guise they were relatives of the Son of God, or his disciples and that Paul saw the resurrected Jesus at least 50 days after he was dead.

Every single story of Jesus and the cult are from the 2nd century or later.

The writings of Josephus were manipulated to make it appear that Josephus was aware of the Jesus story and cult but the copy of Antiquities of the Jews with the forgeries are from the 11th century.

 

[Craig B]

... The writings of Josephus were manipulated to make it appear that Josephus was aware of the Jesus story and cult but the copy of Antiquities of the Jews with the forgeries are from the 11th century.

OK. So now you've argued that Hegesippus was a forgery. Now Josephus had the forged TF added in the 11th century - date of earliest extant manuscript (EEM). But Eusebius, seemingly writing in the fourth century, notices the TF. It has been reasonably proposed that he is the fabricator. But wait a minute, Eusebius EEM is around the same time as Josephus. So the text of Eusebius must be an 11th century forgery too. That's what I mean by "forgery within forgery". And of course the entire NT is a forgery, you tell us, albeit an earlier one. What a phantasmagoric world you reveal to us!

 

[dejudge]

OK. So now you've argued that Hegesippus was a forgery. Now Josephus had the forged TF added in the 11th century - date of earliest extant manuscript (EEM). But Eusebius, seemingly writing in the fourth century, notices the TF. It has been reasonably proposed that he is the fabricator. But wait a minute, Eusebius EEM is around the same time as Josephus. So the text of Eusebius must be an 11th century forgery too. That's what I mean by "forgery within forgery". And of course the entire NT is a forgery, you tell us, albeit an earlier one. What a phantasmagoric world you reveal to us!

What massive lies.

You seem quite eager to mis-reprsent what I post.

I have argued that Hegesippus was unknown and that the earliest writing to mention Hegesippus is a supposed 4th century writing "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

Virtually all claims by Eusebius about the authorship, date of authorship and contents of the NT Canon been rejected by Scholars.

Bart Ehrman, a Scholar, admits that at least 18 books of the NT Canon are either forgeries or falsely attributed and that the NT is riddled with historical problems, discrepancies and events that most likely did not happen.

See Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman.

If Eusebius did use the writings of Hegesippus for his History of the Church then it was Hegesippus who may have writen the bogus information about the authorship, date of authorship and contents of the NT.

All writings of the supposed 2nd century Hegesippus are Lost so they cannot help your HJ argument for the obscure criminal.

My position cannot be overturned--the Jesus story and cult are 2nd century or later inventions based on the recovered dated existing evidence.

 

[Brainache]

What massive lies.

You seem quite eager to mis-reprsent what I post.

I have argued that Hegesippus was unknown and that the earliest writing to mention Hegesippus is a supposed 4th century writing "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

Virtually all claims by Eusebius about the authorship, date of authorship and contents of the NT Canon been rejected by Scholars.

Bart Ehrman, a Scholar, admits that at least 18 books of the NT Canon are either forgeries or falsely attributed and that the NT is riddled with historical problems, discrepancies and events that most likely did not happen.

See Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman.

If Eusebius did use the writings of Hegesippus for his History of the Church then it was Hegesippus who may have writen the bogus information about the authorship, date of authorship and contents of the NT.

All writings of the supposed 2nd century Hegesippus are Lost so they cannot help your HJ argument for the obscure criminal.

My position cannot be overturned--the Jesus story and cult are 2nd century or later inventions based on the recovered dated existing evidence.

Laughable.

Your position cannot be overturned because it isn't a position. It is pure ignorance masquerading as arrogance.

Pathetic really.

 

[Craig B]

If Eusebius did use the writings of Hegesippus for his History of the Church then it was Hegesippus who may have writen the bogus information about the authorship, date of authorship and contents of the NT.

So Hegesippus wasn't a forgery. He was a forger.

All writings of the supposed 2nd century Hegesippus are Lost so they cannot help your HJ argument for the obscure criminal.

So Hegesippus wasn't a forger. He was a forgery.

My position cannot be overturned--the Jesus story and cult are 2nd century or later inventions based on the recovered dated existing evidence.

Unless the evidence is a hoax forged by forgers, of course.

 

[dejudge]

I have argued that Hegesippus was unknown and that the earliest writing to mention Hegesippus is a supposed 4th century writing "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

Virtually all claims by Eusebius about the authorship, date of authorship and contents of the NT Canon been rejected by Scholars.

Bart Ehrman, a Scholar, admits that at least 18 books of the NT Canon are either forgeries or falsely attributed and that the NT is riddled with historical problems, discrepancies and events that most likely did not happen.

See Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman.

If Eusebius did use the writings of Hegesippus for his History of the Church then it was Hegesippus who may have writen the bogus information about the authorship, date of authorship and contents of the NT.

All writings of the supposed 2nd century Hegesippus are Lost so they cannot help your HJ argument for the obscure criminal.

My position cannot be overturned--the Jesus story and cult are 2nd century or later inventions based on the recovered dated existing evidence.

Laughable.

Your position cannot be overturned because it isn't a position. It is pure ignorance masquerading as arrogance.

Pathetic really.

Your are really wasting your time. We know what you are attempting to do. It won't work.

Why are you talking about ignorance and arrogance when the HJ QUESTERS cannot find any evidence for an HJ after hundreds of years and are still looking.

What do they expect to find when NOTHING has changed--there is still no evidence for the Multiple assumed irreconcilable versions of HJ

I have exposed that the HJ argument is an established dead end failed argument with Multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ which is proof that there was never any known evidence for an HJ for the last 1800 years in the history of mankind.

19 of Your last 20 Posts on this thread are directed towards me which indicates that you have become extremely desperate and increasingly worried because I have exposed the un-evidence HJ argument.

The history of the Quest is exposed--No HJ has ever been found after Multiple failures and hundreds of years of Searching from the 18th century to today--the 21st century.

 

[Brainache]

Your are really wasting your time. We know what you are attempting to do. It won't work.

Why are you talking about ignorance and arrogance when the HJ QUESTERS cannot find any evidence for an HJ after hundreds of years and are still looking.

What do they expect to find when NOTHINBG has changed--there is still no evidence for the Multiple assumed irreconcilable versions of HJ

I have exposed that the HJ argument is an established dead end failed argument with Multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ which is proof that there was never in any known evidence for an HJ for the last 1800 years in the history of mankind.

19 of Your last 20 Posts on this thread are directed towards me which indicates that you have become extremely desperate and increasingly worried because I have exposed the un-evidence HJ argument.

The history of the Quest is exposed--No HJ has ever been found after Multiple failures and hundreds of years of Searching from the 18th century.

And as has been pointed out many times, you are dead wrong about all of that.

The HJ is what they teach at University. They are teaching it today and they will go on teaching about a HJ until someone convinces the Academy otherwise.

You have definitely not convinced the Academy of your idiotic "Hoax Theory", so I have no idea why you think the HJ is a dead argument.

In fact your arguments in these threads have probably turned people away from the MJ idea by being so incredibly stupid.

Well done.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ is what they teach at University. They are teaching it today and they will go on teaching about a HJ until someone convinces the Academy otherwise.

There is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ after hundreds of years.

Why haven't the University teachers found him?

It is a HOAX.

The QUESTERS can't find the multiple UNIVERSITY versions of HJ.

You have definitely not convinced the Academy of your idiotic "Hoax Theory", so I have no idea why you think the HJ is a dead argument.

Just from basic logic, if there was an HJ and there was actual established evidence for an HJ then there would be no need for the numerous irreconcilable version of HJ that is being taught in Universities.

The Multiple irreconcilable University versions of HJ must be a HOAX--no evidence for them has ever been found.

Jesus the Zealot is a HOAX, Jesus the Christ is a Hoax, Jesus the Apocalyptic is a Hoax, Jesus the obscure criminal is a Hoax if Jesus was a Myth.

In fact your arguments in these threads have probably turned people away from the MJ idea by being so incredibly stupid.

Well done.

Actually, in the recent polls on this forum, it would seem that YOUR own arguments may have had some negative effect on you.

You did not even vote for HJ although you give the impression that there is an Academic consensus.

The HJ argument must be incredibly stupid or else you would have voted for HJ.

Well done.

The HJ HOAX has been PROVEN--The Universities teach multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ.

 

[Brainache]

There is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ after hundreds of years.

Why haven't the University teachers found him?

It is a HOAX.

The QUESTERS can't find the multiple UNIVERSITY versions of HJ.



Just from basic logic, if there was an HJ and there was actual established evidence for an HJ then there would be no need for the numerous irreconcilable version of HJ that is being taught in Universities.

The Multiple irreconcilable University versions of HJ must be a HOAX--no evidence for them has ever been found.

Jesus the Zealot is a HOAX, Jesus the Christ is a Hoax, Jesus the Apocalyptic is a Hoax, Jesus the obscure criminal is a Hoax if Jesus was a Myth.



Actually, in the recent polls on this forum, it would seem that YOUR own arguments may have had some negative effect on you.

You did not even vote for HJ although you give the impression that there is an Academic consensus.

The HJ argument must be incredibly stupid or else you would have voted for HJ.

Well done.

The HJ HOAX has been PROVEN--The Universities teach multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ.

Please look up and learn how Ancient History is studied.

You may find it helps to avoid making more ignorant arguments like this in the future.

Glad to help.

 

[Belz...]

What massive lies.

That's a lie !

 

[Craig B]

Why haven't the University teachers found him?

It is a HOAX.
...
The Multiple irreconcilable University versions of HJ must be a HOAX--no evidence for them has ever been found.

Jesus the Zealot is a HOAX, Jesus the Christ is a Hoax, Jesus the Apocalyptic is a Hoax, Jesus the obscure criminal is a Hoax if Jesus was a Myth.

The HJ HOAX has been PROVEN--The Universities teach multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ.

Disagreement between sources, or inadequacy of evidence as regards events in the ancient world, don't indicate hoaxes. Polybius and Livy disagree on Hannibal's route through the Alps. Which of them is the "hoaxer". I forgot: their works must be forgeries anyway. Polybius earliest manuscript, tenth century.

 

[Belz...]

Disagreement between sources, or inadequacy of evidence as regards events in the ancient world, don't indicate hoaxes.

What's funny is that this exactly the line of argument of creationists when arguing against evolution or some other science: _any_ disagreement on any fine point between any sources is seen as confirmation that the science is bunk and the scientists frauds.

 

[zugzwang]

What's funny is that this exactly the line of argument of creationists when arguing against evolution or some other science: _any_ disagreement on any fine point between any sources is seen as confirmation that the science is bunk and the scientists frauds.

Also true of climate change denialists, who often seize on some error or disagreement, as evidence that the whole scientific field is corrupt or incorrect. I suppose this is the 'narcissism of small differences' or something.

 

[dejudge]

Please look up and learn how Ancient History is studied.

You may find it helps to avoid making more ignorant arguments like this in the future.

Glad to help.

You seem to have no idea of the historical method because you would have understood why there are Multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ.

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

Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past.

There is no known archaeological evidence or primary evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE for an HJ.

The 2nd century or later secondary sources state that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Ghost, the Logos, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after the resurrection and ascended in a cloud.

Any claim that an HJ has been found or that evidence for an HJ has already been found is a HOAX.