Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[The Big Dog]

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.

Your position is quite the overwhelming minority view, and is rejected by virtually every serious scholar.

I assume you are aware of that.

 

[IanS]

Your position is quite the overwhelming minority view, and is rejected by virtually every serious scholar.

I assume you are aware of that.

Amongst bible scholars? Of course. Though nobody in their right mind could possibly think such very late copyist minimal sources were reliable.

 

[The Big Dog]

Amongst bible scholars? Of course. Though nobody in their right mind could possibly think such very late copyist minimal sources were reliable.

all scholars, including those who authenticated the remainder of Tacitus work. You appear to be unaware that the methods and analysis of authenticating the section in question were used for the ENTIRE work, and thousands of other works.

I understand that you intend to hand wave it away. It is what you folks do, after all.

 

[Stone]

all scholars, including those who authenticated the remainder of Tacitus work. You appear to be unaware that the methods and analysis of authenticating the section in question were used for the ENTIRE work, and thousands of other works.

I understand that you intend to hand wave it away. It is what you folks do, after all.

And it's ultimately that knee-jerk hand-wave that they still have in common with creationists at the end of the day. Sure, MJ-ers squawk at the context of the creationists' broken record being different from this. Sure, there may indeed be differences between the creationist argument and the myther one. But that ground-zero clutching to a knee-jerk hand-wave in the face of thousands of interdisciplinary studies remains a point of immediate contact between the modus operandi of both creationists and mythers. One can only wish that all away by blatant Kool-Aid.

Welcome to the board, 16.5.

Stone

 

[Craig B]

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.





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.

This is all drivel, dejudge. I don't care if David was called Christ, anointed. So was the Persian King Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1. Again, so what?

 

[Brainache]

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



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



The Dead Sea Scrolls do NOT mention Jesus of Nazareth.



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.

You really can't answer a straight question, can you?

It was very simple: Have you read the Dead Sea Scrolls?

I didn't say they had to be read in the original Hebrew/Aramaic.

The carbon dating is inconclusive because of the margins of error, which you point out are about 100 years plus or minus.

But the content puts them in the right time frame. They are Jewish Messianic, Apocalyptic texts from the time period. So, if you want to actually learn about the mind set that was involved in the formation of early Christianity, why would you ignore them and only read later Greek and Roman writers who had very little idea about what really went on?

Robert Eisenman has stated his biases up front, I know he isn't a Christian Apologist or a Fundamentalist. He has a Jewish background and has studied and taught about the Ancient Near East for forty years. I'll take his opinion over an anonymous internet know-it-all any day of the week.

Do yourself a favour and check out his books. You might learn something.

Or, even easier, try watching his lectures on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8tBkuLftDA

 

[Craig B]

Amongst bible scholars? Of course. Though nobody in their right mind could possibly think such very late copyist minimal sources were reliable.

Why do you not add your opinions on the doubtful integrity, as well as the impaired sanity, of "bible scholars"?

"Late copyist minimal sources"? This is how you describe the available texts of Tacitus and Josephus. And "hearsay" too. These mediaeval scribe monks never met Jesus, eh?

 

[IanS]

all scholars, including those who authenticated the remainder of Tacitus work. You appear to be unaware that the methods and analysis of authenticating the section in question were used for the ENTIRE work, and thousands of other works.

I understand that you intend to hand wave it away. It is what you folks do, after all.

I do not know who you mean by "you folks", but the people who are presenting brief hearsay sentences in work like Tacitus and Josephus as evidence of a living Jesus, are bible scholars.

And if you read the HJ thread “Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus”, you will find that we have discussed literally hundreds of times this question of the credibility, objectivity and impartiality of bible studies and NT studies as a field within academia, and many posters there have explained, referenced, linked, and quoted many hundreds of times over, why that is not a typical field within academia and why most sceptical authors have criticised the methods and assumptions used to conclude a HJ.

I am not going to waste my time or anyone else's repeating all of that again here for the 138th time (or however many times it now is). But you can check that for example in the books by Richard Carrier, Hector Avalos and others, who explain why the historical methods are flawed and inaccurate in this case, and why the field is populated by individuals most of whom came into that profession for reasons of devout religious belief, and in order to pursue those religious beliefs & religious studies.

 

[Craig B]

Why do you not add your opinions on the doubtful integrity, as well as the impaired sanity, of "bible scholars"?

I didn't have long to wait! Thanks.

this question of the credibility, objectivity and impartiality of bible studies

 

[The Big Dog]

I do not know who you mean by "you folks", but the people who are presenting brief hearsay sentences in work like Tacitus and Josephus as evidence of a living Jesus, are bible scholars.

And if you read the HJ thread “Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus”, you will find that we have discussed literally hundreds of times this question of the credibility, objectivity and impartiality of bible studies and NT studies as a field within academia, and many posters there have explained, referenced, linked, and quoted many hundreds of times over, why that is not a typical field within academia and why most sceptical authors have criticised the methods and assumptions used to conclude a HJ.
E
I am not going to waste my time or anyone else's repeating all of that again here for the 138th time (or however many times it now is). But you can check that for example in the books by Richard Carrier, Hector Avalos and others, who explain why the historical methods are flawed and inaccurate in this case, and why the field is populated by individuals most of whom came into that profession for reasons of devout religious belief, and in order to pursue those religious beliefs & religious studies.

I already said ALL SCHOLARS including the rest that have concluded that the remainder of Tacitus work (to cite one example) is authentic and authitative.

I just said that. And your response was to fume against biblical scholars. The fact of the matter is that your position is against the overwhelming weight of non-biblical historical scholarship.

You just wasted all of our time ranting about biblical scholars. Try not to do that again.

 

[IanS]

I already said ALL SCHOLARS including the rest that have concluded that the remainder of Tacitus work (to cite one example) is authentic and authitative.

I just said that. And your response was to fume against biblical scholars. The fact of the matter is that your position is against the overwhelming weight of non-biblical historical scholarship.

You just wasted all of our time ranting about biblical scholars. Try not to do that again.

Bible scholars are the people who are proposing work like Tacitus and Josephus as evidence of a living Jesus. Historians and others are afaik, not generally interested in Jesus.

 

[tsig]

all scholars, including those who authenticated the remainder of Tacitus work. You appear to be unaware that the methods and analysis of authenticating the section in question were used for the ENTIRE work, and thousands of other works.

I understand that you intend to hand wave it away. It is what you folks do, after all.

Could you be more specific about the methods used?

 

[Craig B]

Bible scholars are the people who are proposing work like Tacitus and Josephus as evidence of a living Jesus. Historians and others are afaik, not generally interested in Jesus.

So historians, because they become interested in the historical origins of the Christian religion, lose their sanity and scholarly integrity, by reason of the subject of their study. If their interest in the matter scrambles their brains, what has your interest in the subject done to yours? If their interest in this destroys their integrity, what has your interest in the subject done to yours?

 

[dejudge]

This is all drivel, dejudge. I don't care if David was called Christ, anointed. So was the Persian King Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1. Again, so what?

You don't care about the evidence.

Your position is ALL DRIVEL.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 mentions NOTHING about a Nazarene called Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus called Christ χριστον was ALIVE c 62-64 CE when Albinus was procurator of Judea.

Kings and High Priests were called Christs [the Anointed]

The Greek word for 'Anointed' is χριστον.

2 Samuel 1:14

.....και ειπεν αυτω δαυιδ πως ουκ εφοβηθης επενεγκειν χειρα σου διαφθειραι τον χριστον κυριου.

Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

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,.....

In AJ 20.9.1 Jesus the son of Damneus was CHRIST [Χριστοῦ], because he was High Priest.

A Jewish High Priest is called the CHRIST [Χριστοῦ].

Your HJ was an assumed OBSCURE dead criminal since 27-37 CE.

Your HJ is NOT in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

Your HJ was NOT the Anointed [Χριστοῦ].

 

[Craig B]

... Your HJ was an assumed OBSCURE dead criminal since 27-37 CE.
Your HJ is NOT in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

Your HJ was NOT the Anointed.

Good. At least we've cleared that up.

 

[dejudge]

... Your HJ was an assumed OBSCURE dead criminal since 27-37 CE.
Your HJ is NOT in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

Your HJ was NOT the Anointed.

Good. At least we've cleared that up.

Good. Your HJ is irrelevant to the start of the Jesus story and cult.

Your HJ is un-evidenced--a modern assumption.

In AJ 20.9.1 Jesus the Christ χριστον was ALIVE c 62-64 CE.

 

[tsig]

So historians, because they become interested in the historical origins of the Christian religion, lose their sanity and scholarly integrity, by reason of the subject of their study. If their interest in the matter scrambles their brains, what has your interest in the subject done to yours? If their interest in this destroys their integrity, what has your interest in the subject done to yours?

They gave those up when they became Christians.

 

[Brainache]

They gave those up when they became Christians.

Even the Jewish ones?

I doubt they'll be too happy to hear that...

 

[proudfootz]

[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

You may need to re-read my post: I addressed Josephus and Tacitus.

No need to get upset - you must have skimmed right over the content in your rush to respond.

 

[proudfootz]

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.

You have a good point.

Josephus is questionable because it is well known among scholars his works have been tampered with - especially the Jesus parts.

Tacitus, as we know, is second century, by which time even if he wrote the story cited is merely passing along what 2nd century christians believed.

It's astounding anyone still trots out these debunked 'sources' in this day and age.