ApostateAbe

The Wiki of Mythicist Claims, the first of its kind as far as I know, is now online, and ANYONE is free to edit the pages. If you find something wrong with it, then feel free to change it. Not that any of you mythicists will find anything wrong with it. Even if the changes don't stick, it will give me an idea of the arguments and the issues that are relevant.

http://mythicistclaims.wikispaces.com/

I created two pages, one about Doherty's claim that Paul didn't believe in a recent Jesus, and a supplementary article about the Argument to the Best Explanation.

Toto

It's hard to take this seriously:

None of the sources that you list even mention Paul. Paul's own letters have no reliable internal dating.

The only sources that can be used to date gospel Jesus to Paul's time are Acts, a very late source according to most secular authorities, and the letter to the Galatians, which has its problems.

Besides, you have avoided the problem. Paul mentions the crucifixion of Jesus, but by the standard dates, the gospels that tie that crucifixion to the time of Pilate were written a minimum of a decade later, and probably much later. The only real basis for claiming that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus is one disputed phrase in Galatians - a very slender bit of evidence, not the sort of robust case that you think you have.

Sheshbazzar

And of course all of that fancy reasoning rigmarole is predicated upon ignoring the FACT that even 'Paul' his self admits that he never set eyes on, never met, and was never personally acquainted with any 'in the flesh' human Jebus.

'Paul' no matter what he may have wrote, is NO 'witness' to any flesh and blood human Jebus.

'Paul' no matter what he may have wrote, is NO 'witness' to the existence of any flesh and blood human Jebus.

'Paul' no matter what he may have wrote, had no more personal acquaintance with any flesh and blood human Jebus than you or I.

'Paul' no matter what he may have wrote, had no more evidence for his claims, than the ranting televangelists who preach that same line of contrived theological horse-shit today.

To all of them, from 'Paul' onward, 'Jesus' was nothing more than a name for a tool to be used to manipulate and to fleece the superstitious and the gullible, to the profit of a decieving church hierarchy.

The 'Jesus' of the NT was never any living breathing man, only an insane and bloodthirsty death cults contrived literary tool.

Steven Carr

I see Apostate Abe relies upon invisible documents like Q as evidence.

You know, if you want to refute mythicists, you need evidence that exists.

'L' puts the birth of Jerusalem in Bethlehem, just like early accounts of Barack Obama (written while he was still alive) put his birth in Kenya.

Of course, a true historian would take the accounts of Obama being born in Kenya and use them as evidence about the life of Obama, just like a true historian takes accounts of Jesus being born in Bethlehem and creates wikis claiming these documents refute mythicism.

stephan huller

It is also worth noting that the gospel as we have it does not make any sense if Jesus was understood to only be a man. God said that honoring the Sabbath was inviolable. In the gospel Jesus says (a) no man can break what is established by God and (b) he goes on to do just that (= break the inviolable rules established by God regarding the Sabbath etc). Jesus must have been understood to be God.

aa5874

First of all the Argument to the BesT Explanation supports a non-historical Jesus.

All the Gospels, the Pauline and Non-Pauline writings claimed or implied that Jesus was NOT human but the Son of a Ghost, the Son of God and God the Creator that was on the Pinnacle of the Temple with Satan, encountered a Holy Ghost Bird at baptism, Walked on water, Transfigured, Resurrected, Ate Food After the Resurrection and then Commissioned the preaching of the Good News of the Resurrection before he Ascended in a cloud..

The Best Explanation for the Jesus story is Mythology.

1800 years ago, a supposed Christian called Justin Admitted and acknowledged that the Jesus story is no different to Greek/Roman Mythology.

The HJ argument is an argument from Silence---No evidence and No credible sources of antiquity.

ApostateAbe

I am taking all criticisms seriously. Thanks.

Sheshbazzar

Ever think? .....if 'Paul' and other early christians had not believed that a Ἰησοῦ ὁ xριστός 'Iesus ho christos' [whom not a one of them had ever met] was the literal son of a ὁ Θεὸς 'ho Theos' [whom not a one of them had ever met], they would have had nothing to write about???

There never needed to be any of these imaginary heavenly beings, for people [who had never seen them] to write about these religious figments and visions that they fashioned out of their fevered religious imaginations.

"Paul' in particular, after being pumped full of religious horse-shit his whole life, suffers a seizure on the road to Damascus and 'sees' a 'vision' of a dead and departed Jebus floating in the air, and goes on spending the rest of his life heaping a load of Platonic derived logos theology unto a fabled dead Jew -whom he had never met, and with whom he was in no way acquainted with outside of that brain-fart and a mixture of Hebrew scripture and pagan Greek philosophical theological horse-shit that he was so busy pasting together in his seizure addled head.

Now a few observations about these terms; Ἰησοῦ 'Iesus' <sic> 'Jesus' is nothing but a corrupted and misspelled mis-transliteration of the Hebrew name יהושע.

Ἰησοῦ or 'Jesus' in itself is nothing more than an utterly meaningless gibberish sound. It is without any intrinsic meaning or root in the Greek language or in the English language.
It is the functional equivalent of speaking a worthless and meaningless 'sibboleth' in regards to obtaining any 'help', 'protection', 'deliverance', 'Salvation'.
(or comprehension)

Only the original Hebrew pronounced name יהושע ALONE, out of 'every name that is named among men', carries that intrinsic meaning, being the sole 'Shibboleth' for safety and retaining life, being that Hebrew name testified to in the Laws and the Prophets of the Hebrews.
.....But 'Christianity' is certainly no witness for that name.

The term ὁ xριστός means nothing more than 'the anointed'.
Doctoring it into 'ὁ Χριστὸς adds nothing to its sense, and dropping the ὁ leaving only Χριστὸς hanging as as though it were a surname or a proper title, is simply an abuse of language. (on a more technical level there is also a big difference between the Hebrew meaning of 'anoint' and the Greek 'christen')

As for the term ὁ Θεὸς, 'the god', the Greeks employed it to denote a mythical and imaginary entity, and without distinction for all gods throughout their philosophies and religions.




.

ApostateAbe

I clarified the article, from "Paul's time" to "time corresponding to Paul's time," not that there is any literal difference, but it may resolve a misunderstanding. Thank you.

Toto

What misunderstanding? This does not meet the objection.