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]

[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.

Perhaps you are right, that i dont fully understand or comprehend your objection with the evidence..

Here is a link to post # 13 where i talk about it
viewtopic.php?t=34637&start=10

This is the historical evdience i am talking about, like an overview that can be expanded on...

Do you think any specifics of the evidence is invalid? Why?

(and just a note*, i understand that people are telling me i cant use the Bible, but here i am using it as evidence... Can anyone give any reason that this evidence i spoke of from the Bible (and as i noted in the post there are extra-biblical accounts of many things mentioned), but can anyone give good reasoning or evidence that the use of the scripture to establish this as historical evidence, is wrong... What is the problem with the evidence?)

[Tart]

These responses are just nonbelievers pretending the evidence doesn't exist...

Here is what im referring to... What is the problem with this evidence? Is any of it not valid? Why?

Lets start with what everyone agrees on.. As far as we know, everyone agrees to certain things, like Paul existing, and Paul writing much of the New testament, with his ltters (Epistles)... Im not sure if you know of Dr. Carrier, or Dr. Price, but the biggest critics of a historical Jesus all confess these things, that Paul existed, and that Paul wrote His Epistles attributed to him.. And we even have archaeological evidence supporting Paul.. Like we have archaeological evidence supporting Paul and his trials and the Book of Acts... Everyone agrees... (also as far as iv seen, the biggest critics dont even contest suggesting Paul having ill intentions, or alternative motives, we have much evidence supporting that Paul having genuine beliefs)

Well we also have Paul mentioning the Disciples. Paul literally talks about knowing Peter, Paul talks about knowing John and James, Paul mentions Luke and Mark... We also have letters who name James, John, Peter as authors.. The evidence supports these people really existed... And these people are the same as the people in the Book of Acts, and consequently the Gospels... Like for example, when Paul mentions Peter, he says:

"I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised." (Galatians 2:7)

It is clear Paul is talking about the same Peter in the Book of Acts, and consequently the same Peter in the Gospels... Likewise the same Peter who is attributed to writing His own epistles which as included in the scripture, that says he literally knew Jesus...

So we have evidence supporting the existence of the same people who walked with, talked with, and literally knew Jesus, and wrote letters testifying so... We also have evidence in these letters that mention Jesus, that mention his crucifixion (from multitudes of sources, biblical and non-biblical ), they mention his trial by Pontius Pilate (both biblical and non-biblical sources), they is mentions of other Gospel events, like the transfiguration, the resurrection (biblical and non-biblical), the family of Jesus, his brother James (both biblical and non-biblical sources).

Then we can get into the Gospels, and the Book of Act's themselves... What we know about these books is that they are riddled with verifiable historical evidence... As far as we know, all the people are historical in these books. We have Emperors, Governess, Head priest, Jewish Leaders, Kings that are all verified as historical people. Like, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod tetrarch, Herod the Great, Lysanias, the High Priests Annas and Caiaphas, Nicodemus, etc... All these men are in the Gospels, and many of them are being said to have physically been in the presence of Jesus, and talking with Jesus.. Likewise we have mentions of historical groups of people, the Pharisees, the Sadducee, the Samaritans, who are dipicted as having actually been in the presence with, and had talked to Jesus himself.. We have no evidence of any of these people or groups of people, having objections to those claims. Also the historically supported Disciples (i mentioned above), Peter, John, James the brother of Jesus, are all in the Gospels... Everything we can verify is historical... All the places mentioned in the Gospels are real places, and many of the events in the Gospels has other supporting evidence as well. Like the ruling of these emperors, and kings, Jewish leader and head priest. The crucifixion of Jesus is talked in tons of sources, both biblical and non biblical, as well as the resurrection and trial of Jesus (both biblical and non-biblical sources)..

I mean, how would we even begin to dissociate Jesus from the magnitude of evidence, and make sense he is fictional? I mean, what other fictional stories, if any, has this kind of evidence in them, but turns out is based on fiction?

And then we go into the Book of Acts, which is the story of the first disciples, after deaths death/resurrection of Christ, and the first churches. We have archaeological evidence that supports some of the trials the first disciples were in. Likewise the people like, Paul, Peter, John, James, Stephan, all mentioned in the Book of Acts, and also having etra-biblical sources mentioning the death of many of these men, the martyrdom... And the church then continued to spread, from the first century onward, to real histocial people who knew the first Disciples, who knew Jesus... Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Scillitan Martyrs, Perpetua and Felicity, Ptolemaeus and Lucius, Pothinus, bishop of Lyon, Pope Fabian, Saint Sebastian, etc... All of which are support to having existed historically and knowing the first Disciples.

I mean, how would we even begin to make sense out of Christianity being mythological? There are mountains of evidence in favor of Christianity, with its historicity....

[Divine Insight]

These responses are just nonbelievers pretending the evidence doesn't exist...

Apparently you either aren't truly reading the replies, or you are subconsciously ignoring what they are actually saying.

The existence of an actual historical person who may have sparked the rumors of the "Jesus" described in the Gospel rumors in no way gives historical validity to the claims made about Jesus by the authors of the Gospel rumors.

In other words, the existence of a "Historical Jesus" does absolutely nothing to load historical credibility to the claims made about him decades later by the authors of the Gospel rumors.

So there is no 'evidence' to support anything claimed about Jesus in the Gospel rumors.

I would suggest forgetting entirely about this line of argument that doesn't lead anywhere, even for your own search for truth.

Instead, why not just look at what these stories claimed happened.

According to the Gospels the followers of Jesus renounced him when he was being crucified. Surely they didn't believe he was God, or even the son of God at that time or they would have stood by him.

Also the Gospel rumors even have God himself convinced that no one would believe in Jesus. This God had to speak from the clouds to verify that Jesus was his Son. Not only this, but this God then also had a bunch of saints physically climb out of their graves and go into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there (no historical record of that event either)

But clearly even the Gospels have God not expecting anyone to believe in Jesus directly, even though they had met Jesus in person.

And we're supposed to believe that some 2000 years later this same God will condemn us to hell for simply not believing in 2000-year-old rumors?

Surely you can see how this makes no sense at all?

Arguing that there must have actually been a historical Jesus does absolutely nothing at all to support the claims made in the New Testament Gospels.

If that's your best argument for Christianity, then you don't have a compelling argument for this religion.

The existence of an actual person who may have served as fodder for these absurd superstitious rumors hardly gives these rumors historical credibility.

There are also too much historical evidence against it.

Where's the historical "noise" that people from far off lands had heard about the healing powers of Christ and traveled long distances to seek him out. There simply isn't any evidence. And in this case a lack of evidence is evidence that it never happened. Because surely if Jesus was as popular as the Gospel rumors claim and people from far off lands were seeking him out we should see historical evidence of that knowledge. But we don't.

Also, where's the historical evidence that a bunch of dead saints climbed out of their graves and went into the Holy City to show themselves to the people? There is not one shred of independent evidence to back up that claim. In fact, even in the Gospel rumors Matthew appears to be the only one who knew anything about that particular rumor.

If that was such an important thing for God to have done why didn't all the authors of the New Testament mention it?

And where's our evidence for this God some 2000 years later?

We have nothing but these undependable rumors.

Consider the following Tart:

If you could show the following things happened with absolute certainty I still wouldn't believe the claims made in the Gospel rumors:

1. Jesus actually existed.
2. Jesus argued with the religious authority of his culture. (as the Gospel rumors claim)
3. Jesus sat around and publicly humiliated and degraded religious authorities (as the Gospel rumors claim)
4. Jesus was unofficially crucified in a mob-driven execution. (as the Gospel rumors claim)
5. The tomb Jesus was supposed to be buried in turned out to be empty.
6. People actually saw Jesus after the crucifixion.

Even if all of the above could be shown to have historically happened with confidence I still would have absolutely no reason at all to believe the Gospel rumors in all their supernatural claims, or that Jesus was the "Son of God", or that any God had anything at all to do with any of this.

In fact, I can't even imagine why any sane intelligent God would have ever thought up such an insane and unintelligent approach to trying to deal with humans.

It simply makes no sense that an omnipotent, omniscient God would even design and orchestrate such an absurd scenario.

The idea that some apostate preacher sparked these unrealistic rumors makes far more sense to me.

And keep in mind, that because of this, according to this religion, I would then need to be condemned to hell for simply not believing that our creator is this ignorant.

Just stop and think about that for a moment.

I would need to be condemned to hell for simply not believing in this utter nonsense.

That's the bottom line right there Tart.

It wouldn't matter if I'm a 'sinner'. That's totally irrelevant. I would have missed my chance at obtaining free undeserved amnesty simply because this entire scenario is too utterly absurd and ignorant to be believable.

In that case it would be God's fault entirely for the fact that I missed a chance at free undeserved amnesty, simply because God had designed such an extremely ignorant and absurd means to obtain it.

Even the existence of a "historical Jesus" isn't going to help this utterly absurd scenario.

In fact, even if it were all true, all this would mean is that we were created by a God who has no ability convince anyone of anything. And everyone that God fails to convince will be damned, no matter how nice of a person they might actually be.

The religion makes no sense. Period.

It's clearly not about morality. To the contrary, Christianity is all about receiving undeserved amnesty for being an immoral person simply because a person believes in these Gospel rumors.

It's not about morality at all. It's about whether or not a person is willing to believe in nonsense. And if they aren't, then they are damned.

Does this really make sense to you?

Only the immoral undeserving sinners will be saved, but only if they believe in the Gospel rumors.

Morality is tossed out the window entirely!

The existence of a "historical Jesus" isn't going to save this religious paradigm.

[Jagella]

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

I believe we discussed Zeus as a mythical person who has essentially the same evidence for him as we have for Jesus. Both figures are gods whose followers said came to the earth to interact with us mortals. Both figures are only evidenced by documents.

I could just as easily ask what evidence do you have for Jesus that could compare to a truly historical person like George Washington?

[Tart]

Note* its true, i havent read all the latest replies, but i plan to. Im just bumping around from class to class... In fact i have to go to class right now.

[Tart]

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

I believe we discussed Zeus as a mythical person who has essentially the same evidence for him as we have for Jesus. Both figures are gods whose followers said came to the earth to interact with us mortals. Both figures are only evidenced by documents.

I could just as easily ask what evidence do you have for Jesus that could compare to a truly historical person like George Washington?

What evidence do you have for Zeus? Who did he interact with that is a real historical person?

[Jagella]

What evidence do you have for Zeus? Who did he interact with that is a real historical person?

Zeus is mentioned by Plato in his The Seventh Letter. So much like you have people writing letters that mention Jesus, Plato, the great Greek philosopher who was famous in his own day, speaks of Zeus! So those who wrote about Zeus were far better known in their own time than anybody who wrote about Jesus. So in at least one way we have much better evidence for Zeus than for Jesus.

[Tart]

What evidence do you have for Zeus? Who did he interact with that is a real historical person?

Zeus is mentioned by Plato in his The Seventh Letter. So much like you have people writing letters that mention Jesus, Plato, the great Greek philosopher who was famous in his own day, speaks of Zeus! So those who wrote about Zeus were far better known in their own time than anybody who wrote about Jesus. So in at least one way we have much better evidence for Zeus than for Jesus.

Plato is referencing Zeus as a non physical being, as a God.. Not a historical person...

This isnt historical evidence of Zeus, this is mythological evidence of Zeus... We are interested in historical evidence for this discussion...

[Jagella]

Do you think King Author has anywhere near the same amount of historical evidence of Jesus? Are you prepared to defend that idea? Or, if not, ill allow you to retract your statement.

Bible scholar Hector Avalos has written in his The End of Biblical Studies that the evidence for King Arthur is comparable to that of King David. Is that close enough? Also, Elizabeth Jenkins has written an entire book, The Mystery of King Arthur, in which she lays out her case for a historical Arthur with evidence much like the evidence for Jesus.

[Jagella]

Plato is referencing Zeus as a non physical being, as a God.. Not a historical person...

Actually, according to Greek lore Zeus often manifested himself as a physical man on earth. He went so far as to impregnate human women. Jesus was a "spirit being" who like Zeus came down from his god-realm to interact with people on earth.

So the more we compare Jesus to figures we accept as myths, the more Jesus appears to belong with them.