Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

Your irreconcilable HJ makes no sense and you want me to explain it?

That is your job.

The advent of Christ is NOT theological but the expectation of an historical event.

It is most incredible that you have no idea what "The Advent of Christ" means to the Jews.

The Jews expect a Physical King or ruler.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Which is why the Jewish followers of Jesus were following a man, not a ghost.

Pretty damn obvious really.

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

Ebionites, or Ebionaioi (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι; derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones"), is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era.[1] They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity[2] and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.[3] The Ebionites used only one of the Jewish Gospels, revered James the Just and rejected Paul of Tarsus as an apostate from the Law.[4] Their name suggests that they placed a special value on voluntary poverty. The Ebionim was one of the terms used by the sect that sought to separate themselves from the corruption of the Temple, at Qumran, whom many believe were the Essenes.[5]
Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.[6][7] ...

All just part of the Hoax, I suppose...

ETA: More on the Ebionites:

...
The majority of Church Fathers[citation needed] agree that the Ebionites rejected many of the precepts central to Nicene orthodoxy, such as his pre-existence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, and physical resurrection.[6] On the other hand, an Ebionite story has Jesus eating bread with his brother Jacob ("James the Just") after the resurrection, which indicates that the Ebionites, or at least the ones who accepted this version of the Gospel of the Hebrews, very much believed in a physical resurrection for Jesus.[54] The Ebionites are described as emphasizing the oneness of God and the humanity of Jesus as the biological son of both Mary and Joseph, who by virtue of his righteousness, was chosen by God to be the messianic "prophet like Moses" (foretold in Deuteronomy 18:14–22) when he was anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism.[4] Origen (Contra Celsum 5.61)[55] and Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica 3.27.3) recognize some variation in the Christology of Ebionite groups; for example that while all Ebionites denied Christ's pre-existence there was a sub-group which did not deny the virgin birth.[56] Theodoret, while dependent on earlier writers,[57] draws the conclusion that the two sub-groups would have used different Gospels.[58]
Of the books of the New Testament, the Ebionites are said to have accepted only a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of the Gospel of Matthew, referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews, as additional scripture to the Hebrew Bible. This version of Matthew, Irenaeus reports, omitted the first two chapters (on the nativity of Jesus), and started with the baptism of Jesus by John.[22]
The Ebionites believed that all Jews and Gentiles must observe the commandments in the Law of Moses,[21] in order to become righteous and seek communion with God.[59]...

 

[Belz...]

Get a dictionary an look up "may be".

Maybe you don't have one!!

We call those weasel words.

 

[dejudge]

The advent of Christ is NOT theological but the expectation of an historical event.

It is most incredible that you have no idea what "The Advent of Christ" means to the Jews.

The Jews expect a Physical King or ruler.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

And when I had finished these words, I continued: "Now I am aware that your teachers, sirs, admit the whole of the words of this passage to refer to Christ; and I am likewise aware that they maintain He has not yet come; or if they say that He has come, they assert that it is not known who He is; but when He shall become manifest and glorious, then it shall be known who He is.

Which is why the Jewish followers of Jesus were following a man, not a ghost.

Pretty damn obvious really.

Pretty damn illogical.

The Jews claimed the Christ had not come or claimed they don't know who is so it is highly illogical that Jews followed a man.

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

All just part of the Hoax, I suppose...

Please, read the passages that you plaster on the thread because they CONTRADICT you.

You don't even realize that stories about the Ebionites are disputed.

You don't even realize that it is from the 2nd century and later that we first hear of the Ebionites.

Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.

 

[Brainache]

Pretty damn illogical.

The Jews claimed the Christ had not come or claimed they don't know who is so it is highly illogical that Jews followed a man.

You say they were following a Ghost. That makes more sense to you?

Please, read the passages that you plaster on the thread because they CONTRADICT you.

You don't even realize that stories about the Ebionites are disputed.

You don't even realize that it is from the 2nd century and later that we first hear of the Ebionites.

That isn't a contradiction, that is called "uncertainty". Ancient History is full of uncertainties, get used to it.

 

[dejudge]

You say they were following a Ghost. That makes more sense to you?

That is your problem--you are attempting to historicize the nonsense in the NT.

The NT is a compilation of Ghost stories--stupid ridiculous Ghost stories propagated by illiterates.

It is so easy to detect.

What else could the author have written to show he was writing Ghost stories?

Matthew 1:18 KJV ---Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

They followed the Ghost in the NT.

Please, read the passages that you plaster on the thread because they CONTRADICT you.

You don't even realize that stories about the Ebionites are disputed.

You don't even realize that it is from the 2nd century and later that we first hear of the Ebionites.

That isn't a contradiction, that is called "uncertainty". Ancient History is full of uncertainties, get used to it.

So why did you not admit you were uncertain all along?

You knew in advance of posting that you were not certain that Jewish people followed YOUR HJ.

Robert Eisenman, an historian, has already admitted NO-ONE has solved the HJ question.

No wonder there are multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ. The Questers are uncertain from since 18th century up to this present time.

 

[Brainache]

That is your problem--you are attempting to historicize the nonsense in the NT.

The NT is a compilation of Ghost stories--stupid ridiculous Ghost stories propagated by illiterates.

It is so easy to detect.

What else could the author have written to show he was writing Ghost stories?

Matthew 1:18 KJV ---Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

They followed the Ghost in the NT.





So why did you not admit you were uncertain all along?

You knew in advance of posting that you were not certain that Jewish people followed YOUR HJ.

Robert Eisenman, an historian, has already admitted NO-ONE has solved the HJ question.

No wonder there are multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ. The Questers are uncertain from since 18th century up to this present time.

Of course it is uncertain. Everything in Ancient History is uncertain.

The HJ is the most probable conclusion.

This has been said many times by many different people in these threads.

If you are surprised by this, then perhaps you should ask yourself why this piece of information never reached your brain before now. There appears to be some kind of blockage...

 

[dejudge]

Of course it is uncertain. Everything in Ancient History is uncertain.

The HJ is the most probable conclusion.

This has been said many times by many different people in these threads.

If you are surprised by this, then perhaps you should ask yourself why this piece of information never reached your brain before now. There appears to be some kind of blockage...

Your post makes very little sense. You have no idea how Ancient history is done.

There is simply no contemporary archaeological evidence, no artifacts, no contemporary manuscripts or Codices about the Jesus story and cult pre 70 CE.

Your baseless assumption that HJ is the most probable is based on uncertainty and no supporting evidence.

There is no contemporary evidence whatsoever that anyone in the 1st century pre 70 CE even argued that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being.

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 ZERO contemporary evidence for the HJ argument. ALL we have are 2nd century or later manuscripts and Codices with ridiculous Ghost stories of a character called Jesus who was born after his mother became pregnant by a Ghost.

 

[Brainache]

Your post makes very little sense. You have no idea how Ancient history is done.

There is simply no contemporary archaeological evidence, no artifacts, no contemporary manuscripts or Codices about the Jesus story and cult pre 70 CE.

Your baseless assumption that HJ is the most probable is based on uncertainty and no supporting evidence.

There is no contemporary evidence whatsoever that anyone in the 1st century pre 70 CE even argued that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being.

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



There is ZERO contemporary evidence for the HJ argument. ALL we have are 2nd century or later manuscripts and Codices with ridiculous Ghost stories of a character called Jesus who was born after his mother became pregnant by a Ghost.

And Ghosts don't exist.

Therefore the most probable explanation is that he was a man, not a ghost.

See how easy it is?

We look for the most probable explanation and right now that is HJ.

 

[dejudge]

And Ghosts don't exist.

Therefore the most probable explanation is that he was a man, not a ghost.

See how easy it is?

We look for the most probable explanation and right now that is HJ.

What utter absurdity!! How illogical can you be

You really have no idea how Ancient history is done.

If we use your logical fallacy then Satan the Devil, the God of the Jews and the Angel Gabriel were human beings and actual figures of history.

Please, you MUST first find contemporary evidence for your assumed obscure criminal.

You must first locate contemporary Data for your HJ.

There is none.

HJ is a dead end argument.

 

[Brainache]

What utter absurdity!! How illogical can you be

You really have no idea how Ancient history is done.

If we use your logical fallacy then Satan the Devil, the God of the Jews and the Angel Gabriel were human beings and actual figures of history.

Please, you MUST first find contemporary evidence for your assumed obscure criminal.

You must first locate contemporary Data for your HJ.

There is none.

HJ is a dead end argument.

I don't have to do anything and the HJ will go on being taught at University.

The HJ is still being taught dejudge, it is not dead at all, no matter how many times you repeat this idiotic refrain of yours.

You should probably stop being wrong now. It is really starting to look a little bit silly.

 

[dejudge]

I don't have to do anything and the HJ will go on being taught at University.

The HJ is still being taught dejudge, it is not dead at all, no matter how many times you repeat this idiotic refrain of yours.

You should probably stop being wrong now. It is really starting to look a little bit silly.

Your statement is just utterly absurd.

It is like telling Atheists that they are idiotic because billions of people still believe in the God of the Jews and that they still preach and teach that God's Son, the Logos, was really real.

Atheists deal with EVIDENCE not with Universities.

You have already exposed that HJ is uncertain.

I don't have to do anything.

HJ will always be uncertain because of no contemporary evidence.

For the last 250 years or since the 18th century it has been proven multiple times that the HJ argument is a dead end argument.

Now, please tell what version of HJ do they teach in Universities?

How many Christian Professors preach and teach the Fundi version that HJ was a resurrected being?

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is just utterly absurd.

It is like telling Atheists that they are idiotic because billions of people still believe in the God of the Jews and that they still preach and teach that God's Son, the Logos, was really real.

Atheists deal with EVIDENCE not with Universities.

You have already exposed that HJ is uncertain.

I don't have to do anything.

HJ will always be uncertain because of no contemporary evidence.

For the last 250 years or since the 18th century it has been proven multiple times that the HJ argument is a dead end argument.

Now, please tell what version of HJ do they teach in Universities?

How many Christian Professors preach and teach the Fundi version that HJ was a resurrected being?

You still don't get it do you?

Ancient History is not about certainty, it is about trying to find probable explanations for what happened.

HJ is still the most probable, and that is the HJ that they teach at University.

If you ever go to a University and get an education, you will learn that it is possible to think that a HJ was at the start of Christianity without believing in god or ghosts or devils or any of that nonsense.

All we are talking about is a Jewish Preacher, not a god.

Is any of this sinking in?

Your objections make no sense to me. I'm an Atheist, not a Christian and I have some understanding of logic, which BTW, is something else you should learn.

 

[dejudge]

If you ever go to a University and get an education, you will learn that it is possible to think that a HJ was at the start of Christianity without believing in god or ghosts or devils or any of that nonsense.

What absurdity!! How illogical!!

You keep on forgetting that NO HJ has been found even though HJ is taught at Universities.

You keep forgetting that there is ON-GOING Quest for an HJ even though it is taught in Universities.

You keep forgetting that there are Multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ and Multiple failures even though HJ is taught at Universities.

You have inadvertently shown that teaching HJ at Universities does Not help the HJ argument.

You forget that Bart Ehrman teaches at a University and that his book "Did Jesus Exist?" is riddled with logical fallacies and no contemporary evidence for HJ.

The HJ argument has NOT benefitted one bit from those who teach HJ at Universities.

This is now the Third attempt to find an HJ.

Why is that?

Your objections make no sense to me. I'm an Atheist, not a Christian and I have some understanding of logic, which BTW, is something else you should learn.

I have great difficulty with your claim because you use the same Bible as a Christian and use a similar faith based argument.

Do you believe the Son of the God of the Jews was really real?

 

[Craig B]

The NT is a compilation of Ghost stories--stupid ridiculous Ghost stories propagated by illiterates.

There is ZERO contemporary evidence for the HJ argument. ALL we have are 2nd century or later manuscripts and Codices with ridiculous Ghost stories of a character called Jesus who was born after his mother became pregnant by a Ghost.

I see. Very interesting.

 

[proudfootz]

You still don't get it do you?

Ancient History is not about certainty, it is about trying to find probable explanations for what happened.

Which is why we should be wary of those who, like Bart Ehrman, claim that his Jesus 'certainly existed' and those who doubt this assertion are 'like Holocaust deniers' or whatever.

 

[proudfootz]

Name all these scholars! What surveys have you done? How many scholars are there altogether? What sort of reward do they expect from Jesus? Are there any who believe that he did not exist but resurrected in the time of Pilate? What sort of reward will they get? Do Muslim scholars get rewarded with seventy virgins in Heaven for arguing that Jesus was a prophet? You must answer all these questions or I will call you illogical.

We don't even know the names of all the alleged scholars who are claimed to believe there was a man upon whom the myth of Jesus Christ was built.

What surveys have been done to verify this alleged 'consensus'?

...and if there are some who have believed such a thing, upon what evidence have they based this belief? Or have they simply accepted longstanding tradition?

 

[Brainache]

Which is why we should be wary of those who, like Bart Ehrman, claim that his Jesus 'certainly existed' and those who doubt this assertion are 'like Holocaust deniers' or whatever.

The problem is though, the arguments used by the MJ side in this debate really are of a similar kind to those Holocaust deniers, Conspiracy Theorists and Creationists. It's all incredulity and ignorance.

Dismissing an Academic consensus without even studying the subject is pretty arrogant, don't you think?

 

[Brainache]

We don't even know the names of all the alleged scholars who are claimed to believe there was a man upon whom the myth of Jesus Christ was built.

What surveys have been done to verify this alleged 'consensus'?

...and if there are some who have believed such a thing, upon what evidence have they based this belief? Or have they simply accepted longstanding tradition?

Have you heard of a place called "University"?

It's where they study and teach History (amongst other things).

Not one University teaches the Myth Jesus that Carrier is pushing.

You are free to try to convince the Historians that the MJ idea has merit, but no one has done so yet.

What have you got?

Or are you just here "asking questions" and trying to poke holes in the "Official Story"?

 

[proudfootz]

Far from any climate change denial or any creationist claims, the scientific position here could actually only support the sceptic view of pointing out that there is actually no reliable evidence of any living Jesus. But in fact rather a lot of evidence to show that the Jesus stories were superstitious inventions in a time of great ignorance.

In fact if you conducted a poll amongst scientists vs. bible scholars (or any others who claimed to believe in a real HJ), asking whether they believed that evidence showed Jesus was real, I think you would almost certainly find the scientists expressing a far greater degree of scepticism about a HJ.

That seems to me almost inevitable, simply because the bible scholars etc. include a large proportion of people who are practicing religious Christians ... whereas, amongst the most senior scientists (e.g. the National Academy of Sciences in the US) polls have shown that very few believe in a literal God. And also of course, high level scientists like that would almost always insist that any claim of positive belief in a HJ has to be supported by reliable and credible evidence (probably, independently confirmed evidence), whereas the so-called "expert academic scholars" in this subject, i.e. bible scholars and theologians, are actually putting their faith in the bible as their evidence of Jesus.

But in any case the entire suggestion of comparing sceptics to creationists or Holocaust deniers (I think we also had that at one point!) is of course just yet another juvenile attempt to smear sceptics here with yet more in an already long list of name calling and personalised abuse. Which is of course rather a give-away of the weakness of a HJ position which can never produce any actual evidence, and which relies instead on constantly trying to trot out the exact same list of attempted character assassination that I quoted earlier from Wells book.

I quite agree - the rather low road taken by the exponents of the 'real Jesus' position reveals that they lack confidence that their 'evidence' is very persuasive. This is hardly surprising since this 'evidence' typically consists of a few verses quote-mined from religious tracts - and these proof texts could fit on a matchbook cover.

Posters such as Stone (known as Stein on other boards) keep filling up threads with dire predictions of mobs burning universities to the ground and shipping scholars off to concentration camps.

No, I don't agree that if this Jesus were considered (like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jonah, Job, and the rest) to be a literary figure that civilization would collapse.

 

[proudfootz]

The problem is though, the arguments used by the MJ side in this debate really are of a similar kind to those Holocaust deniers, Conspiracy Theorists and Creationists. It's all incredulity and ignorance.

Doubting something that is merely asserted to be 'plausible' isn't quite the same thing.

In my experience scholars who seriously consider the literary origins of the figure of Jesus are far from ignorant. It would appear you are ignorant of their knowledge.

Dismissing an Academic consensus without even studying the subject is pretty arrogant, don't you think?

Who do you allege 'hasn't studied the subject' and what is your evidence for this (aside from you incredulity)?