Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?

[StuartJ]

Neither a jot nor a tittle of independently verifiable evidence is ever offered to demonstrate that there was a real-life character now known as Jesus the Christ.

We only have reports that people were following the Jesus cult.

And the cult propaganda itself.

[NervyGuy]

Hold on a minute. You’ve blatantly shifted the goal posts here. You explicitly argued:

�But Paul -- the most fervent follower of Jesus in the history of the world – says nothing about that physical life.�

That statement is patently false. Paul mentions numerous details about Jesus’ physical life.

It’s only after the fact it was pointed out that your statement is false that you shifted to arguing Paul says nothing about a Jesus who lived contemporaneously with him.

Forgive me for thinking that you would be able to follow my argument without some extra help. Sometimes I make assumptions about the abilities of my debate partners.

Everyone knows that Paul spoke about a man resurrected. Yes? I assumed I didn't have to review all that with you.

So the question is not whether Paul believed a man named Jesus ever lived, in the history of the world. Obviously he believed something like that. The question is whether Paul believed that The Gospel Jesus ever lived.

Yes?

Can we agree to the issue under contention here?

We already know Paul lived at the time of Jesus.

We assume that... some of us. Because we've never looked hard at the question.

But Jesus did not live at the same time as Paul. That's what I'm trying to argue with you.

You go ahead and concede for me that your original statement is false and then we can look at the validity of your other questions and arguments here.

False. Oh my goodness.

If you've come here to posture, rather than enter a good-faith debate, we may not get very far with this question.

But maybe that is your intent?

[Tart]

Why didnt Paul know Jesus? Could be many reasons...

Yes, there could be a million of them. I'm asking if you can recite the one or two which seem most likely to you.

What seem likely? Sometimes people just dont know people... I live in Denver... Do i know John Elway? Or Von Miller? Shoot, i dont even know the people living three houses down...

How is it unreasonable that someone might not know Jesus? People dont know people all the time...

And certainly, Paul not knowing Jesus isnt relevant to Christianity being true... It is something you created.. It is like saying "If Christianity is true, Paul should have known Jesus".... But the reality is the opposite, if Christianity is true, Paul didnt know Jesus...

You say Paul lived in Jerusalem during Jesus ministry, but im not sure if that is true, you have a source?

In the Christian New Testament, there is a book called "Acts". Some people think it was written by Luke (as I mentioned in my last message.) If you'll look at the beginning of Chapter 22, you'll hear the writer say this: "Then Paul said: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.

Ok source noted, point granted...

Im not so sure it was... the Tomb and the place of the Crucifixion was known and in the open, up till the Romans took over Jerusalem.

So you're just making this up? Or do you have a reference for it?

Why didn't Paul ever say anything about the tomb? Can you suggest why he didn't seem to know about it?

There is nothing to suggest Paul didnt know about the tomb... Paul didnt mention a lot of things... Christianity isnt dependent on Paul mentioning every little aspect of a historical Jesus...

Actually, Paul mentions some historical things, and leave out some... That is exactly what we should expect from Paul if Christianity is true.

Rome came in, destroyed the temple, and they paved over these areas and erected their own temple on top of it...

You're just making this up, yes?

No... I would have said "i dotn know" or given some other response if I didnt know this...

"C. 135 AD, the Roman emperor Hadrian ordered that the cave, wherein Jesus is thought to have been buried, be filled in order to create a flat foundation, and built a temple dedicated to Jupiter or Venus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of ... _Sepulchre

Later the site was cleared and restored by Constantine in the 4th century...

Nah. In the 4th century, Constantine gave his wife the job of designating certain holy places, including the tomb. That's what the history books say, at any rate, so I've heard.[/quote]

Note the reference above...

The first Christian emperor, Constantine ordered in about 326 that Hadrian's temple be replaced by a church. After the old temple was torn down and its ruins removed, the soil was removed from the cave, revealing a rock-cut tomb that Helena and Macarius identified as the burial site of Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of ... _Sepulchre

I don't think you should believe every story that a holy site tells about its origin on Wikipedia. Could be a mistake.

Lets leave aside Wikipedea for a moment (which FYI, i first read about this from other sources when i was studying as a student in Rome).

Is there any reason to doubt this? That the Tomb and the Crucifixion was at this site? Or that the Tomb was location was lost to its followers?

It seems like the things you are asserting, like Paul didnt know where Jesus Tomb was, that he didnt visit the site, that it was lost to its followers, and even that Paul lived in Jerusalem, these things dont seem to be true..

Few things seem true to the faithful when those things contradict their existing faith.

Do you have a source for these claims? "Paul didnt know where Jesus Tomb was, that he didnt visit the site, that it was lost to its followers"

Any source is fine. I want to know what led you to believe that.

I dont know where you are getting this info, or if you are making it up in your own imagination to raise justification for your own doubt (id guess the latter)... But we see this all the time...

I shouldn't have to teach you about the Book of Acts. I really shouldn't.

Feel free to give a source for the points above.. They arent in the Book of Acts.

I dont get what it is, but atheists are so sure most of the time, of their own doubt. They think of themselves as like experts, and they just create doubt off of "facts" (quote on quote) they create in their head...

Ah. So I'm an atheist. I should have known that, I guess.

And you despise and ridicule atheists, so....

That settles the argument, I guess.

And people say we created God out of our imagination... Kind of bizarre

I don't know if it's bizarre or not, since I can't even make sense of it.

People definitely create God out of their imaginations. Is that something you want to talk about?

Yes, id be happy to talk about what is created in people imagination.. I think we should think critically about our beliefs... Christianity, wasnt created in my imagination, and I as of now i see no evidence of it being created in anyone imagination... It goes back to Jesus...

(And FYI, i sure im wrong soemtimes, i do generalize people as "atheists" often, which im wrong about sometimes... However, i do want to point out that this is common in atheism... "Though they think they are wise...."~Paul... False facts are created all the time, in nothing more then the imagination)

[Goose]

It’s only after the fact it was pointed out that your statement is false that you shifted to arguing Paul says nothing about a Jesus who lived contemporaneously with him.

Forgive me for thinking that you would be able to follow my argument without some extra help. Sometimes I make assumptions about the abilities of my debate partners.

Save the patronizing rhetoric for someone else. I’m following what your argument says. Don’t act like a blatant shifting of the goal posts didn’t just happen because you intended to convey something that I failed to understand. In other words, don’t shift the blame onto me for your error.

Everyone knows that Paul spoke about a man resurrected. Yes? I assumed I didn't have to review all that with you.

Yes Paul spoke of Jesus’ resurrection.

So the question is not whether Paul believed a man named Jesus ever lived, in the history of the world. Obviously he believed something like that. The question is whether Paul believed that The Gospel Jesus ever lived.

Yes?

Sure. You mean the Jesus who that Paul thought was the Son of God, who died, and rose again. That Jesus right?

Can we agree to the issue under contention here?

Sure.

We already know Paul lived at the time of Jesus.

We assume that... some of us. Because we've never looked hard at the question.

It’s not an assumption. It’s a logical inference from the historical record. Do you have something that falsifies that inference?

But Jesus did not live at the same time as Paul. That's what I'm trying to argue with you.

Well go ahead and make that argument then. Before you do, can you settle the implied contradiction here?

Paul lived at the same time as Jesus. Jesus did not live at the same time as Paul.

You go ahead and concede for me that your original statement is false and then we can look at the validity of your other questions and arguments here.

False. Oh my goodness.

If you've come here to posture, rather than enter a good-faith debate, we may not get very far with this question.

But maybe that is your intent?

It’s not posturing. If you want to have a good faith debate then go ahead and demonstrate your willingness to do just that by conceding you were mistaken when you asserted:

�But Paul -- the most fervent follower of Jesus in the history of the world – says nothing about that physical life.�

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 40 by NervyGuy]

How could there have been Christian congregations in distant cities only a year or two after the crucifixion... for Paul to persecute?

The possibly fictional Jesus character of the Gospel pamphlets and his propagandists were not Christians.

One hypothesis is that they were of the Jewish sect the Essenes.

They were pro-David ...

And trying to get their guys back on the throne.

What eventually became known as Christianity ...

Was just an offshoot and name-change for an existing congregation.

The Pharisee sect was favoured by the ruling Herod dynasty ...

And we can understand that the also possibly fictional character Saul/Paul was putting down political opposition ...

Before he saw advantages in becoming the chief propagandist and marketing manager for the breakaway Essene cult that eventually became known as Christianity ...

And earned himself a sainthood.

"God" is NEVER shown in these folkloric tales ...

Humann political propaganda most certainly is.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 39 by Goose]

The one Roman historian who reports much at all on first century Judea –Tacitus – just happens to mention Jesus. The main Jewish historian who reports on first century Judea – Josephus- likewise also happens to mention Jesus.

Well after the Jesus character has fluttered back up to the ceiling of the Dome of Heaven we now live in (see Gen 1) to assemble the armies of angels that failed to turn up earlier - and caused him to end up on a cross (or tied to a torture stake for a while).

There is NO pre-Ascension evidence of any sort for a human Jesus ...

Let alone a magic, god-sired, virgin-born, water-walking, universe-creating, planet-flooding Jesus.

We only have post-Ascension reports of a cult-following of a possibly fictional, larger-than-life, superhero Jesus character as portrayed in the propaganda.

Feet of clay, I say, feet of clay.

[NervyGuy]

What seem likely? Sometimes people just dont know people... I live in

Denver... Do i know John Elway? Or Von Miller? Shoot, i dont even know the people living three houses down...How is it unreasonable that someone might not know Jesus? People dont know people all the time...

So then you don't think Jesus made much of a mark during his life. He didn't do anything remarkable, which might have drawn the attention of Gamaliel’s star pupil (and likely member of the Sanhedrin)?

The Jewish Authority in Jerusalem was up in arms about this pretentious messiah claimant, but Gamaliel's student Paul never heard a thing about it?

Some things stretch credulity too far.

Anyway, if Jesus was so unremarkable, how do you explain the existence of distant Christian congregations within only a year or two of Jesus death -- congregations for Paul to travel to and persecute?

And certainly, Paul not knowing Jesus isnt relevant to Christianity being true... It is something you created.. It is like saying "If Christianity is true, Paul should have known Jesus".... But the reality is the opposite, if Christianity is true, Paul didnt know Jesus...

I don't know what you're talking about, but the concept of "Christianity being true" is not a concept which I would know how to seriously consider.

My world is quite a bit more complex than that.

Christianity true vs. Christianity false? No, I'd have no idea how to consider such an odd question as that.

There is nothing to suggest Paul didnt know about the tomb...

Oh course there is. His silence. The most sacred, holy site in all the world. The place where his Lord and Savior performed the signature miracle of his ministry, rising from the dead and thereby saving all humanity from their own deaths... and Paul never mentions it?

Of course there is something to suggest that Paul didn't know about the tomb.

Paul didnt mention a lot of things... Christianity isnt dependent on Paul mentioning every little aspect of a historical Jesus...

Every little aspect. Like Jesus' Tomb. Yeah, just a little detail which Paul never thought to mention to anyone in his letters.

Actually, Paul mentions some historical things, and leave out some... That is exactly what we should expect from Paul if Christianity is true.

What is this "Christianity is true" thing you keep talking about? Are you thinking that Christianity will dissolve into dust and be blown away if Jesus did not exist as an historical figure?

If so, I don't think you are talking the theological long view.

Adam because metaphorical and Christianity survived. Literal Creationism fell away, and Christianity survived. Give yourself some credit for the ability to survive all sorts of new and different truth and still remain a Christian.

"C. 135 AD, the Roman emperor Hadrian ordered that the cave, wherein Jesus is thought to have been buried, be filled in order to create a flat foundation, and built a temple dedicated to Jupiter or Venus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of ... _Sepulchre

Wiki Truth. Yeah.

Do you know how many churches claim they have a piece of wood from the actual cross?

Don't believe everything you hear in church, Tart... is my advice.

Is there any reason to doubt this? That the Tomb and the Crucifixion was at this site? Or that the Tomb was location was lost to its followers?

Yeah. Tons of it. Tons of silence from ALL sources on the location of the tomb.

Until Constantine's wife happened to stumble upon it hundreds of years later.

Think about that. Why would no Christian -- for all those hundreds of years -- never written about the Tomb of Jesus?

Unless they had no idea where it was.

Do you have a source for these claims? "Paul didnt know where Jesus Tomb was, that he didnt visit the site, that it was lost to its followers"

I confess that I have no Wiki article which states that Paul, nor any other Christians, knew the location of the tomb.

All I have is their silence on the subject.

I want to know what led you to believe that.

People, especially religious people, talk about things which are important to them. Christians, for example, would make a HUGE DEAL about the tomb where their Savior rose from the dead.

But they don't mention it.

I think we should think critically about our beliefs... Christianity, wasnt created in my imagination, and I as of now i see no evidence of it being created in anyone imagination... It goes back to Jesus...

It's a accumulation of imaginations, starting mostly with Mark, I think. Or at least given its biggest boost by his work.

i do generalize people as "atheists" often, which im wrong about sometimes... However, i do want to point out that this is common in atheism... "Though they think they are wise...."

I'm sorry. I just don't know what you are talking about. I don't even know WHY you've started talking about atheists.

I'm sorry. You'll have to slow down for me.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by Tart]

The claim Christianity makes is that the Gospels were a result of eyewitnesses.

Please support this claim. Off the top of my head, Gospel Luke is the only one that even alludes to having sources, and even then, it doesn't give any names to these sources.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by Tart]

People lived in Rome for thousands of years, and we basically just started excavating these sites, and historically identifying them in like the 1750's... It was kind of crazy learning how people lived in, and all around, these mountains of ruins, and they had no idea what the Romans used those building for, or what their identity was...

Just to clarify, are you saying that up until the 1750's, Romans living in Rome had no idea of the history of their city, had no knowledge of their past empires?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 29 by Tart]

What he did, where he went, we even have archaeological evidence supporting one of his trials

Chants "Please don't say this is the Delphi Inscription" over and over again...

[Tart]

[Replying to post 29 by Tart]

What he did, where he went, we even have archaeological evidence supporting one of his trials

Chants "Please don't say this is the Delphi Inscription" over and over again...

It is... That is archaeological evidence supporting one of Paul's trials in the Book of Acts

(note everything you are commenting on is a post that is months old)

And yes... People living in Rome, they even occupied a lot of the Roman Forum, and had no idea what its building were built for...

But whats the point of these post.. Please try not to derail conversations.. Thanks..