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...

[Tart]

This topic is meant to compare the historical evidence of Jesus to any known fictional and/or mythological person to see if it is any where comparable.. This is giving you guys an opportunity to prove that saying Jesus is like any fictional person of your choice, is a rational claim to make. I think equating Jesus a fictional person is irrational, but id allow you to prove me wrong...

And note* if there is a problem with the historical evidence i present, you are certainly allowed to question its validity, and give reasons why....

With all due respect Tart, I've seen this tactic being used by many Christian apologists. And I personally call it out as an underhanded tactic and here's why:

What you appear to be doing is trying to get people to agree as a premise that "Jesus" actually existed historically.

But thus far you have totally avoided defining what you even mean by "Jesus"?

If what you are calling "Jesus" is the man described by the Gospel rumors, then there is no reason to believe that this "Jesus" ever existed at all. He could indeed be a totally fictional character.

But if by "Jesus" you are talking about a man who may have been associated with "some" of the rumors in the Gospel rumors, then sure, such a man very well may have existed. But at that point we have absolutely no evidence for the claims made about him in the Gospel rumors.

So if you think that by getting people to concede that a man named Jesus might have possibly lived and been associated with some of the events and rumors told about him in the Gospels would in any way serve as "evidence" for the truth of the Gospel rumors, then you are sorely mistaken.

And this is true whether you are trying to argue to others, or trying to justify it for yourself. The existence of a historical Jesus in no way supports the outrageous claims and stories told about him by the authors of the Gospel rumors.

The existence of a historical Jesus does nothing to support the theological claims of Christianity. It would, however, help to explain how those outlandish rumors got started and became a saleable item as a new religion.

Ok so this thread is about the historical evidence for Jesus, (when i say historical evidence, i am referring to any evidence i might present, which you are more then free to question, and give valid reasoning in doing so)...


For instance, you are claiming the Gospels have no historical evidence...

I think, for example, the trial of Jesus is historically supported, and id be happy to build that case for you, which you can question any specifics...

Do you think the trial of Jesus happened?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 58 by Tart]

Ok, well you are more then welcome to give any reasoning or evidence to justify if any of the historical evidence for Jesus is false...

Please present some for evaluation.

Listen man, if you are going to ignore the evdience i present to you, im just not going to respond to you anymore..

This is your last chance to respond to this question.

all scholars agree that Paul existed, even Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Richard Carrier confess this.. The biggest critics of a historical Gospels agree, Paul existed and Paul wrote his Epistles... (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Colosians, Ephesians, etc..)

Do you accept this? If not, why?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 58 by Tart]

So lets start at the evidence... As far as i have seen, all scholars agree that Paul existed, even Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Richard Carrier confess this.. The biggest critics of a historical Gospels agree, Paul existed and Paul wrote his Epistles... (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Colosians, Ephesians, etc..)

Margaret Mitchell existed. Does that mean the key characters she wrote about in Gone With The Wind were real people? Stick to extra-biblical, verified evidence for the historical Jesus.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 58 by Tart]

So lets start at the evidence... As far as i have seen, all scholars agree that Paul existed, even Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Richard Carrier confess this.. The biggest critics of a historical Gospels agree, Paul existed and Paul wrote his Epistles... (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Colosians, Ephesians, etc..)

Margaret Mitchell existed. Does that mean the key characters she wrote about in Gone With The Wind were real people? Stick to extra-biblical, verified evidence for the historical Jesus.

Ok here is archaeological evidence backing up Paul existed, and was on trial, talked about in the book of Acts...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_Inscription

So we all believe (becuase of reasons like this) Paul existed, and wrote his Epistles... Do you agree? Why not?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 61 by Tart]

I think, for example, the trial of Jesus is historically supported, and id be happy to build that case for you, which you can question any specifics...

Your track record on this thread suggest otherwise

Do you think the trial of Jesus happened?

See. You throw that in to divert from your offer. It's a loaded question and you will focus on the response to that instead of presenting your case for the trial.

Cut to the chase. Present your case that the trial of Jesus is historically supported and let the questioning begin.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 61 by Tart]

I think, for example, the trial of Jesus is historically supported, and id be happy to build that case for you, which you can question any specifics...

Your track record on this thread suggest otherwise

Do you think the trial of Jesus happened?

See. You throw that in to divert from your offer. It's a loaded question and you will focus on the response to that instead of presenting your case for the trial.

Cut to the chase. Present your case that the trial of Jesus is historically supported and let the questioning begin.

Brunumb... Im diligently trying to build my case with you, im trying to establish a foundation for the case, which you keep ignoring. Im about to just stop talking to you all together...

Do you have any good reason to believe Paul didnt exist?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 66 by Tart]

Do you have any good reason to believe Paul didnt exist?

No. But everything from Paul about Jesus is hearsay. He never knew Jesus personally. Has anything ever been verified by authenticated sources? You have to clearly distinguish between the biblical Jesus character and an itinerant preacher named Jesus from which the legend evolved.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 66 by Tart]

Do you have any good reason to believe Paul didnt exist?

No. But everything from Paul about Jesus is hearsay. He never knew Jesus personally. Has anything ever been verified by authenticated sources? You have to clearly distinguish between the biblical Jesus character and an itinerant preacher named Jesus from which the legend evolved.

I didnt say a single word about Jesus's relationship to Paul... So you agree Paul existed, right?

[bluethread]

[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.

However, that does not change the nature of history. If you want more assurance, you are going to have to look somewhere else.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 66 by Tart]

Do you have any good reason to believe Paul didnt exist?

No. But everything from Paul about Jesus is hearsay. He never knew Jesus personally. Has anything ever been verified by authenticated sources? You have to clearly distinguish between the biblical Jesus character and an itinerant preacher named Jesus from which the legend evolved.

I didnt say a single word about Jesus's relationship to Paul... So you agree Paul existed, right?

You started a thread titled, "Equating Jesus to fiction is irrational", and balk when someone mentions Jesus?

Did you start this thread to discuss Paul or Jesus as the title you created indicates?