Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[proudfootz]

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?

dejudge is on point - mention of a 'christ' doesn't necessarily denote a Jesus of Nazareth.

Glad I could help you out!

 

[dejudge]

dejudge is on point - mention of a 'christ' doesn't necessarily denote a Jesus of Nazareth.

Glad I could help you out!

Jewish High Priests and Kings were PHYSICALLY Anointed with oil and were called Christ [the Anointed].


The assumed HJ is an Obscure executed criminal who was killed c 27-37 CE.

HJers are attempting to SWITCH their HJ like a magician.

At one time their assumed HJ is a little-known criminal and at another time he is a WELL-KNOWN Jewish Christ.

In any event, Jesus the Christ[ the Anointed] in AJ 20.9.1 was ALIVE c 62-64 CE.
Jesus the Christ was NOT HJ the assumed criminal.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Historians have coincidentally authenticated the entire work, including the parts you do not like.

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.

Nonsense. Tacitus was when? You seem to be unaware that Tacitus was alive during the period in question, ie, Nero burning Rome. Ridiculous.

 

[Craig B]

dejudge is on point - mention of a 'christ' doesn't necessarily denote a Jesus of Nazareth.

I know that. And I said it. So what? Not even you, proudfootz, believe that dejudge is "on point".

 

[proudfootz]

Nonsense. Tacitus was when? You seem to be unaware that Tacitus was alive during the period in question, ie, Nero burning Rome. Ridiculous.

Apparently the Annals was written in the 2nd century.

" Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44."

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

Glad I could set you straight!

For a discussion of Tacitus:

"For the next 300 years, no Christian commentator makes any reference to Nero’s slaughter of the Roman Christians for setting the Great Fire. Not just to Tacitus’ account of such an event, but to the event itself as something known in Christian tradition. That it would not be known is impossible. That it would not be referred to in any connection is almost equally impossible.

...

Other aspects to the question of authenticity in regard to Tacitus’ alleged witness to Jesus are discussed in my book (Jesus: Neither God Nor Man by Earl Dohery). I bring the subject up in some detail here to show that,

*despite Ehrman’s dismissal of mythicists as compulsive interpolation advocates, there is indeed very good justification for rejecting the much-vaunted reference to an historical Jesus in Tacitus;

*and to show that Ehrman made no effort to counter or even mention that 25-page argument.

In fact, the only rebuttal offered is once again the old appeal to authority:
I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think this, and it seems highly unlikely. (DJE? p. 55)"


http://vridar.org/2012/04/23/5-earl...-ehrmans-case-against-mythicism-a-roman-trio/

In future it might be a good idea to acquaint yourself with current scholarship on the issue.

Even Bart Ehrman dismisses the Tacitus passage:

"...the information [in Tacitus] is not particularly helpful in establishing that there really lived a man called Jesus."

 

[proudfootz]

I know that. And I said it. So what? Not even you, proudfootz, believe that dejudge is "on point".

So, if you said it, is it still drivel?

 

[Craig B]

So, if you said it, is it still drivel?

Yes. Judge's post is irrelevant drivel. By the way, he's picked up that word. That's his current borrowed word.

 

[dejudge]

The successive gospels travel in the opposite direction. Jesus is human in Mark, superhuman in the later Synoptics, and quasi-divine in John. By the days of the younger Pliny, Christians are singing hymns to the Messiah, as to a god.

Your statement is fallacious.

Jesus is Superhuman in gMark.

Human beings do NOT walk on the sea, transfigure and resurrect after they are dead.

In fact, the Superhuman character called Jesus in gMark claimed he was the Son of God.

 

[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.

You are making claims about "ALL scholars", but "all" scholars are not interested in the existence or otherwise of Jesus. The only people claiming Josephus and Tacitus as evidence to show Jesus was a living person are biblical scholars.

This has been discussed hundreds of times in the other thread. Please read the other thread to get yourself up to speed - Josephus and Tacitus cannot credibly be evidence of Jesus.

And by the way - you never told us who you meant by “you folks” … who is that? … who is this “you folks”?

 

[IanS]

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?

It has been pointed out to you that, even according to scholars themselves, the overwhelming majority of bible scholars enter the profession as a result of their pre-existing devotional Christian religious beliefs.

Almost all bible scholars have a huge background of very devout, even quite extreme evangelical religious belief. And that is most often the reason these people study for the profession in the first place.

You would know that if you had watched and listened to that video clip of Hector Avalos, or read the quote which I provided from his book, or if you had looked at the background and qualifications which some of us have quoted for almost every single so-called "historian" ever mentioned in these threads. Take a look at their backgrounds ...

... this is NOT as you just said in the highlight of your above quote, a case of "historians who become interested in the historical origins of the Christian religion" ... the people we are talking about do not enter this subject as "historians" ... they enter the subject as highly devout Christians wishing to further their interest in religious belief and to turn that into their lifelong pursuit and profession.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement is fallacious.

Jesus is Superhuman in gMark.

Human beings do NOT walk on the sea, transfigure and resurrect after they are dead.

That's right, but absurd claims are often made. Paul allegedly performed miracles, and so, we are told did the Apostles. In the Marcan interpolation the Jesus figure promises his followers that

17 ... these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

But they would remain human. Just get magic powers from God.

In fact, the Superhuman character called Jesus in gMark claimed he was the Son of God.

For the millionth time, that is a human messianic title. I'll make you read Psalm 2 again if you don't watch out! Sad you can't grasp this.

But the later Synoptics have stories about Jesus' magic birth, which makes him superhuman. Hey, you were supposed to show me the ghost birth story in Mark, but you haven't done that yet, which is disappointing.

 

[Craig B]

It has been pointed out to you that, even according to scholars themselves, the overwhelming majority of bible scholars enter the profession as a result of their pre-existing devotional Christian religious beliefs.

Almost all bible scholars have a huge background of very devout, even quite extreme evangelical religious belief. And that is most often the reason these people study for the profession in the first place.

And those who claim their studies have induced them to abandon their beliefs are lying? Dear me, what's this? Not merely are they insane hypocritical historians, they're not historians at all, even when they study the history of the Christian religion!

... the people we are talking about do not enter this subject as "historians" ... they enter the subject as highly devout Christians wishing to further their interest in religious belief and to turn that into their lifelong pursuit and profession.

 

[pakeha]

Historians have coincidentally authenticated the entire work, including the parts you do not like.



Nonsense. Tacitus was when? You seem to be unaware that Tacitus was alive during the period in question, ie, Nero burning Rome. Ridiculous.

How old was Tacitus when Rome burnt in 64 CE?
Pliny the Elder was in Rome at the time and mentions the fire, IIRC.
Does he mention the Christians?

Or do Josephus, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch or Epictetus, who all were alive at the time?

Where we DO get a big mention of the fire is from that notorious forged letter of Seneca to Paul.
I wonder how much of what we 'know' about the Fire is urban legend, how much is simply exaggeration and how much is actually true, especially keeping in mind the archeological findings.

 

[dejudge]

That's right, but absurd claims are often made. Paul allegedly performed miracles, and so, we are told did the Apostles.

What?? All you have done is to assume that Paul and the Apostles were figures of history.

Please, just go look for corroborative evidence for Paul and the Apostles pre 70CE since they may be characters like Satan the Devil and the Angel Gabriel.

In fact, the Superhuman character called Jesus in gMark claimed he was the Son of God.

For the millionth time, that is a human messianic title. I'll make you read Psalm 2 again if you don't watch out! Sad you can't grasp this.

For the "billionth" time your statement is a fallacy. In gMark, When Jesus admitted he was the Son of God he was found guilty of death for Blasphemy.

You forgot I showed you the books of Genesis and Job.

A Son of God in Jewish Mythology was NOT human--Sons of God copulated with daughters of MEN.

Genesis 6:4 KJV

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them.

Job 1:6 KJV

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

But the later Synoptics have stories about Jesus' magic birth, which makes him superhuman. Hey, you were supposed to show me the ghost birth story in Mark, but you haven't done that yet, which is disappointing.

You conveniently forget that in gMark Jesus was with Satan and Angels in the wilderness, that he WALKED on the sea, transfigured and resurrected.

gMark's Jesus was the Son of God.

Mark 15:39 KJV

And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out , and gave up the ghost , he said , Truly this man was the Son of God.

By the way, your HJ did NOT have the title of Son of God--Your HJ was a little known criminal. Your little known criminal is NOT in gMark.

Your HJ story was made up from your imagination.

Which source did you use that stated Jesus was crucified because he made a disturbance at the Jewish Temple?

Your HJ is a Myth.

Myths have NO known history.

 

[IanS]

And those who claim their studies have induced them to abandon their beliefs are lying? Dear me, what's this? Not merely are they insane hypocritical historians, they're not historians at all, even when they study the history of the Christian religion!

Well first of all it's only you who is calling them "insane hypocritical historians". I never said any such thing about them.

But they are not historians in the usual sense of academics who have doctorates (and more) in neutral areas of non-religious history, and who work as researching lecturers in university history departments. The people you are describing as "historians" are bible studies lectures whose academic background and qualifications are in religious studies, and who teach biblical and religious studies, in bible studies departments (not in history departments).

And has been pointed out to you many times - this field of academia is unique in the fact that almost all it's practitioners enter the profession from a pre-existing background of highly devout religious belief in God, Jesus and the bible, which they hope to purse as a lifelong career of further biblical studies.

Just look at the personal backgrounds and academic qualifications which we have posted numerous times for almost all these “historians” ever named in these HJ threads - you will see that it is completely undeniable that they are almost always drowning in religious studies which have consumed their entire lives. Here is well known bible scholar Dominic Crossan for example -


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

John Dominic Crossan (born February 17, 1934[1]) is an Irish-American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, and former Catholic priest who has produced both scholarly and popular works. His research has focused on the historical Jesus, on the anthropology of the Ancient Mediterranean and New Testament worlds and on the application of postmodern hermeneutical approaches to the Bible.

Crossan was born in Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, Ireland.Though his father was a banker, Crossan was steeped in the rural Irish life, which he experienced through frequent visits to the home of his paternal grandparents. On graduation from Saint Eunan's College, a boarding high school, in 1950, Crossan joined the Servites, a Catholic religious order, and moved to the United States. He was trained at Stonebridge Seminary, Lake Bluff, Illinois, then ordained a priest in 1957. Crossan returned to Ireland, where he earned his Doctor of Divinity in 1959 at St. Patrick's College Maynooth, the Irish national seminary. He then completed two more years of study in biblical languages at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. In 1965 Crossan began two additional years of study (in archaeology) at the Ecole Biblique in Jordanian East Jerusalem. During this time, he travelled through several countries in the region, escaping just days before the outbreak of the Six Day War of 1967.[2]
After a year at St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein, Illinois, and a year at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Crossan chose to resign his priesthood. In the fall of 1969 he joined the faculty of DePaul University, where he taught undergraduates Comparative Religion for twenty-five years until retiring in 1995.
In 1985, Crossan and Robert Funk founded the Jesus Seminar, a group of academics studying the historical Jesus, and Crossan served as co-chair for its first decade. Crossan also served as president of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research in 1978-1979, and as president of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2012.
Crossan married Margaret Dagenais, a professor at Loyola University Chicago in the summer of 1969. She died in 1983 due to a heart attack. In 1986, Crossan married Sarah Sexton, a social worker with two grown children. Since his retirement from academia, Crossan has lived in the Orlando, Florida, area, remaining active in research, writing, and teaching seminars.

 

[Craig B]

... Just look at the personal backgrounds and academic qualifications which we have posted numerous times for almost all these “historians” ever named in these HJ threads - you will see that it is completely undeniable that they are almost always drowning in religious studies which have consumed their entire lives.

I see. Maybe they should get out more. Then again, one hears of academics in other fields immersing themselves in their studies to the exclusion of mundane concerns.

 

[Craig B]

What?? All you have done is to assume that Paul and the Apostles were figures of history.

Please, just go look for corroborative evidence for Paul and the Apostles pre 70CE since they may be characters like Satan the Devil and the Angel Gabriel.

For the "billionth" time your statement is a fallacy. In gMark, When Jesus admitted he was the Son of God he was found guilty of death for Blasphemy.

You forgot I showed you the books of Genesis and Job.

A Son of God in Jewish Mythology was NOT human--Sons of God copulated with daughters of MEN.

Genesis 6:4 KJV

Job 1:6 KJV

You conveniently forget that in gMark Jesus was with Satan and Angels in the wilderness, that he WALKED on the sea, transfigured and resurrected.

gMark's Jesus was the Son of God.

Mark 15:39 KJV

By the way, your HJ did NOT have the title of Son of God--Your HJ was a little known criminal. Your little known criminal is NOT in gMark.

Your HJ story was made up from your imagination.

Which source did you use that stated Jesus was crucified because he made a disturbance at the Jewish Temple?

Your HJ is a Myth.

Myths have NO known history.

You're not going to answer any point, are you? This post, do you have it copied somewhere? So when someone puts a point to you that you can't answer, you just press a key and "hey presto" there it is ... for the ten thousandth time.

 

[IanS]

I see. Maybe they should get out more. Then again, one hears of academics in other fields immersing themselves in their studies to the exclusion of mundane concerns.

Academics in other fields do not begin from a background of attending a church of their subject to hear evangelist preachers imploring them to pray to a supernatural heavenly God and convincing them to believe in the miracles of a 2000 year-old biblical messiah.

There is all the world of difference between bright kids who grow up developing an interest in astronomy or whatever, versus kids who are raised in a highly religious environment, being told to read the bible and taken to hear preaching at a church, being indoctrinated with belief in the need to pray for miracles and express their undying love for God and Jesus as a way of life, etc.

Yet that is precisely the baggage that most religious scholars have when they first start to study for the profession. And it’s a “baggage” of immersion in religious study and religious beliefs accepted upon faith, i.e. trusting without genuine evidence, which often pervades their entire lives.

 

[The Big Dog]

Apparently the Annals was written in the 2nd century.

" Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44."

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

Glad I could set you straight!

[/B]."

THANKS! You actually did not counter what I said, of course.

And by the way - you never told us who you meant by “you folks” … who is that? … who is this “you folks”?

I'm sorry. I was referring to zealots that reject the consensus of historical scholarship.

 

[proudfootz]

You are making claims about "ALL scholars", but "all" scholars are not interested in the existence or otherwise of Jesus. The only people claiming Josephus and Tacitus as evidence to show Jesus was a living person are biblical scholars.

This has been discussed hundreds of times in the other thread. Please read the other thread to get yourself up to speed - Josephus and Tacitus cannot credibly be evidence of Jesus.

And by the way - you never told us who you meant by “you folks” … who is that? … who is this “you folks”?

Statements about 'all scholars' - especially when they have been shown to be false - are the statements of fanaticism.

Even Bart 'Consensus' Ehrman agrees relying on Tacitus and Josephus is pure drivel.