Equating Jesus to fiction is irrational

[Tart]

For the past few years I have been seeing nonbelievers equate Jesus to any fiction of their choice. They say "Jesus is like Spider-man", "James Bond is just as real as Jesus", "We have the same about of evidence for King Arthur as we do for Jesus", etc... The list goes on and on.

So I want to give you guys a chance to prove this, if you believe these things.. I am willing to actually take these claims, and see if they can be justified, by comparing the evidence of any fiction of myth, to that of Jesus.. The historical evidence...

I am convinced that there is more historical evidence for Jesus then there is for ANY known fictional and/or mythological person. But i am willing for anyone to prove me wrong, and justify these comparisons.

For the purpose of discussion:
What fictional or mythological person is comparable to Jesus (bring your evidence)? Is there any fictional people who have the magnitude of historical evidence that Jesus does?

(and id allow anyone to question the validity of the evidence as well)

Does anyone really think Jesus should be equated to any fictional/mythological person?


If not, maybe we should stop making these claims...

[bluethread]

For what it is worth, in the scientific age, we have come to take a dichotomous view of history. Dividing all of history into that which can be empirically verified and that which can not, i.e. fact and fiction. Prior to the 20the century, history was rarely viewed in this manner. Prior to that, verification of persons and events was difficult and viewed on a spectrum that included first hand observation, legend, mythology and fiction. In fact, a single account my include each of these in varying degrees, based on it's usefulness in supporting the point of the story. This was not a real problem at the time, because people were not as obsessed with "facts" as we are today. That said, our obsession with "facts" today is not necessarily the best approach, because "facts" are very elusive and many things that are argued as "facts" are not empirically verifiable, even though they may be necessary.

In short, There are many ways to record history. Everything that is recorded about Yeshua may very well have happened, even though evidence may be sparse. Some things may have actually happened and others were added to create a legend. Some things may serve to illustrate important principles, whether they happened or not, in a mythological fashion. Other things may be fictitious, having never happened, but still useful as a story. Not all history is "fact".

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

All very well bluethread, but Yeshua is not just some ordinary person from history. There is an awful lot hanging on whether the biblical character was real or not.

[Tart]

For what it is worth, in the scientific age, we have come to take a dichotomous view of history. Dividing all of history into that which can be empirically verified and that which can not, i.e. fact and fiction. Prior to the 20the century, history was rarely viewed in this manner. Prior to that, verification of persons and events was difficult and viewed on a spectrum that included first hand observation, legend, mythology and fiction. In fact, a single account my include each of these in varying degrees, based on it's usefulness in supporting the point of the story. This was not a real problem at the time, because people were not as obsessed with "facts" as we are today. That said, our obsession with "facts" today is not necessarily the best approach, because "facts" are very elusive and many things that are argued as "facts" are not empirically verifiable, even though they may be necessary.

In short, There are many ways to record history. Everything that is recorded about Yeshua may very well have happened, even though evidence may be sparse. Some things may have actually happened and others were added to create a legend. Some things may serve to illustrate important principles, whether they happened or not, in a mythological fashion. Other things may be fictitious, having never happened, but still useful as a story. Not all history is "fact".

Ok thanks bluethread,

To clarify, I am not here to make a claim if anything is a legend or not within the Gospels... I am simply presenting the historical evidence, the reasonable historical evidence for Jesus, that would be accepted by anyone reading it. If you would like to contest the historical evidence as being myth, or legend, or question the validity of that evidence, feel free to do so and specifically point out anything questionable, and the reason why...

This thread is meant to compare the historical evidence of Jesus Christ, to any mythological and/or fictional person, to see if it is reasonable to compare Jesus to someone who never existed at all.

Is it reasonable to say there is the same amount of evidence for Jesus, as there is for any known fictional person? I think the answer to that is NO, it is irrational to suggest that. But im here so people have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

All very well bluethread, but Yeshua is not just some ordinary person from history. There is an awful lot hanging on whether the biblical character was real or not.

Absolutely there is a lot hanging on whether Jesus existed or not... When studying the evidence, if they actually take the subject seriously, His existence itself is testimony to God... It is hard to get around it without seriously deluding yourself... This is probably why some people flat out deny His existence, like Dr. Richard Carrier for example. He is so convinced that the Gospels have such a deeper meaning then the surface, that it has to be a myth... He builds his entire argument on that focus... But that is the claim of the Gospels.. That the message Jesus brought indeed has a deeper message, that he fulfilled a destiny of God to establish that deeper message...

If we allow Jesus to be historical. His existence itself, his trail, his death, is a fulfillment of a divine plan... And being the fact that it is irrational to deny that there is a huge magnitude of historical evidence, so much so that no fictional person ever has had this amount of evidence. Period...

Jesus existence itself establishes an All Powerful, and All Knowing God exists. And therefor give evidence to the Resurrection.

But thats off topic... Can anyone prove the existence of Jesus is even questionable? In the very least, can anyone show it is reasonable to believe that Jesus can even be compared to anyone fictional?

Iv never seen any good justification for that... Is any known fictional person anywhere close to comparing to the evidence of Jesus?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 34 by Tart]

If we allow Jesus to be historical. His existence itself, his trail, his death, is a fulfillment of a divine plan... And being the fact that it is irrational to deny that there is a huge magnitude of historical evidence, so much so that no fictional person ever has had this amount of evidence. Period...

You keep referencing the Bible story of Jesus, but that is not evidence for an historical Jesus. If I had to prove that Spiderman was a real person, I could not refer to any of the stories in which he appears. That is the crux of the matter. You claim that there is a heap of extra-biblical evidence but you keep referencing the Bible instead.

If Jesus was an historical figure that the Bible character is based on, that still doesn't establish him as the son of God. There is no evidence at all for any of the miraculous events described in the Bible. That's another huge hurdle you have to overcome.

[William]

[Replying to post 29 by Tart]

If you have any problems with the evidence i present, feel free to say so, and give your reasoning why...

I have done, and so have others. The problem may simply be one's inability to comprehend that.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

How about Prester John?

I'm not willing to educate myself enough to argue the case. I'm just throwing Prester John's hat in the ring as a possible subject of discussion. If you're looking for a fictional person who might have better evidence than Jesus, Prester John might be one such.

Whats the evidence for Prester John?

I think there was a letter, maybe to the Pope, purporting to be from Prester John. He claimed to be a great king with a great army. He said he would bring his army against the Muslims from the east while the Europeans attacked from the west.

These days we think the letter was fraudulent, just as we think Jesus's miracles were fraudulent.

But we don't even have a letter from Jesus.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

This is not in dispute, as you should have been able to discern. Indeed what you have written simply underlines the idea that mythology is altogether surrounded by stories of extraordinary events performed by extraordinary human beings and this alone should be enough evidence to say such things didn't actually happen, but in the case of all religions in general, it is important that the adherents believe such things are factual because - as has been pointed out as well - ordinary human beings can obtain extraordinary lifestyles off the backs of those adherents, something of which there is plenty of real evidence showing this to being the case.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by Tart]

Ok so the historical evidence for spider-man is 4 people have been featured in the comics... And do you have any more historical evidence? Or is that it?

The challenge was that YOU would provide what you think are historical evidence(s) for Jesus, and then I would use the same to show Spiderman exists.
To liken this to chess, you are playing white, and I am playing black. You move first, and I move in response.

For example, do real people confess to knowing spider man?

I wouldn't be surprised if some people have confessed to knowing a real Spiderman. You might as well have asked do real people confess to knowing real E.T.'s.

Does he have any real living family?

It's possible that he does. Is it impossible for a Ben and May Parker couple to be living in New York?

Do any historians claim or suggest spider man existed?

Shrugs. Show me your historians, show me what they use to show how Jesus exists, and I'll do the same for Spidey.

Does any real people, who are in the comic, claim to have known spider man personally, being in his presence?

Reinsert Evil Grin.

I knew you'd ask this question.

Let me ask this in return: We are able to ask Obama, Jay Leno, Colbert and Lee, aren't we?
Can you do the same for the people whom you claim knew Jesus? Can I ask Peter regarding Jesus?
Basically what I'm asking about is this: compare the levels of falsifiability between Spidey and Jesus.

What does Stan Lee, Stephen Colbert. And Obama. And Jay Leno. Say about spider-man?

Why don't you ask them? Can I ask "What do Paul and Peter and John the Baptist have to say about Jesus?"

Did an entire population of people believe Spider-man existed?

Did the entire population of Jerusalem, during Jesus's alleged life-time, believe he existed?
You can't show me that they did. Jesus, during his alleged lifetime, appears to have left little to no mark.
It's only decades later that he becomes prominent. Whereas Spidey? We have an issue of his comic, from December 2001, showing he was there at 9/11.

In terms of historical evidence, what I show you is far stronger, because the issue is much more recent (only 17 years old) compared to what you might show me, which would be on the order of 2,000 years old.
Not only that, but it's written in English, in the original. We have to translate whatever you might show us regarding Jesus.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 33 by Tart]

I am simply presenting the historical evidence, the reasonable historical evidence for Jesus, that would be accepted by anyone reading it.

Something you have yet to actually do. Go on, re-read your posts on this thread.
All you've done so far is talk about doing this, but have yet to actually do it.

Notice that in my faux-attempt at proving Spidey real, I have presented quote unquote evidence. I have provided links and citations.

You have yet, in this thread, to do anything of the sort.