Nailed: 10 Christian myths that show Jesus never existed

[stephan happy huller]

It wasn't like Thomas the Tank Engine

[Peter Kirby]

It wasn't like Thomas the Tank Engine

I'm still open to the idea that some of the early myths were completely ahistorical in character. It is easy to demonstrate that there was concern at some point for delineating the exact nature of Jesus as a man on earth. It is not easy to demonstrate that this concern was there from the beginning of talk about Jesus Christ.

[Leucius Charinus]

He really meant 21 CE. It was a date for Jesus' trial found in certain "Acta Pilati" (Pilate's supposed official commentary/diary entries, as all Roman officials were expected to maintain an diary of their official actions) published by the Caesar Maximinus Daia, who ruled Asia Minor and Syria/Palestine, between 305 and 313 CE, but more likely between 311 and 313 CE.

Dave, are you sure you are not confusing these earlier "official acts" (mentioned by Justin and Tertullian) with the heretical "Acts of Pilate" aka "The Gospel of Nicodemus", which was according to Eusebius distributed to schools throughout the empire? See my notes here

[Leucius Charinus]

Yes, Jesus and disciples, and later apostles (as first Christian preachers) existed in the 1st century.

Please provide the primary and/or secondary evidence upon which the asserted truth of your statement depends.

Paul's seven epistles, gMark and 'Acts'.

You appear to be using a circular argument. These are undated, unprovenanced and written by unknown authors in an unknown century. I asked for evidence for the hypothesis, not a restatement of the hypothesis. AFAIK we have no primary evidence at all that these texts were authored in the 1st century. For the record, all the secondary evidence appears to resolve to Eusebius. If you think this assessment is incorrect, then provide the primary or secondary evidence requested.

[Leucius Charinus]

Where we do not have a physical manuscript the methodology of chronology must rely on the application of a system of both integrity and chronology to all the available evidence (which includes the literary sources but is not restricted to them) which support the existence of the ancient document.

Since you do not know a basic step other than scientific, I can see that you do not know how to examine a document as literature. Nothing against the sciences, but they are not the solution to everything.

Reread the first sentence of my response.

The methodology is given in the historical method. Any source may be forged or corrupt.

Any source may be, but a possibility does not equal an actuality. If someone thinks something is a forgery or corrupt, one must provide evidence.

(1) The Letter exchange between Jesus Christ and King Agbar is in my opinion a late forgery.
(2) The Letter exchange between "Dear Paul" and "Dear Seneca" is in my opinion a late forgery.
(3) The Testimonium Flavianum is in my opinion a late forgery.
(4) There are almost as many "Pseudo-Authors" in the literary landscape of Christian origins as there are authors.
(5) The Pseudo-Clementine literature - the forgery mill of the 4th century is astonishing !!!
(6) The forgery mill of the 9th century ("Pseudo-Isidore") were still pumping out manuscripts of Pre-Nicene identities.
(7) The ACTUAL number of forged manuscripts -- known and identified as forged material - produced by the early church is astounding !!!

It amazes me some people will want to sacrifice all of ancient history just to be rid of Jesus. Perhaps it could be that if they treated the history for Him like they do every other event, that means they know they'd have to deal seriously with His claims.

As a university student of ancient history I personally find it to be far more likely that His claims are very LATE human forgeries rather than any form of Supreme Divine literary intervention on Planet Earth in the EARLY centuries of the Common Era. But this is just my opinion. I am not trying to shove it down your throat.

[Leucius Charinus]

No one ever treated Christianity as a full blown myth not even its enemies

Between the 4th and the 15th century people were tortured and executed by the church under "Heresy Laws".
From the 15th century these laws gave way to national and state "Blasphemy Laws" (still operative under Islam).
If the church had enemies, they were tortured, executed or, if extremely lucky, just exiled or imprisoned.

We have been THUS conditioned - by the sharp edge of the sword - to accept the dogma of the church as historical truth.

[Leucius Charinus]

Jesus has more attestation than any similar figure from antiquity!

The problem with the mass of early attestation to Jesus is that it all crossed the desk of Eusebius of Caesarea.
You may not see that as a problem. That's your prerogative.

I'm still open to the idea that some of the early myths were completely ahistorical in character. It is easy to demonstrate that there was concern at some point for delineating the exact nature of Jesus as a man on earth. It is not easy to demonstrate that this concern was there from the beginning of talk about Jesus Christ.

Church dogma has inertia. (Blasphemy Laws have conditioned our critical questioning capacities)

[Nick Peters]

Reread the first sentence of my response.

Your statement was for when we do not have a physical manuscript. I am not talking about those cases. Where we do have a manuscript, one must still use a better methodology than Carbon 14 dating. You would be off by I'd say most if not all ancient documents.

(1) The Letter exchange between Jesus Christ and King Agbar is in my opinion a late forgery.
(2) The Letter exchange between "Dear Paul" and "Dear Seneca" is in my opinion a late forgery.

Wonderful. In fact, I agree with you on these two, but the question is, why should I agree with you? Suppose someone says "In my opinion, these are not late forgeries." Okay. Then all we have is two opinions against another. Do you have any evidence?

(3) The Testimonium Flavianum is in my opinion a late forgery.

Again, wonderful. I disagree as I think it has some interpolations but the whole thing is not one. This is the opinion of scholars of Josephus as well. Why should I take your opinion over theirs when all I have is just your opinion?

(4) There are almost as many "Pseudo-Authors" in the literary landscape of Christian origins as there are authors.

What was it Christopher Hitchens said? That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

(5) The Pseudo-Clementine literature - the forgery mill of the 4th century is astonishing !!!
(6) The forgery mill of the 9th century ("Pseudo-Isidore") were still pumping out manuscripts of Pre-Nicene identities.
(7) The ACTUAL number of forged manuscripts -- known and identified as forged material - produced by the early church is astounding !!!

Again, just assertions. No arguments were given. I'm really not interested in your opinion as much as I am in your data. I see no data. Just opinions. I could come through and just say the exact opposite. Why should I give your opinion credibility when you provide no data?

As a university student of ancient history I personally find it to be far more likely that His claims are very LATE human forgeries rather than any form of Supreme Divine literary intervention on Planet Earth in the EARLY centuries of the Common Era. But this is just my opinion. I am not trying to shove it down your throat.

Well that's your opinion. I see no reason to take it seriously. Considering that this is about Fitzgerald and there's doubt being given on the historicity of Jesus, I suspect there's more just piggybacking on Carrier than anything else. I'm not even arguing for the Scriptures being divine at this point. Just simply that Jesus existed and then we'll see what can be known about him.

And as for shoving down someone's throat, please. This is a forum. People come here to disagree and to argue. I can't shove an opinion down your throat and I can't make you believe anything. I can only present the evidence.

[Peter Kirby]

Jesus has more attestation than any similar figure from antiquity!

The problem with the mass of early attestation to Jesus is that it all crossed the desk of Eusebius of Caesarea.
You may not see that as a problem. That's your prerogative.

For such a careful historian, don't you realize that the statement quoted has ironic intent?

Herp derp.

No one ever treated Christianity as a full blown myth not even its enemies

Jesus has more attestation than any similar figure from antiquity!

No serious historian has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.

Sound bite history is fun.

[stephan happy huller]

Nick Peters

Winning a debate with Pete is like winning a gold medal in a race with octogenarians.