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 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.

Ok, so im interested in all your historical evidence for Spider Man... And comparing that to the historical evidence of Jesus... When you claim you can manipulate any evidence to serve your needs, that isnt a very good thing you should confess to. That is "cognitive biases" you are suggesting to do...

Perhaps more speicifically it is:
"Confirmation Bias" "The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions."
Or perhaps like
"Observer-expectancy effect" "When a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Except you arent even doing it unconsciously, you are boasting as if you can manipulate any evidence to serve your needs... lol... That is the very definition of having biases... Its not a good thing...

Also, im asking you to present historical evidence for Spider man, not simply claim "someone some where claims to know him".... Which your biases wish to justify.. Im looking for historical evidence... What do you have? 4 people being written in this fictional story?

[brunumb]

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.

OK, but please don't overlook Post 43 by Divine Insight. It deserves a considered response from you.

[Tart]

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.

Ya, so that would work if we wanted to appeal to authority...But lets not do that... What is the evidence for King Author?

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.

Ok, so what historical evidence do you have for Zeus? Ill let you present it here.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 51 by Tart]

Ok, so im interested in all your historical evidence for Spider Man... And comparing that to the historical evidence of Jesus... When you claim you can manipulate any evidence to serve your needs, that isnt a very good thing you should confess to. That is "cognitive biases" you are suggesting to do...

Why do you conclude that the evidence will be manipulated to serve certain needs? Here is the original challenge in Post 10 by rikuoamero:

Give us your historical evidence for Jesus, and I will use your very standards of evidence to prove that Spiderman exists.

You have actually avoided providing your historical evidence for Jesus so far and not given rikuoamero the opportunity to respond accordingly. That aside, there is no suggestion that any evidence will be manipulated, unless it was your intent to manipulate your own. Your constant references to biblical Jesus rather than historical Jesus actually point strongly to cognitive bias on your part.

[Tart]

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.

Ok this is totally irrelevant to the discussion... Id be happy to answer some of these question, if you want to make a new thread prompting a response...

Im not trying to prove Christianity here, im not attempting to get you to believe in God, and im not trying to prove the miracles in the Bible,

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

[Tart]

[Replying to post 51 by Tart]

Ok, so im interested in all your historical evidence for Spider Man... And comparing that to the historical evidence of Jesus... When you claim you can manipulate any evidence to serve your needs, that isnt a very good thing you should confess to. That is "cognitive biases" you are suggesting to do...

Why do you conclude that the evidence will be manipulated to serve certain needs? Here is the original challenge in Post 10 by rikuoamero:

Give us your historical evidence for Jesus, and I will use your very standards of evidence to prove that Spiderman exists.

You have actually avoided providing your historical evidence for Jesus so far and not given rikuoamero the opportunity to respond accordingly. That aside, there is no suggestion that any evidence will be manipulated, unless it was your intent to manipulate your own. Your constant references to biblical Jesus rather than historical Jesus actually point strongly to cognitive bias on your part.

Ok, so you claim all the evidence i presented isnt valid...

So lets brake it down... First off, i think we can reasonably believe Paul exists... Everyone believes Paul exists... What do you think?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 56 by Tart]

Ok, so you claim all the evidence i presented isnt valid...

So lets brake it down... First off, i think we can reasonably believe Paul exists... Everyone believes Paul exists... What do you think?

No need to break it down. You are just going around in circles until we get dizzy, give up and you claim some sort of victory.

Present your case for an historical Jesus without relying on any assertions about him that are contained in the propaganda manual known as the Bible.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 56 by Tart]

Ok, so you claim all the evidence i presented isnt valid...

So lets brake it down... First off, i think we can reasonably believe Paul exists... Everyone believes Paul exists... What do you think?

No need to break it down. You are just going around in circles until we get dizzy, give up and you claim some sort of victory.

Present your case for an historical Jesus without relying on any assertions about him that are contained in the propaganda manual known as the Bible.

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...

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..)

Do you accept this? If not, why?

[Divine Insight]

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.

[brunumb]

[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.