• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Historian Dr Carrier does an excellent analysis of the 'methodology' generally used by bible scholars in his book Proving History - I highly recommend it!

It's just an insult to the intelligence of members of this forum to blandly assert we must accept whatever is handed down from the Ivory Tower.

When a theory is consistently found to be valid it becomes a LAW--like the Laws of Gravity and motion.

Based on Dr, Richard Carrier, I personally think then we can now introduce the "Carrier Law"--the HJ argument is a failure of logic and facts.
I have found the HJ argument to be a failure of logic and facts after engaging many, many HJers for over 7 years.

I challenge any one to make a statement in defense of an HJ and it would be either a failure of logic or facts or a combination.
 
When a theory is consistently found to be valid it becomes a LAW--like the Laws of Gravity and motion.

Based on Dr, Richard Carrier, I personally think then we can now introduce the "Carrier Law"--the HJ argument is a failure of logic and facts.
I have found the HJ argument to be a failure of logic and facts after engaging many, many HJers for over 7 years.

I challenge any one to make a statement in defense of an HJ and it would be either a failure of logic or facts or a combination.

Your participation in these threads is greatly appreciated and your posts are always worth reading.
 
Your participation in these threads is greatly appreciated and your posts are always worth reading.



Thanks for the heads up.

No point engaging seriously with the arguments of someone who can say that with a straight face.

Any time you want to deal with actual Historical arguments, you can. No one is stopping you.
 
Thanks for the heads up.

No point engaging seriously with the arguments of someone who can say that with a straight face.

Any time you want to deal with actual Historical arguments, you can. No one is stopping you.

dejudge at least puts forward relevant arguments.

Thus far you haven't engaged in any substantive points I've made.

Your constant resort to ad hominem attacks just reveals how little confidence you place in rational discourse.
 
To return to the topic of the thread, here is Fitzgerald making a point which would seem relevant to the hypothesis there was a man beneath the Christ myth:

Myth No. 8: Paul’s Jesus

“Paul does not actually say much about Jesus' life and preaching.” In fact, it’s not just Paul - it’s the entire first generation of Christian writers. And it’s not that that he doesn’t say that much; he has nothing to say about his Risen Christ that seems to clearly refer to a life on earth, and again and again shows strange lapses about Jesus’ life, teachings, miracles, family, apostles, and the events of his ministry. Though he spends plenty of time in his letters having to remind his flock what he has taught them; he never bothers to tell them about what Jesus taught or did - or explain why he disagrees with the men who are supposedly Jesus’ family and disciples! Mythicists didn’t invent the “Silence of Paul” - that has puzzled and troubled biblical scholars for centuries.

Personally, I don’t know for certain if Paul himself believed in a purely spiritual Christ (along the lines of the savior in the original Ascension of Isaiah, who descends through successive layers of heavens by dying and rising again in each one) as Earl Doherty argues convincingly; or if Paul thought Jesus was on earth in some unspecified time in the past as a covert messiah, who “made of himself no reputation” (Phillip.2:7) and was unwittingly crucified by demons. But no matter how you slice it, it’s very obvious that Paul’s Christ is in stark contrast to the Jesus(es) in the Gospels - see pp. 129 -132 in Nailed for more details on those many differences.

...

The word translated “rulers” here is actually kosmokratoras (κοσμοκράτορας), literally “cosmic rulers.” So it’s very clear that in Christian usage, Archon is not being used to describe earthly authorities. In fact, in his genuine writings, Paul never mentions that Pilate, or Herod, or the Jewish leaders, or the Romans, or anyone else on earth crucified Jesus – in fact Pilate never even appears in the epistles except for a single mention in the much later forged Pastoral epistle 1Timothy (6:13). According to Paul, and all of the other epistle writers who wrote before the Gospels were written, there is never a hint of Jesus being crucified by any human person or government; it is the Archai or Archons, that is, Satan and his minions, who crucified Jesus.

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

I agree with the Scholarship which indicates a stark contrast between the Jesus represented among the epistles (some supposedly written by Jesus's own blood kin and his supposed earthly followers) which are much more vague about the supposed earthly career of Jesus than the stuff produced by later generations which place this airy Jesus in a more concrete setting.

This literary evidence is 180 degrees from the alleged hypothesis that christianity evolved in the process of the deification of a mortal man but seems to show a cosmic being becoming endowed with human attributes.
 
dejudge at least puts forward relevant arguments.

Thus far you haven't engaged in any substantive points I've made.

Your constant resort to ad hominem attacks just reveals how little confidence you place in rational discourse.

If you think dejudge's arguments are relevant, then I think you've got some lernin' to do.

You haven't made any substantive points.

You haven't engaged with any of the actual Scholarship that has been linked to by me or anyone else. Just claiming that you have isn't the same as actually doing it.

My contributions to these threads have been full of substantive points which the MJ crowd just ignore in favour of ad hom, like you are doing now.

Any time you feel ready to tackle the actual Scholarship, you can.

What are you waiting for?

Going to attack another reputation, or look at the arguments?

Your choice.
 
To continue with the subject of the thread:

Likewise, though O’Neill insists Paul says Jesus “ had a earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met,” “an earthly, physical brother” is exactly what Paul does not say about James or any of the others referred to in the New Testament as the “Brothers of the Lord” (such as the 500 Brethren in 1 Cor. 15: 6); see pp. 144-145 in Nailed for further discussion, including the absence of any “consistent tradition” of James being Jesus’ brother - or anyone else being Jesus’ disciples (see Myth No. 9 for details).

And it’s ironic that O’Neill picked I Cor. 15:3-4; since in these verses, he tells us how he “knows” his Christ died and was buried, and it is for the same reason given in so many other places in Paul’s writings (and other Epistles) - because it was prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures..."

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

It's mostly due to the artful editing of the NT canon that Paul is seen as being of the same community or tradition as that of the gospel authors.

But when examined critically, we can see there is a serious divergence between the vague figure revealed to Paul through his reading of scriptures and his visions and the narratives about the familiar miracle-working stranger who reveals himself to be God's special agent.
 
To continue with the subject of the thread:



It's mostly due to the artful editing of the NT canon that Paul is seen as being of the same community or tradition as that of the gospel authors.

But when examined critically, we can see there is a serious divergence between the vague figure revealed to Paul through his reading of scriptures and his visions and the narratives about the familiar miracle-working stranger who reveals himself to be God's special agent.

Paul also says that Jesus broke bread and drank wine with his followers. He says Jesus taught about the rules for divorce. What kind of incorporeal spirit does that?
 
AFAICT no mention by Paul of Jesus doing anything with his followers.

Spirits do all kinds of things in the sort of literature found in the bible.
 
AFAICT no mention by Paul of Jesus doing anything with his followers.

Spirits do all kinds of things in the sort of literature found in the bible.

Then who was Jesus talking to about the rules for divorce? Who was he breaking bread and drinking wine with on the night he was "delivered up"?

How could Paul's audience think that he was describing an incorporeal spirit doing these things?
 
No point engaging seriously with the arguments of someone who can say that with a straight face.
I too can say with a straight face that I appreciate dejudge's participation and that his posts are always interesting. To say that is not to say that his arguments are sound or valid, for they are not.
 
Originally Posted by Brainache:
No point engaging seriously with the arguments of someone who can say that with a straight face.

I too can say with a straight face that I appreciate dejudge's participation and that his posts are always interesting. To say that is not to say that his arguments are sound or valid, for they are not.

Uh-oh. Now you are on Brainache's list! :jaw-dropp
 
Then who was Jesus talking to about the rules for divorce?

Could have been talking to Paul. Maybe on one of Paul's trips to Heaven...

Who was he breaking bread and drinking wine with on the night he was "delivered up"?

Paul doesn't say.

But nothing in Paul says it was his 'followers' or whatever nonsense you tried to pull.

How could Paul's audience think that he was describing an incorporeal spirit doing these things?

How could people who accept that Paul visits Heaven every now and again be thought to have any realistic critical faculties at all?

According to the 'conversion' story an incorporeal spirit talks to Paul.

Spooky! :eek:
 
Could have been talking to Paul. Maybe on one of Paul's trips to Heaven...



Paul doesn't say.

But nothing in Paul says it was his 'followers' or whatever nonsense you tried to pull.



How could people who accept that Paul visits Heaven every now and again be thought to have any realistic critical faculties at all?

According to the 'conversion' story an incorporeal spirit talks to Paul.

Spooky! :eek:

Well you have obviously cracked the case Sherlock...

All you have to do now is publish your book and make a million bucks and overturn the consensus at the same time. Woo Hoo!

When will you be publishing?
 
Well you have obviously cracked the case Sherlock...

All you have to do now is publish your book and make a million bucks and overturn the consensus at the same time. Woo Hoo!

When will you be publishing?

The case has already been cracked.

But thanks for the positive strokes! ;)

But it takes a while for an outdated paradigm to be overturned.

It took a hundred years for the Q hypothesis to become accepted.

And it took nearly 2000 years for it to be admitted Jesus was not a god.

And god only knows when the 'Paul the Herodian' theory will be mainstream...
 
The case has already been cracked.

But thanks for the positive strokes! ;)

But it takes a while for an outdated paradigm to be overturned.

It took a hundred years for the Q hypothesis to become accepted.

And it took nearly 2000 years for it to be admitted Jesus was not a god.

And god only knows when the 'Paul the Herodian' theory will be mainstream...

Really? Where was it cracked, besides in your mind?

Is this where we get to see the persuasive MJ arguments that we've been waiting for so long?


...?
 
Really? Where was it cracked, besides in your mind?

Is this where we get to see the persuasive MJ arguments that we've been waiting for so long?


...?

Good news!

Books of scholarship have been published - you can read them any time you choose.

What's stopping you? :confused:
 
Good news!

Books of scholarship have been published - you can read them any time you choose.

What's stopping you? :confused:

What are you talking about?

Earl Doherty?

You know G A Wells changed his mind on this, right? He doesn't believe the MJ idea any more.

What else have you got?
 
...I agree with the Scholarship which indicates a stark contrast between the Jesus represented among the epistles (some supposedly written by Jesus's own blood kin and his supposed earthly followers) which are much more vague about the supposed earthly career of Jesus than the stuff produced by later generations which place this airy Jesus in a more concrete setting.

Again, where is the actual evidence that any letter in the Pauline Corpus was written before c 70 CE?

The Pauline writers themselves do not state anywhere that their letters were composed in the time of Nero.

The author of Acts does NOT even acknowledge that Paul wrote letters to Churches before he went to Rome in the time of Felix.

If Jesus did exist then the Gospel of Jesus did PREDATE the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

If Paul Persecuted those who believed the Jesus story then the story of Jesus PREDATED Paul.

It should be obvious that either Gospel of Jesus himself or the story of Jesus
was known before Paul.

It is virtually impossible to show that any Pauline letter was composed before stories of Jesus were written.

Apologetic writers have stated that Paul knew gLuke and wrote his Epistles after the the Apocalypse of John.

We can easily understand why the Gospels, Acts, the non-Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse of John wrote NOTHING of the Pauline letters.

The Pauline Corpus has no real influence at all on the other authors of the Canon.

If all the letters under the name of Paul are removed from the NT it would be virtually impossible to identify any Pauline teachings of his revealed Gospel.

On the other hand, if gMark is removed, virtually the entire teachings of the supposed Jesus are still found in gMatthew and large parts in gLuke.

Essentially, almost 100% of the teachings of Jesus gMark are found in other NT writings, but, less than 1% of the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

The Pauline Revealed Gospel, remission of sins by the resurrection, is the very LAST Gospel.


Even Jesus in the Gospels did NOT know the Pauline Revealed Gospel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom