Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[proudfootz]

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

You had to ask when Tacitus wrote.

As everyone knows, even if he wrote the passage (a dubious claim), it is 2nd century.

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

Scholars are divided on the issue, as has been pointed out.

Instead of relying on debunked claims, why not get up to speed?

There's not much point in tossing around ad homs - it doesn't magically change Tacitus into something it isn't.

 

[proudfootz]

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 archaeological findings.

There's good reason to doubt the passage in Tacitus was written by him.

It's funny how people are still making the absurd claim that Nero burned the city.

"Despite the well-known stories, there is no evidence that the Roman emperor, Nero, either started the fire or played the fiddle while it burned"

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/neros-rome-burns

Which just goes to show how little these 'historians' know about history.

 

[proudfootz]

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.

The Gospel of the Historic Jesus wasn't written until the 18th century, just another version of the tale spun by the authors of gMark.

But already this novel version has gained some vociferous believers...

 

[Craig B]

Which just goes to show how little these 'historians' know about history.

Are these Bible scholars, or are other historians equally incompetent?

 

[proudfootz]

Are these Bible scholars, or are other historians equally incompetent?

There is quite a difference between the two.

I'm thinking of persons who write this kind of nonsense:

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

... or write pathetically wrong-headed drivel like this:

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?

Of course, we know the period of study for that profession ends a couple hundred years before christianity.

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

So it seems some of the 'historians' who frequent this thread are sadly lacking in the fundamentals.

 

[tsig]

There's good reason to doubt the passage in Tacitus was written by him.

It's funny how people are still making the absurd claim that Nero burned the city.

"Despite the well-known stories, there is no evidence that the Roman emperor, Nero, either started the fire or played the fiddle while it burned"

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/neros-rome-burns

Which just goes to show how little these 'historians' know about history.

IIRC the fire fighters were setting backfires and that's were the story of Nero burning the city came from.

 

[Craig B]

Of course, we know the period of study for that profession ends a couple hundred years before christianity.

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

So it seems some of the 'historians' who frequent this thread are sadly lacking in the fundamentals.

That's very silly. The ones who study the appropriate period are in the main convinced of the historicity of Jesus. These are the ones whose intellectual and moral integrity you deprecate.

 

[tsig]

There is quite a difference between the two.

I'm thinking of persons who write this kind of nonsense:



... or write pathetically wrong-headed drivel like this:



Of course, we know the period of study for that profession ends a couple hundred years before christianity.

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

So it seems some of the 'historians' who frequent this thread are sadly lacking in the fundamentals.

Many of the bible scholar historians are Christians and as such believe the miracle stories that the HJers here are desperate to run away from. When it comes to the HJ the scholars can be completely trusted when they say the Resurrection was real, not so much, HJers are cherry picking their own authorities.

 

[IanS]

Are these Bible scholars, or are other historians equally incompetent?

Outside of biblical or other religious history, I doubt if historians in general are up against the same problem of having to rely almost entirely on ancient accounts of the supernatural.

In the NT those supernatural beliefs in Yehosua and Yahweh were written as if they were factual accounts of what people really witnessed. And for about 1800 years almost everyone on earth believed those accounts were literally true, as written.

It’s only because mankind slowly discovered what we now call science and thereby came to understand that such supernatural stories cannot be true, that most people now realise that biblical history is filled with fiction on almost every page.

Unfortunately, that realisation seems to what prompted Christians to simply cross out the biblical Jesus and invent a new Jesus called a “historical” Jesus that nobody in antiquity ever claimed to have known or written about at all. Although quite what the justification for that is, seems to be unclear, except of course as a means of preserving Christianity.

 

[proudfootz]

That's very silly. The ones who study the appropriate period are in the main convinced of the historicity of Jesus. These are the ones whose intellectual and moral integrity you deprecate.

I agree - it's very silly that posters who pretend they know anything about 'what historians think' don't even know what period of history the 'consensus' they are citing actually study.

If you have any specific person in mind who you are imagining I am deprecating with regards to their moral and intellectual integrity, then do tell us.

It would go a long way in shoring up your accusations to be able to, you know, back them up with something other than vague allusions and insinuations.

Otherwise, I suggest you stop digging yourself into this hole.

 

[dejudge]

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.

I answered your questions.

Your HJ is a Myth.
Myths have NO known history.

 

[Craig B]

I If you have any specific person in mind who you are imagining I am deprecating with regards to their moral and intellectual integrity, then do tell us.

Come off it! Your deprecation extends to the whole lot. Like dejudge I could ask you to name all of them! That's what he does you know. He's awesome.

 

[The Big Dog]

There is quite a difference between the two.

I'm thinking of persons who write this kind of nonsense:

s.

Oh for ***** sake, I was using a few words to focus the time frame And the subject of the passages in tacitus we were just talking about. let me amend it, shall I? Tacitus was alive during the great fire of Rome. Any claims to the contrary are indeed nonsense.

 

[dejudge]

Those who argue for an historical Jesus have backed themselves into dead end argument. Their HJ has been exposed as a figure of Mythology--a modern invention.

The "biography" of their assumed HJ has NO historical source of antiquity--it was just a PLAUSIBLE invention.

The HJ argument no longer has any appeal.

HJers have presented an HJ WITHOUT a witness from antiquity.

HJ WAS DERIVED from mythology.

HJ was derived from the Bible.

 

[The Big Dog]

Those who argue for an historical Jesus have backed themselves into dead end argument. Their HJ has been exposed as a figure of Mythology--a modern invention.

The "biography" of their assumed HJ has NO historical source of antiquity--it was just a PLAUSIBLE invention.

The HJ argument no longer has any appeal.

HJers have presented an HJ WITHOUT a witness from antiquity.

HJ WAS DERIVED from mythology.

HJ was derived from the Bible.

You forgot to add an Amen there at the end.

 

[dejudge]

Those who argue for an historical Jesus have backed themselves into dead end argument. Their HJ has been exposed as a figure of Mythology--a modern invention.

The "biography" of their assumed HJ has NO historical source of antiquity--it was just a PLAUSIBLE invention.

The HJ argument no longer has any appeal.

HJers have presented an HJ WITHOUT a witness from antiquity.
HJ WAS DERIVED from mythology.

HJ was derived from the Bible.

You forgot to add an Amen there at the end.

It is Finished--just give up the Ghost.

John 19:30 KJV

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said , It is finished : and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

 

[proudfootz]

Come off it! Your deprecation extends to the whole lot.

I'm not making any claims about 'all scholars support the real Jesus' or 'all historians believe in a historical Jesus' or whatever nonsense is being floated.

In fact I even positively recommend some historians, which you'd know if you read my posts for comprehension.

 

[proudfootz]

Oh for ***** sake, I was using a few words to focus the time frame And the subject of the passages in tacitus we were just talking about. let me amend it, shall I? Tacitus was alive during the great fire of Rome. Any claims to the contrary are indeed nonsense.

I'm glad you take correction so graciously.

 

[Brainache]

It is Finished--just give up the Ghost.

John 19:30 KJV

It's no good saying stuff like that when they still teach HJ in History courses at University.

I think you might be being a bit premature there.

 

[dejudge]

It's no good saying stuff like that when they still teach HJ in History courses at University.

I think you might be being a bit premature there.

What an absurd argument!! You continue to confirm that you have no idea that the re-construction of the past REQUIRES EVIDENCE--Not Universiti