Nailed: 10 Christian myths that show Jesus never existed

[beowulf]

The crucifixion of Jesus was an event of no importance for his contemporaries but 2000 years of history have shown this “ crossing of the Rubicon” to be far more significant and real than the life of little Cesar.

[Bernard Muller]

Bernard Muller wrote:
Myth 3: I think the mention of "the brother of Jesus, him called christ, whose name is James" in Josephus Ant. is authentic. Mythicists' attempts to explain it away do not make sense.

Such explanations "do not make sense"? What kind of moron do you take your reader for?

Even those who argue for the authenticity of the reference must concede that a hypothesis of interpolation meets the minimum standard of making sense. Good grief.

Hi Peter, did you read my two blog posts for Myth 3? I was reacting to Carrier's position on that issue.

Cordially, Bernard

[avi]

It is quite possible that later writers with the advantage of hindsight made the crossing much more significant than it appeared to be at the time.

Thanks, Andrew, as always, very perceptive.

I think you will agree with me, however, that Julius Caesar was not universally loved or respected, at the time of his death, and therefore, a century later, could it not also be the case, that subsequent historians diminished, rather than highlighted, the significance of Caesar crossing the Rubicon?

At the end of the day, what we seek, is not opinion, but evidence. We resort to fumbling analogies, like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, because we lack evidence about Jesus' life.

‘It is astonishing to see so great a number of men.’
Hannibal sensed his anxiety and decided to turn it his own way: ‘Yes, Gisgo, you are right, but there is one thing you have not noticed.’
‘What is that, sir?’ asked the puzzled officer.
‘In all that great number of men opposite us there is not a single one named Gisgo.’

What do we know about Jesus? Nothing except what others have written. What do we know about Hannibal of Tunisia?
Nothing, except what others have written about him. We know a bit from Livy, Roman historian, writing two centuries after Hannibal's death. How reliable is his information?

What makes Hannibal, a figure of historicity, of legendary proportions, but NOT MYTHICAL, and Jesus, also of legendary proportion, but not historical, rather, of mythical dimension?

Hannibal's existence is attested to by many independent sources. Jesus is attested by no one, save other religious figures, with an axe to grind.

Hannibal's prowess, though perhaps hyperbolic in description, is nevertheless, credible, because of the possibility of his having accomplished those feats. His range of behaviour, corresponds to the range, of above average, human mechanical capability. Hannibal does not jump over mountains. He rides elephants over them. Jesus, on the other hand, transcends human abilities. Having acquired supernatural dimensions, Jesus is able to defy gravity by clambering up vertical walls, like a reptile. It is this latter feature, Jesus' supernatural countenance, which makes him a "mythical" person.

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard,

Thanks for your detailed response, I will deal with Paul here :

Myth 8: Paul & his epistles do corroborate small parts of gMark, through bits and pieces:
When eyewitnesses were still alive, Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and, after "the night in which he was delivered up" (1Co11:23 Darby), "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27).

These do seem to argue against a mythical Jesus, but they are, as you say, 'bits and pieces' - unclear and controversial.

According to the flesh - remember what Doherty said - 2 characteristics of Christ - one in flesh, one in spirit, with the flesh being the sub-lunar realm.

Come of a woman - WHO was that woman? Jerusalem above apparently

Descendent of Jews - a Jewish sub-lunar saviour HAD to be

appearance as a man - NOT "a man, but "appearance" as a man.

in the likeness of sinful flesh - again - in the "likeness", not the actuality

the one man - a sub-lunary man

who had brothers - the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother

humbled himself in poverty - in the sub-lunar sphere

delivered up - by the demonic sub-lunar archontes

crucified - as above

in Zion - in Jerusalem above

Even so, that did not prevent the Jesus' episode to trigger the beginning of Christian beliefs:
By a simple act (remaining seated in a bus, then arrested), Rosa Parks (a humble seamstress then) provided the spark which gave birth to the momentous modern Civil Rights Movement, led by others from the start. Decades later, she was considered its "Mother" and revered as an icon, despite the fact she withdrew from it early on.
Then, considering the above, can we assurely answer "no" to this question:
Could Jesus have existed as just a lowly Jew, but through circumstances leading to (& about) his execution, triggered the later development, by others, of a (religious) movement and cultic beliefs?

But plenty of religious groups have been started by visions and beliefs too - it didn't NEED Jesus at all, just the BELIEF and a lot of writing.

http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p50.htm
Cordially, Bernard

Thanks for that, I'll check it out.
ABE: I'll admit that's a reasonably plausible explanation yes


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Either the Marcionites were first or second. If they were first then all that I said above. If they were second then you have a gospel narrative dated to the fifteenth of Tiberius involving a man named Jesus with a mother named Mary who was nailed to a cross and whose body was touched by his disciples. The arguments of Price and others assume knowledge of the Marcionites. Without the Marcionites you have a stronger - not weaker - case for historicity. It is the concept of Marcionite primacy which lends credibility to the 'supernatural understanding' of Jesus. It's like you're switching tracks and taking some from here and some from there all with the specific purpose of 'disproving' Christianity.

Yes, I see what you are getting at.

Just relax and look at the evidence without prejudice. You can argue that Jesus wasn't a human being. This is supported by the ancient witnesses. But I don't see how you get around the argument that the appearance of Jesus happened in a specific year in 'real time.' Thus the gospel narrative always had strong 'unmythical' characteristics. I don't know of many myths that were set in a particular year and set against another impending year (i.e. the destruction of the temple in 70 CE). Everything points to a supernatural appearance in a real historical year and in fact a real historical era. One which had great significance for the Jews.

What about John Frum? Molly Pitcher? Ned Ludd?
All set against specific significant historical times and events.

Why couldn't Jesus have started as a VISION which several people thought they shared?
This vision could be seen as significant to the times.

As such it is difficult to make a convincing case for the gospel narrative being a 'myth' in the classical sense of the term or that it doesn't attempt to describe - in however poetic terms - an actual historical crucifixion (which may or may not have involved a historical man named Jesus). Remember the ancient tradition that Christ wasn't crucified on the cross, someone else was.

I think only G.Mark was myth or allegory - the others came along when a historical Jesus was a increasingly dominant view.

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday again,

Someone hostile to Christianity recorded Jesus's crucifixion occurred in 21 CE not 29 or 30 CE. This is perhaps the most difficult piece of evidence for the mythicist position - the narrative being taken as historical (at least to some degree) by the opponents of Christianity as early as the end of the third century. I think this goes back to a much earlier tradition (to the second century at least) where Jesus's appearance and crucifixion occurred in the 49th and Jubilee before the destruction of the temple (echoes of a Jewish/Samaritan dating of the temple destruction occurring in a sabbatical cycle.

Um, did you mean to write "21 CE"?
If so, I'm missing some vital, not to mention time-travelling, information
I guess you meant 2x1 CE, who are you referring to?

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Andrew,

The issue surely is not whether Caesar and his army physically crossed the Rubicon.

The interesting issue is whether the traditional account of the crossing, (i.e. that Caesar openly acknowledged at the time of the crossing that to cross the river was to pass the point of no return), is historically based.

It probably is based on history, (it must have been obvious that to cross the Rubicon was a significant step towards cicil war), but our earliest source, (Plutarch's parallel life), dates from c 100 CE. It is quite possible that later writers with the advantage of hindsight made the crossing much more significant than it appeared to be at the time.

Andrew Criddle

Fair point, it may have been juiced up in later times.

But the reason this came up is because apologists are claiming that Jesus' resurrection is more certain than even Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Not more significant, but more certain - which is just rubbish, considering the evidence.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Beowulf,

The crucifixion of Jesus was an event of no importance for his contemporaries but 2000 years of history have shown this “ crossing of the Rubicon” to be far more significant and real than the life of little Cesar.

I would say only BELIEF in that "crossing" of Jesus is needed to explain Christianity, not the alleged "crossing" itself.

Kapyong

[Bernard Muller]

According to the flesh - remember what Doherty said - 2 characteristics of Christ - one in flesh, one in spirit, with the flesh being the sub-lunar realm.

Doherty is not God and the final Word.
In Galatians 4:29 Darby "But as then he [Ishmael] that was born according to flesh ['kata sarka', through human "fleshly" nature, and without God's help] persecuted him [Isaac] [that was born] according to Spirit ['kata pneuma', with divine intervention] ..."
even the one born according to the spirit is a human being on earth.
According to flesh is used by Paul to mean generally, according to human condition/way/nature on earth, but is never specified to mean between earth and moon.
Some examples:
"What shall we say then that Abraham our father according to flesh ['kata sarka'] has found?" (Romans 4:1 Darby)
"for if ye live according to flesh ['kata sarka'], ye are about to die" (Romans 8:13a Darby)
"For consider your calling, brethren, that [there are] not many wise according to flesh ['kata sarka'], not many powerful, not many high-born." (1 Corinthians 1:26 Darby)
"See Israel according to flesh ['kata sarka', meaning here (Israel's) Jews]: are not they who eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar?" (1 Corinthians 10:18 Darby)

Other examples outside Paul's epistles:
Josephus' Wars, II, 8, 11: "For their doctrine is this: That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue for ever; and that they come out of the most subtile air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set free [after death] from the bonds of the flesh ['kata sarka'], they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward."
The "flesh" here is human! Also let's note the expression is used by a Jew in a religious context (as Paul was & did!).

Other usages of 'kata sarka' are from Aristotle ('History of Animals', 'On the Parts of Animals' and 'Problemata', for a total of six times), Theophrastus (Frag. 7.6) and Epicurus (three times). Here are some examples from these authors (4th/3rd cent.BCE):
- Aristotle, 'History of Animals', Book III, Part 17 "These cartilaginous fish themselves have no free fat at all in connexion with the flesh ['kata sarka'] or with the stomach. The suet in fish is fatty, and does not solidify or congeal. All animals are furnished with fat, either intermingled with their flesh ['kata sarka'], or apart."
- Epicurus, 'Principal Doctrines', 4 "... pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which slightly exceeds bodily ['kata sarka'] pleasure does not last for many days at once."

Paul used "according to the flesh" in Ro9:4-5 (& Ro1:3) to depict human origin for Christ's incarnation for his temporary life on earth in contrast for Christ, as foremost a spiritual heavenly eternal divine entity, born eons ago.

Romans 4_3b-5a "... for my brethren, my kindred, according to the flesh,
who are Israelites, whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises,
whose are the fathers, and of whom is the Christ, according to the flesh, ...
Here Paul is from Israelites according to the flesh, as is Christ, according to the flesh.

Here is a far-fetched explanation from Carrier about "... His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh,)" (Ro1:3)
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p74.htm

Come of a woman - WHO was that woman? Jerusalem above apparently

No, it is not apparent. I think you are invoking Carrier's argument on this matter. I replied to that here:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p77.htm

I want to add "and the Jerusalem above is the free-woman, which is mother of us all," (Gal 4:26) is part of an allegory (as acknowledged by Paul), but Gal 4:4 is not declared as such by Paul (do not mix apples with oranges). Furthermore, the Jerusalem above being a mother is symbolic, because the "us all" are flesh & blood human, born from a real flesh & blood human mother on earth.
In other words, this heavenly Jerusalem is not generating any beings (human or not).

Descendent of Jews - a Jewish sub-lunar saviour HAD to be

Yes, he has to be, but not in the sky, on earth: Paul could not claim Jesus as descendant of Jews is that Christ went through a Docetist (instant) incarnation somewhere in some celestial realm, after having gone down through the heavens.

appearance as a man - NOT "a man, but "appearance" as a man.

"appearance" is to take in account that Christ's normal status is a spiritual heavenly entity who, for a time, appears as a man on earth.
A bit like saying about a wealthy man at a costumed party: "he came in appearance as a beggar"
Saying "he came as a beggar" would not sound right because beggar is not the normal status of that wealthy man.

in the likeness of sinful flesh - again - in the "likeness", not the actuality

Again, the likeness is to take in account the pre-existence.

Here are examples from outside Paul's epistles, were "likeness" is used for gods or other heavenly entities, but also real humans on earth, as for b), f) & g).
a) Homer, 'The Iliad', Book 5 "... now Ares [god of war] is with him [Hektor] in the likeness of mortal man."
b) Herodotus, 'Histories', Book 7, Chapter 56 "It is said that when Xerxes [the Persian king] had now crossed the Hellespont, a man of the Hellespont cried, “O Zeus, why have you taken the likeness of a Persian man and changed your name to Xerxes, ..."
c) Apollodorus, 'Library and Epitome', Book 1, Chapter 9 "But Poseidon in the likeness of Enipeus lay with her, and she secretly gave birth to twin sons ..."
d) Jewish author Philo of Alexandria, (died 45-50), 'On dreams', I, (238) "God at times assumes the likeness of the angels, as he sometimes assumes even that of men"
e) Philo, 'Questions and answers on Genesis', I, (92) "... these giants were sprung from ... angels and mortal women; for the substance of angels is spiritual; but it occurs every now and then that on emergencies occurring they have imitated the appearance of men, and transformed themselves so as to assume the human shape; [and then fathered children with mortal women on earth (extrapolated from Ge6:4):] as they did on this occasion, when forming connexions with women for the production of giants."
f) Acts 14:11-12 NKJV "Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker."
g) 'The Ascension of Isaiah' 4:2-3 (quoted next in 2.5.1.2.) where Beliar (Satan), from the firmament, comes down to earth as Nero (through an earthly mother!) "in the likeness of a man".

the one man - a sub-lunary man

Romans 5:15 does not say a sub-lunary man.

who had brothers - the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother

Right, but the Lord is identified as "our Lord Jesus Christ" only sixteen verses before "James, the brother of the Lord" (Galatians 1:19), with not "Lord" in between.
"brothers of the Lord" appears in 1 Corinthians 9:5. Then, who is this Lord? He is defined four verses earlier at 1 Corinthians 9:1 "Jesus Christ our Lord"
Remark: in a narration, when the bearer of a title has been identified, then the next mention of someone defined only by that same title refers to the aforementioned bearer.

humbled himself in poverty - in the sub-lunar sphere

Sure, the sub-lunar sphere was a place where one can humbled himself in poverty!!! Easily said but where is the evidence?
I addressed Carrier's argument here (he thinks "poverty" means poverty in power).
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p24.htm

delivered up - by the demonic sub-lunar archontes

Again, where does Paul mention sub-lunar archontes? Again I addressed the issue here:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p72.htm

crucified - as above

Easily said, but there were many crucifixions on earth and very few, maybe none, described to be in the sub-lunar realm. See my next link.

in Zion - in Jerusalem above

In Paul's time and in the OT, Zion meant always the heartland of the Jews, with Jerusalem at its center.
Augustine, centuries later, was the one to introduce the heavenly Zion. It's all explained here:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm

Cordially, Bernard

[beowulf]

Gday Beowulf,

The crucifixion of Jesus was an event of no importance for his contemporaries but 2000 years of history have shown this “ crossing of the Rubicon” to be far more significant and real than the life of little Cesar.

I would say only BELIEF in that "crossing" of Jesus is needed to explain Christianity, not the alleged "crossing" itself.

Kapyong

All religions are about belief. [And also politics and romance and...]

Christians believe Jesus was crucified and it is quite good enough for me.
“I live in Trafalgar Square
With four lions to guard me
Fountains and statues all over the place
And the metropol' staring me right in the face
I'll admit it's a trifle drafty
But I look at it this way, you see:

If it's good enough for Nelson
It's quite good enough for me “

1000 YEARS OF POPULAR MUSIC- I Live In Trafalgar Square
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEPGS8iuq4Q



Religion should be a harmless pastime for those who enjoy this kind of activity and the Christian religion I know is the one which best approximates this ideal.