There is no longer an argument for "Jesus Christ"

Christianity is based on the acceptance that there was a historical Jesus Christ. And from where does that faith come? From the early manuscripts - canonical Gospel and the like and codices.

My theory, based entirely on reliable archaeology, can be summarised as the observation that none of these textual evidences mention Jesus Christ explicitly and instead, a different title - Chrest - was meant and indeed, eventually appears long before Jesus Christ. It is very simple to disprove: just show "Jesus Christ" in this early period; nobody has done that.

The argument for Christianity having a historical basis thus relies on interpreting symbols - especially that for the Chi-Rho (CHR) - and textual abbreviations known to the faithful as Nomina Sacra:

Two points:

  • Codex Sinaiticus is dated to the 4th century and shows how the Chi-Rho was originally an abbreviation for Chrest (it was changed centuries later to Christ, by Carolingian monks).
  • Not only did nobody at the time claim that these abbreviations meant Jesus Christ, there is no argument that they did; anyway, there cannot be, because there is nothing on which to base such an argument.

I thought for a long while that I must be wrong on that second point; surely the theological world could not be so dishonest, or incompetent, that they would tell everyone, for centuries, that the early manuscripts - all using the abbreviations - mention Jesus Christ without a strong argument. How wrong I was.

In front of me, I have:

The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A ProposalL. W. Hurtado
Journal of Biblical LiteratureVol. 117, No. 4 (Winter, 1998), pp. 655-673
Published by: The Society of Biblical LiteratureDOI: 10.2307/3266633

It contains nothing of substance; there is no argument; it reveals merely the mindset of a Christian academic.

From my own point of this, this has become a comedy. The academic world of Christian faith has, for centuries, taught meaningless drivel, made vacuous claims and taught his rubbish to generations.

Even more hilarious, this has needed the academics to ignore all the rules of evidence in historiography and to enjoy audiences that swallowed it all whole. This works for just one reason: faith in authority, the bane of scientific research and understanding.

One of the fun aspects of holding my position is to catch these academics approaching me as pretend-atheists, asking me for my credentials. (Many of the atheists online are actually theists playing a confidence trick.)

They can think whatever they like of me, as badly as they can imagine, without this making the slightest difference to my theory, which depends not at all on their authority.

I offer reasoned argument, based on reliable archaeology. That's very largely it.

Nobody has to believe me on anything. My observations are based on artefacts that anyone can examine. I offer references and usually, linked to the source. Go argue with them.

Now, maybe my reasoning is wrong. I can err. However, it is available for examination and debate. But they don't, do they? No, Christian academics really, really don't want a debate. What they want is their salaried, pensioned, exalted positions, with publishers lined up, invitations to international conferences and awards from Christian foundations.

I can afford to laugh, because neither I nor my theory need them. Their religion is dying and good riddance to both it and them. My theory is winning, hands down.

Share this: