Lotan: state you claim for the existence of Jesus

[The Duke of Vandals]

If you're not Lotan, feel free to post here, but don't expect me to reply. This is a one on one debate between Lotan and I.

Lotan: please state your stance on the gospel Jesus and support your assertions with evidence.

[Lotan]

This is kind of pathetic. Couldn't you guys have had your little ego-driven argument elsewhere?

Hey, it wasn't my idea!

[The Duke of Vandals]

Okay. I undertand. You're unable to present, let alone support your argument for the existence of some sort of gospel Jesus. No worries. I didn't think you had it in you to begin with.

[Lotan]

Stop evading and present your stance on the gospel Jesus.

What a gracious invitation!

I'm not going to define your stance for you beyond the Jesus referred to in the Christian gospels.

In that case OK, here it is - The Jesuses referred to in the the four canonical Christian gospels didn't exist. They are literary creations. Happy now?

Of course they are loosely based on a real human being.

I'm not about to subject myself to another series of the unsupported assertions, dishonest commentary, ad hominems, and strawman mischaracterizations that you think passes for debate. You are neither civil nor respectful, and your posts are uninteresting, and lack content. I've already humiliated you several times (at least ) on these threads...

Unraveling the Jesus myth

The God Who Wasn't There

...and most recently...

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!

You should be able to find all the evidence and argument you need on these. In the meantime, the weather is good and I'd much rather work in my garden than waste my time with your childishness. If you really, really can't live without getting spanked yet again, I might concede to debate you on the condition that you finally present some sort of evidence for the alleged "pre 1 CE Jesus cults" that you've been trying to sell for months now, both here and on the other forums that you troll.

And BTW, lose the flamebait signature.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Essentially, you believe the gospel jesus existed, but when called to support your stance you were unable to. How is this different from liberal Christianity?

And BTW, lose the flamebait signature.

Consider it (like your side of the debate) lost.

[Cathar1950]

Essentially, you believe the gospel jesus existed, but when called to support your stance you were unable to. How is this different from liberal Christianity?

And BTW, lose the flamebait signature.

Consider it (like your side of the debate) lost.

Liberal Christianity admits to the mythological nature of the gospels and in a sense understands the historical Jesus is lost for all practical purposes. But the embrace these myths as their faith and not as historical accounts.
But the historical Jesus was seen differently by many groups even in the first century.
I think what Lotan is saying is that there seems to be a person behind the early Christian or Jesus movement, not that it is all true facts.
At the same time much of the contents are pulled and read into the Hebrew writings as well as other influences such as Hellenism and Persian thought. Constantine would never embraced Christianity for his political reasons had it not first become Romanized.
It is not as simple as it is all myth or all fact.
I think the evidence is lacking while there are clues.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Now that things are settled...

Liberal Christianity admits to the mythological nature of the gospels and in a sense understands the historical Jesus is lost for all practical purposes. But the embrace these myths as their faith and not as historical accounts.

Which makes absolutely no sense. If Jesus isn't dying on the cross for your sins, then there's really nothing to it. Also, I feel that this isn't a stance held by many Christians at all. Most Christians hold that Jesus was (to at least some degree) a real person and (allegedly) really was god.

But the historical Jesus was seen differently by many groups even in the first century.

Well, he wasn't seen by anyone through the majority of the first century.

The second century is as you stated. The following is written by Athenagoras and is taken from his 30+ chapter essay "A plea for the Christians" which was meant to explain 2nd century Christianity to the Alexandrian church and to the (non-Christian) Roman emperor.

• That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things

Christians (and up until his admission, Lotan) want you to believe this guy named Jesus showed up, did rock-star-level miracles, was completely forgotten for decades until he showed up to talk to Paul who started writing about Jesus (and kindly ignore Paul's ignorance of Jesus' life events). They want you to believe the gospels were written a decade or so after Jesus' death from eyewitnesses to the alleged event... and so on.

What happened was a group of individuals looking to start a branch of Judaism Jews would want to adhere to even if they were being persecuted. So they invented the Jewish savior after the fact and based him on folk tales of earlier rabbis, Jewish mythology, and pagan mythology. It wasn't until the third century that people got their story straight. Before then, all sorts of people would take the myth and run with it and it wasn't until much later that the idea of a godman / orthodoxy came to the forefront.

I think what Lotan is saying is that there seems to be a person behind the early Christian or Jesus movement, not that it is all true facts.

Clearly, Lotan has no such opinion. If he did, he would have presented it here.

Constantine would never embraced Christianity for his political reasons had it not first become Romanized.

There's a whole school of thought the romanization of Christianity combined worship of Julius Caesar with Jesus Christ. This would help explain why Christianity spread through the empire.