Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

You made up your story.

You imagine that your HJ was a Jewish teacher who was killed by the Romans.

You must have a vivid imagination because you have no evidence of such a story.

Please, if you don't mind, when did your imagined story happen?

What sources are you using?

The Bible?

Just because Galatians 1.19 is in the Bible does not mean it is true.

Do you have a more plausible explanation for the origins of Christianity?

If so, you can publish it and make a million bucks.

What are you waiting for?

You better hurry, Richard Carrier's book will be released any day now, you don't want him to beat you to the punch, do you?

 

[dejudge]

Do you have a more plausible explanation for the origins of Christianity?

Plausibility is NOT evidence of anything. You have no idea of how history is done.

The reconstruction of the past requires EVIDENCE from antiquity NOT IMAGINED Plausibility.

You better hurry, Richard Carrier's book will be released any day now, you don't want him to beat you to the punch, do you?

You have confirmed you do not know how the past is re-constructed. I need EVIDENCE from antiquity.

I RUSH to read writings of antiquity attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, Peter, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Irnaeus, Origen, Hippolytus, Arnobius, Eusebius, Lactatius, Optatus, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome ,Rufinus, Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Severus, Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder and younger and others.

I deal with evidence from antiquity.

 

[Brainache]

Plausibility is NOT evidence of anything. You have no idea of how history is done.

The reconstruction of the past requires EVIDENCE from antiquity NOT IMAGINED Plausibility.




You have confirmed you do not know how the past is re-constructed. I need EVIDENCE from antiquity.

I RUSH to read writings of antiquity attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, Peter, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Irnaeus, Origen, Hippolytus, Arnobius, Eusebius, Lactatius, Optatus, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome ,Rufinus, Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Severus, Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder and younger and others.

I deal with evidence from antiquity.

Have you looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Unlike all of those others, the DSS were written at the time and in the place we are all talking about. They are first hand accounts that were not subject to the editing, rewriting and Roman ideas of all those others who you apparently accept at face value.

Why do you ignore the only authentic documents we have?

How do you analyse these documents you say you read? What methodology do you use to account for the cultural context and theological biases of the Authors?

 

[Craig B]

... I need EVIDENCE from antiquity.

I RUSH to read writings of antiquity attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, Peter, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Irnaeus, Origen, Hippolytus, Arnobius, Eusebius, Lactatius, Optatus, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome ,Rufinus, Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Severus, Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder and younger and others.

I deal with evidence from antiquity.

So the NT is evidence? You are a Bible believer who kneels in front of icons of the Virgin Mary! I know because the Pope reads Matthew, and the rest of that stuff and that's what he does!

 

[Stone]

[Stone] The four Morton Paulines are typical of arguably the earliest written documentation we have on Jesus the teacher. At the same time, your examples of Tacitus and Antiqs. 20 (the account of James becoming a pulp) are probably the most disinterested. From both sets of documents emerge an historic human figure.

[Proudfootz] If by a 'human figure' we mean an angel disguised as a human.

===========

[Stone] Fiddlesticks. Tacitus and Antiqs. 20 do NOT reference an angel in any way, shape, or form.

I tell you what. Instead of continuing your cute (NOT) evasion game, why don't you address what I'm really addressing for a change: What DO Paul, Tacitus and Antiqs. 20 all have in common?

Hint: it's not an angel.

Stone

 

[IanS]

.

I tell you what. Instead of continuing your cute (NOT) evasion game, why don't you address what I'm really addressing for a change: What DO Paul, Tacitus and Antiqs. 20 all have in common?

Hint: it's not an angel.

Stone

The most certain thing they have in common is that none of those are known from anything written by the named authors themselves. All three are known only from anonymously written copies made centuries after the claimed events ... a whopping 1000 years afterwards in the case of Tacitus and Josephus!

The next very obvious and "certain" thing all three have in common is that none of those authors ever met Jesus.

Paul could only talk about a Jesus of his spiritual beliefs. And he never attempted to do more than that. And Tacitus and Josephus were not even born at the time of Jesus, and could only have been repeating hearsay accounts of what earlier Christians themselves had said about their belief in a messiah that none of them had ever claimed to meet either.

 

[Craig B]

... And Tacitus and Josephus were not even born at the time of Jesus, and could only have been repeating hearsay accounts of what earlier Christians themselves had said about their belief in a messiah that none of them had ever claimed to meet either.

Hearsay? Dear me, you mean there are historians who write about things that supposedly happened before they were even born; and their accounts are hearsay that wouldn't even be admitted in a court of law?!?

 

[The Big Dog]

Hearsay? Dear me, you mean there are historians who write about things that supposedly happened before they were even born; and their accounts are hearsay that wouldn't even be admitted in a court of law?!?

For what it is worth, hearsay evidence gets admitted into evidence all the time. In fact, I believe there is an exception to the hearsay rule for ancient documents.

 

[IanS]

Hearsay? Dear me, you mean there are historians who write about things that supposedly happened before they were even born; and their accounts are hearsay that wouldn't even be admitted in a court of law?!?

Who told Josephus and Tacitus about Jesus? Do you have any idea who that source was?

How reliable was this person or persons that ever mentioned Jesus to any authors such as Tacitus and Josephus? Can you give us an example of the reliability of this source?

 

[Craig B]

For what it is worth, hearsay evidence gets admitted into evidence all the time. In fact, I believe there is an exception to the hearsay rule for ancient documents.

That ancient docs rule won't do much good!

The most certain thing they have in common is that none of those are known from anything written by the named authors themselves. All three are known only from anonymously written copies made centuries after the claimed events ... a whopping 1000 years afterwards in the case of Tacitus and Josephus!

 

[dejudge]

Have you looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Have you personally looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls? Can you translate them?

Unlike all of those others, the DSS were written at the time and in the place we are all talking about. They are first hand accounts that were not subject to the editing, rewriting and Roman ideas of all those others who you apparently accept at face value.

You made that up. The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated over a very wide time period covering hundreds of years.

Why do you ignore the only authentic documents we have?

The Dead Sea Scrolls do NOT mention Jesus of Nazareth.

How do you analyse these documents you say you read? What methodology do you use to account for the cultural context and theological biases of the Authors?

How did you analyze the Dead Sea Scrolls? Have you looked at them? What methodology did you use to account for the cultural context and theological biases of ROBERT EISENMAN.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hearsay? Dear me, you mean there are historians who write about things that supposedly happened before they were even born; and their accounts are hearsay that wouldn't even be admitted in a court of law?!?

That ancient docs rule won't do much good!

Aha! A different conundrum! That would be the best evidence rule. Of course, In days of yore, manuscript or hand written copies were not the only thing available, but in fact, the overwhelming majority of ancient documents are known only from copies.

Both Josephus and Tacitus are universally considered authentic and authoritative. It is hardly worth arguing with people who reject this consensus.

 

[dejudge]

Who told Josephus and Tacitus about Jesus? Do you have any idea who that source was?

How reliable was this person or persons that ever mentioned Jesus to any authors such as Tacitus and Josephus? Can you give us an example of the reliability of this source?

Tacitus wrote of no-one called Jesus in Annals 15.44.

In AJ 20.9.1 Josephus mentioned Jesus the son of Damneus, the Anointed [Christ] High Priest.

According to HJers their Jesus was an obscure preacher who was crucified after he caused a disturbance at the Jewish Temple.

There is no such story in Tacitus and Josephus.

 

[IanS]

Aha! A different conundrum! That would be the best evidence rule. Of course, In days of yore, manuscript or hand written copies were not the only thing available, but in fact, the overwhelming majority of ancient documents are known only from copies.

Both Josephus and Tacitus are universally considered authentic and authoritative. It is hardly worth arguing with people who reject this consensus.

Tacitus and Josephus make almost no mention of Jesus (or Christ, Christus, or Chrestus). What little they do say is anonymous hearsay, and it comes from copyists writing 1000 years after the original authors had died.

That could never be credible or reliable as a source of evidence for anything.

And it is of no help at all to a HJ case to say that historians often accept such appalling standards of evidence for other ancient figures or events.

Tacitus and Josephus are not credible sources of evidence for a human Jesus circa. 7–2 BC to 30–33 AD.

 

[Craig B]

Tacitus wrote of no-one called Jesus in Annals 15.44.

In AJ 20.9.1 Josephus mentioned Jesus the son of Damneus, the Anointed [Christ] High Priest.

According to HJers their Jesus was an obscure preacher who was crucified after he caused a disturbance at the Jewish Temple.

There is no such story in Tacitus and Josephus.

Did Josephus, who published in Greek, describe Jesus son of Damneus as a "Christ"? There is no story of an obscure preacher causing a disturbance in the Temple. That's right. I wonder how many records of people overturning stalls and causing disturbances in places of worship in ancient times have been lost, or went generally unrecorded.

 

[dejudge]

Did Josephus, who published in Greek, describe Jesus son of Damneus as a "Christ"? There is no story of an obscure preacher causing a disturbance in the Temple. That's right. I wonder how many records of people overturning stalls and causing disturbances in places of worship in ancient times have been lost, or went generally unrecorded.

Please, your HJ is NOT found in Josephus and Tacitus.

Your HJ is a modern invention WITHOUT any pre 70 CE evidence.

Jesus cult Christians of antiquity argued that Jesus was God Creator, the Logos, the Son of God born of a Ghost.

On the Flesh of Christ.

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.

It is His flesh that is in question.

Its verity and quality are the points in dispute.

Did it ever exist? Whence was it derived?

And of what kind was it?

Tertullian ANSWERED the Questions. Jesus was God InCarnate

On the Flesh of Christ

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God........In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

 

[Craig B]

Please, your HJ is NOT found in Josephus and Tacitus.

Your HJ is a modern invention WITHOUT any pre 70 CE evidence.

Jesus cult Christians of antiquity argued that Jesus was God Creator, the Logos, the Son of God born of a Ghost.

On the Flesh of Christ.


Tertullian ANSWERED the Questions. Jesus was God InCarnate

[
u]On the Flesh of Christ[/u]

I asked

Did Josephus, who published in Greek, describe Jesus son of Damneus as a "Christ"?

Why the weird and irrelevant answer from you?

 

[dejudge]

Did Josephus, who published in Greek, describe Jesus son of Damneus as a "Christ"?

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 talks about Jesus the Anointed High Priest the Son of Damneus.


Jesus Χριστοῦ [the Anointed]is Jesus the Son of Damneus in Josephus AJ 20.91.

Jesus Χριστοῦ [the Anointed] was ALIVE up to the time of Albinus procurator of Judea after c 62-64 CE.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...5:book=20:whiston+chapter=9:whiston+section=1

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9

Ἀλβῖνον δ᾽ ἔτι κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὑπάρχειν, καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καί τινας ἑτέρους, ὡς παρανομησάντων κατηγορίαν ποιησάμενος παρέδωκε λευσθησομένους.

 

[Craig B]

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 talks about Jesus the Anointed High Priest the Son of Damneus.


Jesus Χριστοῦ [the Anointed]is Jesus the Son of Damneus in Josephus AJ 20.91.

Jesus Χριστοῦ [the Anointed] was ALIVE up to the time of Albinus procurator of Judea after c 62-64 CE.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...5:book=20:whiston+chapter=9:whiston+section=1

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9

Here's the wording I can find.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

So you're saying that "who was called Christ" is a reference to the son of Damneus. But it is most certainly not, for Jesus son of Damneus was only later named High Priest. "Christ" here is a reference to the Nazarene, whether authentic or, as I believe, an interpolated gloss inserted by a much later Christian pen. But the "Christ" is not a reference to the High Priest, even if the "Jesus" is.

 

[dejudge]

Here's the wording I can find. So you're saying that "who was called Christ" is a reference to the son of Damneus. But it is most certainly not, for Jesus son of Damneus was only later named High Priest.

Jesus the Son of Damneus is a High Priest in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

High Priests and Kings were called Christ by Jews.

King David was called Christ.

Examine the Chronicon Paschale.

Until Jannaeus, who was also called Alexander, there were annointed leaders; but with him the succession of high priests who led the nation came to an end. They were called Christs by the prophets.

"Christ" here is a reference to the Nazarene, whether authentic or, as I believe, an interpolated gloss inserted by a much later Christian pen. But the "Christ" is not a reference to the High Priest, even if the "Jesus" is.

Your claim is false. You have no actual evidence for what you say.

Josephus mentions No Nazarene called Jesus of Nazareth in the existing AJ 20.9.1.

Jesus the Anointed [Christ] was ALIVE up to at least 62-64 CE or when Albinus was procurator of Judea.