Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Homeless Nutter]

Considering fantastical nature of the life and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth, as presented by the main piece of... uhm.. evidence - the Bible - if he really existed, he needn't have bothered his ar*e...

[Mudhammam]

Josephus has been useless to historicity claims since the early 1800s.

That pretty much gives the entirety of Pink's erroneous rant away.

Carrier seems to have inspired a lot of mindless drones who seem to think that simply dismissing texts on the basis of their preconceived theory is a scientific approach to historical reconstruction.

[Justtristo]

But oh please tell me about how Kenneth Humphreys is knows better than actual qualified historians. Perhaps while you're at it you can tell me all about how Ron Wyatt knows better than the likes of Israel Finkelstein and that the Egyptian chariot wheels from the Exodus are just waiting for someone to go and fish them out of the Red Sea, and not to mention that the Ark is in Turkey just waiting to be formally identified. Like I said you can't have it both ways, either Humphreys knows better than modern biblical scholars AND Wyatt knows better than modern archaeologists; OR they're both unqualified crackpots that don't know anything substantial about what they blabber on about.

Do you seriously not comprehend how monumentally absurd, stupid, irrational, nonsensical and hypocritical you sound when you pick and choose which unqualified idiot to listen to instead of the experts in the field?

And watch this everyone: Min - where's your evidence that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist?

If you want a qualified historian who argues for the Christ Myth Hypothesis, read Richard Carrier. In particular his work On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

[Redbeard The Pink]

Josephus has been useless to historicity claims since the early 1800s.

That pretty much gives the entirety of Pink's erroneous rant away.

Carrier seems to have inspired a lot of mindless drones who seem to think that simply dismissing texts on the basis of their preconceived theory is a scientific approach to historical reconstruction.

What a thorough redress of my statement, shit-stick. Care to be more specific? Or is ad hominem the only trick in your bag?

[Aractus]

[Aractus]

[Pizza]

Josephus has been useless to historicity claims since the early 1800s.

That pretty much gives the entirety of Pink's erroneous rant away.

Carrier seems to have inspired a lot of mindless drones who seem to think that simply dismissing texts on the basis of their preconceived theory is a scientific approach to historical reconstruction.

I honestly don't know what would count as evidence for a historical figure to mythers since you're only allow to quote minority scholars they agree with them. If we can't trust the majority of scholars why the fuck should we trust Carrier and friends? Seriously we as layman have no way to fact check half the claims they make, which is why appeal to expert consensus is an important rule of thumb. If most scientists say the Earth is Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old, I believe them as a rule of thumb.

[Iroscato]

My personal view is that Jesus was an amalgamation of several pre-Christian figures who often shared multiple traits such as the virgin birth, being born around the winter solstice, being resurrected and so on, and whose origins lie in repurposed pagan mythology.
Could there have been a Jewish traveller 2000 years ago with some upstart ideas? Quite possibly.
But he did not perform miracles.
He was not born of a virgin.
He did not die and come back several days later.
He was not the creator and ruler of the cosmos in human form.

Ultimately, when you take away the absurdity of his "miracles", all you're left with is some scruffy guy who annoyed the Romans a bit. Hardly cuts an impressive figure, now does he?

Day after day, it still amuses and bemuses me that grown adults still believe these infantile, pathetic myths - moreover, build their entire lives around a collection of stories about a magic man who loves us lots and lots, except the ones he burns in eternal torment, because fuck those guys.

[Minimalist]

The evidence is:

1. The Gospels and Book of Acts.
2. The Writings of Paul.
3. The other New Testament writings with clear multiple authors from the first century.
4. The so-called heretical writings about Jesus.
5. Other non-church writings from the likes of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.
6. Modern academic publications including peer-review publications, and academic books and chapters.

No, Danny.  You don't get it...and probably never will.

There is one original story.  Mark.  The others are fanfics... extensions of the original by later authors writing for different audiences. 

"Paul" if he is real speaks of a non-earthly jesus.  "Paul" knows nothing of Pilate, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, Caiaphas, etc.  That wasn't part of his story. He does not describe Jesus as a miracle worker, healer or teacher. Paul blames Jesus' death on Satan and demons, rather than the Roman government.  That wasn't part of his story, either.  Somewhere along the lines somebody noticed so when they forged the pastoral epistles they had someone write in 2 Timothy that Pilate and the Jews were involved...but only the dumbest of fundies thinks that 2 Timothy is written by whoever wrote the so-called authentic epistles of "Paul."

There are NO clear first century texts.  Much is wishful thinking or, worse, later forgery by the eventual winners.  We have no evidence that any Greco-Roman writer heard of Jesus until c 185.

The heretical writings are exactly that.  We know even less about them than we do of the canonical shit.

Don't start with Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius.  We've been down that road before.  If you wish to accept that shit, go ahead.  Don't pretend to be a rational human being while doing it.

Modern peer-reviewed publications are fine as long as they agree with you.  If they don't you pull the No True Scotsman routine and claim they are not "real scholars."  That disqualifies you.  You are too invested in believing in your bullshit.

[Mudhammam]

That pretty much gives the entirety of Pink's erroneous rant away.

Carrier seems to have inspired a lot of mindless drones who seem to think that simply dismissing texts on the basis of their preconceived theory is a scientific approach to historical reconstruction.

What a thorough redress of my statement, shit-stick. 

Not really, seeing as that a simple perusal of the abundance of scholarly work available online would inform even the most amateur of historians that your statement is either incredibly naive or stupidly dishonest.