Nailed: 10 Christian myths that show Jesus never existed

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard,

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.

That you for those detailed and helpful examples.

Frankly, I am beginning to doubt this whole sub-lunar realm idea after all.
Will consider it further.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard,

A few things I overlooked in Kapyong's post:

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

I think it is clear enough and the controversy comes from mythicists who cannot accept them because, by definition, these 'bits and pieces' go against their most basic views.
I am talking here about mythicists (Doherty, Carrier, etc ...) who accept Paul as having existed during the same time period as described in 'Acts' (even if some of them reject the whole of 'Acts'!) and when Jerusalem was still existing as a city.
Other mythicists solved the problems caused by these 'bits and pieces' by claiming Paul and his epistles are 2nd century inventions.
Detering is one of those. Long ago, I invited him to read my critique of Doherty's Jesus Puzzle. He came back to me, saying, for sure, Paul's epistles feature a very human earthly Jesus (contrary to what Doherty claims). A few months later, Detering came out with his Fabricated Paul: problem solved!

I still tend to a mythical Jesus, but am re-thinking various aspects of it. Especially how Paul fits in.

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.

If it did not need a human earthly Jesus at all, why would they invent him?

Because people tend to add leaders to movements over time, even if there was not one originally. - e.g. Ned Ludd and Ebion.

ABE: I'll admit that's a reasonably plausible explanation yes

Kapyong, what do you mean by ABE?
What do you think is a reasonably plausible explanation?

ABE = Addded By Edit
I think your brief explanation you linked of how Christianity started was quite plausible.
But I'm still tending to an MJ for now.


Kapyong

[Blood]

Does anybody here really care about this stuff? This is like apologetics; it's simple minded and boring.

[Bernard Muller]

Blood,
I am not an apologist, but basically an atheist & humanist and not religious in any ways. And I said it on the internet (under my own true name) and to my friends.
My own studies on how Christianity started convinced me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Christianity is a humongous fraud. And I don't have to invoke Captain America, Superman, etc ... to prove it. Rather, I did it by doing research on the core Christian texts themselves. And that kept me interested for years, discovering many things I was not even suspecting at the start. Certainly, I did not find the whole exercise boring.
Cordially, Bernard

[Blood]

Blood,
I am not an apologist, but basically an atheist & humanist and not religious in any ways. And I said it on the internet (under my own true name) and to my friends.
My own studies on how Christianity started convinced me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Christianity is a humongous fraud. And I don't have to invoke Captain America, Superman, etc ... to prove it. Rather, I did it by doing research on the core Christian texts themselves. And that kept me interested for years, discovering many things I was not even suspecting at the start. Certainly, I did not find the whole exercise boring.
Cordially, Bernard

What I'm saying is that Fitzgerald's arguments are simple minded and therefore the discussion boring, and predictable. The knowledge and discussions on this forum are way beyond this simple book.

[Leucius Charinus]

Perhaps our mythicist here who made this claim could answer some questions about it.

The insurmountable problem with this logic is that we have no reason or evidence "given" that the anonymous, undated and unprovenanced synoptic gospels (or Acts or "Paul") were written in the 1st century other than a great leap of faith.

Do you have a methodology whereby you determine the date and authorship of an ancient document?

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. Where we have a physical manuscript as far as I am concerned C14 dating should be one of the key dating methodologies.

Note for instance that it will not work with authorship also to say "Their name is on it!" No one disputes Tacitus wrote the Annals and his name is on them. People dispute that Paul wrote the Pastorals and his name is on them. One needs a methodology.

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

There can be no doubt that all the writings that have survived from antiquity will reflect to some degree the subjective elements in the personality (and imagination) of the author, including his or her biases, agendas and rhetoric of the political, religious, and philosophical (etc) kind. [NB: This also included those scribes who copied and transmitted manuscripts before the printing press]

Part of the historical method as I understand it is to develop guidelines by which, what little primary evidence may exist, coupled with whatever other evidence may exist, may be used in order to research and offer hypothetical narratives of past events, which we call histories. One of these guidelines is an understanding of the nature of the referential integrity between all (thousands and thousands of items in some cases, very few, or NONE, in other cases) the elements of the evidence.


.

[Leucius Charinus]

My own studies on how Christianity started convinced me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Christianity is a humongous fraud.

Who was responsible for the fraud?

When was the fabrication undertaken, and where?

How was the fraud perpetrated and why?

What were the motives of the wicked men behind the fraud?

What ancient source(s) support the notion of fraud?

Was it common knowledge, and if so,
how was the common knowledge (that Christianity was a humongous fraud) covered over and buried,
and when did this happen?


Thanks.

[Leucius Charinus]

Obviously when Jesus goes to the wilderness and is taken to the top of the world by the Devil, we are not talking about historical events, but fictional ones

Is it also true that Jesus rising from the dead was about a fictional event?

How many people have you seen rising from the dead?

If so, then would you agree with the quote below?

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-14.htm

The quote is clever propaganda published by the rulers.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca




.

[Bernard Muller]

Who was responsible for the fraud?

All kind of people, at first some Grecian Jews in Jerusalem (who dispersed later on), then the leaders of the Church of Antioch, then Paul & associates and competitors in his times, then the anonymous gospels and pseudonymous & anonymous epistle writers, then the authors of all kind of later Christians writings, then many apologists, etc. up to (and including) modern times. All of them adding up their fraudulent bits to what was existing before, creating a mess.
The most honest in that bunch were Jesus' own disciples & James, who never saw him as Christ, Son of God, etc. and resurrected. Despite many efforts from early Christians writers (and interpolators) to show the opposite, there are many clues in their writings (more so Paul's and gMark) to suggest these men never became Christians.

When was the fabrication undertaken, and where?

Let's talk about fraud, not whole quasi-instant fabrication. Everywhere, bit by bit, from Jerusalem, to Syria, Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, Rome, Alexandria. That was just the beginning.

How was the fraud perpetrated and why?

As I said: bit by bit, on the fly, mostly through oral propagation at first, then writings. Why? To maintain intact their Christian communities in times of crisis, disbelief and doubts. Going one step further, because of money. Some letters of Paul are very explicit about that.
Making a living by preaching is better than by physical work. Of course, for untalented Paul (as a public speaker), there were also other factors, including being seen as a "father" for his own converts, and keeping them from joining other preachers.

What were the motives of the wicked men behind the fraud?

These men were not necessarily wicked, more like salesmen & politicians who use rhetoric in order to attract new customers/voters & keep the ones they have already, and also fight the competition. They know what they are selling might be deficient and their competition not that bad but they are engaged and do whatever is necessary to keep their jobs, including adding a lot of hype in their arguments.

What ancient source(s) support the notion of fraud?

All early Christian texts.

Was it common knowledge, and if so,
how was the common knowledge (that Christianity was a humongous fraud) covered over and buried,
and when did this happen?

Well, there was some opponents when Christianity took off in the second century, such as Celsus. But that was too little to late. Also Pliny the Younger and Tacitus called Christianity a bad superstition.
But religion has a way to prevail against reason, more so when priests & preachers are continuously re-enforcing the faith of the believers and prevent them to stray away.
And those were led to believe they will be saved from some apocalypse to come soon; instead they were promised an eternal utopic good life in Paradise. Later, when it was obvious that did not happen, that got changed, in many denominations: salvation in paradise or damnation in hell occur right after death. That's a bit rough and rather binary, so the notion of purgatory was invented.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

Other mythicists solved the problems caused by these 'bits and pieces' by claiming Paul and his epistles are 2nd century inventions.
Detering is one of those. Long ago, I invited him to read my critique of Doherty's Jesus Puzzle. He came back to me, saying, for sure, Paul's epistles feature a very human earthly Jesus (contrary to what Doherty claims). A few months later, Detering came out with his Fabricated Paul: problem solved!

Earth to Muller: come in, Muller. This subject was his dissertation, way back. You had nothing to do with it.

And to cut off any angry paranoid delusional ranting about me personally: no, discussion of the authenticity of Paul's letters stands on its own as a subject worth exploring. It is of interest independently of other real issues such as the issue of the historicity of Jesus and the issue of whether the letters originally attest to an earthly Jesus or not. It shouldn't be necessary to explain this, but some people like to make rants (like the one quoted above) alleging whatever they can to smear the motives of others and their research.