Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

You don't know what you are talking about. You are NOT an historian and you have NO actual evidence of an historical Jesus.

You think the existence of Universities is the evidence for an historical Jesus.

...

No. I think Universities are where people get educations. Some of those people learn how to study History there.

Where did you learn your, er, unorthodox method of studying History?

Please tell us where you learned that accepting ancient Apologetics equals understanding History.

I wouldn't want others to fall into that way of doing things.

 

[dejudge]

No. I think Universities are where people get educations. Some of those people learn how to study History there.

So, why have not gone there? You need to learn how to study history

I have already told you that Harvard is offering Courses on the History of the Quest for an Historical Jesus from the 18th-21st century.

You don't even know that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ after hundreds of years with Multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable version of assumed HJ.

Where did you learn your, er, unorthodox method of studying History?

You don't know how history is done. You don't know what EVIDENCE is. You think an expert opinion is evidence.

Please tell us where you learned that accepting ancient Apologetics equals understanding History.

Please, tell us why you use the Bible to argue for your James gang while simultaneously admitting Paul was a Liar?

I wouldn't want others to fall into that way of doing things.

Your methodology has been a failure. You have no evidence pre 70 CE. Without evidence you will always fail to find your HJ.

 

[Brainache]

So, why have not gone there? You need to learn how to study history

I have already told you that Harvard is offering Courses on the History of the Quest for an Historical Jesus from the 18th-21st century.

You don't even know that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ after hundreds of years with Multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable version of assumed HJ.



You don't know how history is done. You don't know what EVIDENCE is. You think an expert opinion is evidence.



Please, tell us why you use the Bible to argue for your James gang while simultaneously admitting Paul was a Liar?



Your methodology has been a failure. You have no evidence pre 70 CE. Without evidence you will always fail to find your HJ.

I see you didn't answer any of the questions.

Oh well, I guess we just have to assume that you are making up your very own method of studying History.

It doesn't seem to be working very well though. Perhaps you should try something else, like basket weaving or media studies...

 

[dejudge]

I see you didn't answer any of the questions.

I see you didn't answer of my questions.

Oh well, I guess we just have to assume that you are making up your very own method of studying History.
It doesn't seem to be working very well though. Perhaps you should try something else, like basket weaving or media studies...

You don't know how history is done. You don't know what Evidence is.

The past [History] is reconstructed by Evidence NOT because there are Universities and so-called experts.

What is the historical Evidence for Satan the Devil?

What is the historical evidence for Angels?

Satan and Jesus of Nazareth were together in the wilderness in the Presence of Angels during the Temptation.

Jesus of Nazareth, Satan the Devil, and the Angels are all Myth characters.

Mark 1:13 KJV

And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Jesus of Nazareth, Satan the Devil and the Angels in gMark NEVER existed until NEW evidence surfaces.

 

[Craig B]

Satan and Jesus of Nazareth were together in the wilderness in the Presence of Angels during the Temptation.

Jesus of Nazareth, Satan the Devil, and the Angels are all Myth characters.

That means the nineteenth century priest St John Vianney didn't exist.

This extraordinary Saint spent all his time in the church: at the pulpit, confessionary or altar. At night when he returned to his house, one might think he would at least get a deserved rest. But no, a new fight started, this time against the devil. For decades he fought a nightly battle with the devil ... in which the devil physically assaulted him and tormented him with deafening noises and insulting words. On the night before a person particularly dominated by the devil would come to confess to St. John Vianney, the devil would inflict stronger torments on the Saint. Once he set fire to the Curé's bed. In response St. John Vianney used to increase his special penances, flagellations, and prayers to win the graces for his words to effect the needed conversions.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/j084sdCureArs_8-4.htm

But this idiot priest, venerated as a saint by crowds of superstitious fools, did most certainly exist.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

If Jesus was of virgin birth, how could he be a descendent of David (which was supposed to be his cuckold dad's lineage)?

 

[Craig B]

If Jesus was of virgin birth, how could he be a descendent of David (which was supposed to be his cuckold dad's lineage)?

He couldn't. Therefore the birth stories and the genealogies derive from two separate sources. But sssh. The MJers won't accept that! In fact, four separate sources because the genealogies don't agree with each other, and the magic birth stories don't agree with each other.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

What? You are saying that somebody has the actual cross of Jesus? And that on that real cross of Jesus, Pontius Pilate himself wrote something naming Jesus?

There is a man with a 2 foot beard who lives in a cave in Arizona who says he knew Jesus before any of the people in the N.T.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

I think its quite likely when people die they have no way to know if religion was right or wrong. They will simply cease to exist. Much like Richard Brautigan.

 

[proudfootz]

But amongst people who are familiar with the Scholarship ie: Historians of the Ancient Near East, the overwhelming majority of them say that there probably was a real person upon whom the stories were based.

Are they all ignorant of their own profession?

Or is more likely that most people just don't take the time to actually study the subject?

Ignorance is never clever.

NO, ignorance is not clever.

True, most people don't take time to study the subject. I have.

Not as interested in people who might 'say' something as those who actually have a reason for saying so.

Of these alleged 'majority' you cite, how many have taken the time to study the historicity of Jesus? 5%? 10%?

Rather than take a wild guess, try and back up your claim with some factual data that is available to be vetted.

Thanks in advance!

 

[proudfootz]

No. I think Universities are where people get educations. Some of those people learn how to study History there.

So, why have you not gone there? You need to learn how to study history.

Dr Carrier, for example, is an historian, yet rejected by various online non-historians. His scholarship is the latest up-to-date work on this topic. It's truly a puzzle that supposed pro-historian non-historians reject a historian who has made a special study of this particular subject.

You don't even know that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ after hundreds of years with Multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable version of assumed HJ.

That these university-trained scholars can't come up with a definitive historical Jesus even after a couple hundred years of hard work should give online posters some pause before pronouncing they can solve the mystery that baffles the best and the brightest!

Where did you learn your, er, unorthodox method of studying History?

You don't know how history is done. You don't know what EVIDENCE is. You think an expert opinion is evidence.

Apparently the study of contemporary texts from the time period in question is a study foreign to Brainache - the sort of work historians really do is a mystery to Brainache, otherwise he couldn't ask such an ignorant question.

I wouldn't want others to fall into that way of doing things.

Please, tell us why you use the Bible to argue for your James gang while simultaneously admitting Paul was a Liar?

Apparently Brainache doesn't want people looking at texts which might indicate anything other than those that fit the 'real Jesus' agenda.

Your methodology has been a failure. You have no evidence pre 70 CE. Without evidence you will always fail to find your HJ.

All the activity of christianity seems to be literary activity in areas outside of Judea.

How any of this can be construed as indicating a preaching career in Judea is another mystery, perhaps one that keeps setting up quests for the 'real Jesus' for failure after failure.

 

[Stone]

I see you didn't answer any of the questions.

Oh well, I guess we just have to assume that you are making up your very own method of studying History.

It doesn't seem to be working very well though. Perhaps you should try something else, like basket weaving or media studies...

Yet Proudfootz does take DeJudge seriously. In fact, Proudfootz has also been, effectively, the Pied Piper for taking him seriously on the big RatSkep thread as well. Most MJ-ers at RatSkep and at FDB were wary of some of DeJuror's/DeJudge's pronouncements for a long time. But it was startling the way MJ-ers on RatSkep suddenly started taking him seriously as soon as Proudfootz started the trend.

Now, personally, DeJudge just comes off to me as a bit of an eccentric who often (not always) misunderstands queries put to him. Proudfootz OTOH seems much more aware of things around him. Can it be that he really doesn't notice DeJudge's frequent non sequiturs? Why overlook them unless there are other factors involved?

Stone

 

[proudfootz]

Yet Proudfootz does take DeJudge seriously. In fact, Proudfootz has also been, effectively, the Pied Piper for taking him seriously on the big RatSkep thread as well. Most MJ-ers at RatSkep and at FDB were wary of some of DeJuror's/DeJudge's pronouncements for a long time. But it was startling the way MJ-ers on RatSkep suddenly started taking him seriously as soon as Proudfootz started the trend.

Now, personally, DeJudge just comes off to me as a bit of an eccentric who often (not always) misunderstands queries put to him. Proudfootz OTOH seems much more aware of things around him. Can it be that he really doesn't notice DeJudge's frequent non sequiturs? Why overlook them unless there are other factors involved?

Stone

We should take dejudge seriously just as we take Brainache seriously.

It is the foundation of rational discourse.

Don't you realize your insinuations about other people's motivations invites others to speculate about your possible motives?

It's the same when you introduce speculations about the motives of scholars with whom you find yourself in disagreement - do you really want to start a stone-throwing contest when many of your preferred authorities live in glass houses?

 

[Brainache]

Yet Proudfootz does take DeJudge seriously. In fact, Proudfootz has also been, effectively, the Pied Piper for taking him seriously on the big RatSkep thread as well. Most MJ-ers at RatSkep and at FDB were wary of some of DeJuror's/DeJudge's pronouncements for a long time. But it was startling the way MJ-ers on RatSkep suddenly started taking him seriously as soon as Proudfootz started the trend.

Now, personally, DeJudge just comes off to me as a bit of an eccentric who often (not always) misunderstands queries put to him. Proudfootz OTOH seems much more aware of things around him. Can it be that he really doesn't notice DeJudge's frequent non sequiturs? Why overlook them unless there are other factors involved?

Stone

I couldn't comment without breaching the MA.

Lovely weather we've been having...

 

[tsig]

I couldn't comment without breaching the MA.

Lovely weather we've been having...

A true internet warrior here, if it wasn't for the MA he'd ***** and then ***** followed with *****, but for the MA.


***** ***

 

[dejudge]

If Jesus was of virgin birth, how could he be a descendent of David (which was supposed to be his cuckold dad's lineage)?

If Jesus was a descendant of David how could he Walk on the sea?

If Jesus was a descendant of David how come he was with Satan the Devil and Angels in the wilderness?

If Jesus was a descendant of David how could he transfigure?

If Jesus was a descendant of David how could he have resurrected?

The NT is simply NOT a credible source for Jesus of Nazareth and is WITHOUT any contemporary corroborative.

How could HJers use known discredited sources to argue for their HJ?

This is unacceptable.

 

[Brainache]

A true internet warrior here, if it wasn't for the MA he'd ***** and then ***** followed with *****, but for the MA.


***** ***

Any time you feel like making an intelligent argument, feel free.

Or just keep making idiotic childish statements like that one.

The choice is yours.

 

[proudfootz]

A true internet warrior here, if it wasn't for the MA he'd ***** and then ***** followed with *****, but for the MA.

***** ***

When a poster confesses he has no arguments left but personal abuse, I think they've pretty much conceded.

Meanwhile Fitzgerald's arguments are still standing.

Let's review, shall we?


Myth 1 - The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous

As we know the 'historical Jesus' hypothesis is suggested as only a probable solution to the question of christian origins. But the possible 'literary origin' of the character has a long history in scholarship and recent work in the field shows that this explanation still has legs.

Myth 2 - Jesus was wildly famous - but ...

The 'gospel narratives' suggest that Jesus was famous, yet surviving contemporary records are absent even mentions of him. Even those who propose there was in fact a man Jesus generally seem to suggest that their Jesus was obscure and common.

Myth 3 - Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus

The best candidate for a contemporary mention of Jesus is found in surviving texts of Josephus. The difficulty with using this as evidence is that the mentions are dubious as it is well known that christians have tampered with the texts.

Myth 4 - Eye-witnesses wrote the Gospels

That the canonical gospels were written by eye-witnesses is an article of faith among some christians, but even today some suggest the gospels are in part based on testimony from people who knew of Jesus and whose testimony was passed down by some alleged 'oral tradition'.

Myth 5 - The Gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus

Anyone who is familiar with the gospel tales knows there are significant differences among them - and the other NT writings also are evidence of wildly divergent versions of the character.

Myth 6 - History confirms the Gospels

Other than a few isolated factoids there is little confirmation of the gospel tales.

Myth 7 - Archeology confirms the Gospels

No.

Myth 8 - Paul and the epistles corroborate the Gospels

It would appear that the epistles are largely ignorant of the gospel versions of Jesus.

Myth 9 - Christianity began with Jesus and his apostles

Sadly, there is no corroboration of the existence of Jesus or of disciples who were his immediate followers.

Myth 10 - Christianity was totally new and different

This is obviously a myth - christianity resembles other cults of the time and place and followed trends exhibited by other 'mystery religions' growing up in the Hellenized world.

Does any of this 'prove' Jesus was a mythological character? No.

 

[dejudge]

Does any of this 'prove' Jesus was a mythological character? No.

Does it prove there was an historical Jesus? No.

It is not necessary to prove Jesus is a myth when those who claimed there was an HJ have NO actual evidence.

If there was NEVER an historical Jesus we would find NO actual evidence for his existence like Romulus and Adam.

This is exactly what has happened.

Jesus is a myth like Romulus and Adam until new evidence surfaces.

Jesus is ALL Myth and NO history-Jesus is pure mythology until evidence to the contrary can be found.

 

[Craig B]

We should take dejudge seriously just as we take Brainache seriously.

It is the foundation of rational discourse.

Don't you realize your insinuations about other people's motivations invites others to speculate about your possible motives?

It's the same when you introduce speculations about the motives of scholars with whom you find yourself in disagreement - do you really want to start a stone-throwing contest when many of your preferred authorities live in glass houses?

I do not presume to impugn dejudge's motives, merely the character and quality of his arguments. ETA Example:

If Jesus was a descendant of David how could he Walk on the sea?

If Jesus was a descendant of David how come he was with Satan the Devil and Angels in the wilderness?

If Jesus was a descendant of David how could he transfigure?

If Jesus was a descendant of David how could he have resurrected?

Now, clearly Jesus was not a descendant of David, and I have stated that the genealogies that seek to establish this descent are gross fabrications. The descent from David, like the birth in Bethlehem, is derived from the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. Evidently he wasn't because that is an imaginary category of being. So to ask, if Jesus was a descendant of David, how could he walk on the sea? is an utterly fatuous and meaningless question. To Christians, he could do these things because he was God, and had magic powers. To atheists, including those (very probably a majority) who think he probably existed as a non-supernatural person, these stories are mythical embellishments, like Alexander being son of a god or building a wall to keep out Gog and Magog, or the equally tall tales told of other figures from King Arthur to George Washington.