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 is just hostility towards the evidence... Its irrational, the way people treat this stuff... Takes 20 post to just get them to comment on Paul's existence, with constant derailments from the conversation... Its just nuts the way some people treat Christianity... It is actually evidence of God. The spirit is evidence of God, and his power he can have in peoples lives... But that is for a different topic all together... This is about the historical evidence around Jesus...

[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?

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?

We are trying to discuss the case.. Im building a foundation which we can even begin to question the evidence from... Paul exists, everyone agree (or should agree), and we agree he wrote his letters... Right?

I HAVE to take baby steps with you guys, its that bad. Constantly derailing the conversation, it unreasonable...

[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?

We are trying to discuss the case.. Im building a foundation which we can even begin to question the evidence from... Paul exists, everyone agree (or should agree), and we agree he wrote his letters... Right?

I HAVE to take baby steps with you guys, its that bad...

You didn't address either of my questions. I'd repeat them for you, but all you have to do is read the very post you just quoted to realize your misstep.

Perhaps after a review, you can address them.

[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?

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?

We are trying to discuss the case.. Im building a foundation which we can even begin to question the evidence from... Paul exists, everyone agree (or should agree), and we agree he wrote his letters... Right?

I HAVE to take baby steps with you guys, its that bad...

You didn't address either of my questions. I'd repeat them for you, but all you have to do is read the very post you just quoted to realize your misstep.

Perhaps after a review, you can address them.

Im discussing the historical evidence with you guys. I gave a flat out overview of it, and everyone wanted to question the validity of the evidence, but no was was addressing the evidence I talked about... In doing so i have to take break down the evidence im talking about, step by step, baby step by baby step, so we can actually discuss the evidence I am referring to...

This entire thread is a derailment from the evidence im talking about. It's a giant Straw-Man. People are building up cases, that has nothing to do with anything i discussed, and knocking their own straw-man over. No one is talking about anything in the specifics i outlined in the historical evidence. No one even mentioned any sentence, detail, any specifics at all, of the evidence I brought up. Everyone just started going crazy, attacking the miracles in the Gospels, throwing out the "Bible" as a whole, questioning Paul's relationship with Jesus, and a bunch of other things i never even mentioned.

No one even commented on the specific evidence i brang up, or the logical reasoning i went through for establishing a historical case around Jesus.. It has all been a huge straw-man... its sad that we have to get to this spot. Im literally at the first paragraph of my outline trying to discuss it with you guys, so we can actually have a reasonable conversation on my evidence i brought up.

[Divine Insight]

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)...

Again what do you even mean by "Jesus"?

What are you calling "Jesus"? The man described by the Gospel rumors in ever detail that they claim about him?

If that's what you are calling "Jesus" then I'm totally onboard with those who claim that Jesus was a totally fictional character.

You haven't answered this question yet:

What do you mean by "Jesus"?

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

Just because the authors of the Gospels reference actual people, places, and events that may have occurred in their culture it does NOT follow that this is "historical evidence" for every claim they make about those events.

After all, even Greek Mythology references a lot of actual historical events in the Greek culture too. Does that provide everything claimed in Greek Mythology with "Historical Evidence"?

Hardly.

So all I can say to you on this point is that either you are thinking that we are extremely naive, or perhaps you are the one who naively accepts such a non-sequitur conclusion?

Just because myths include references to actual historical events does not mean that the myths are then supported by "historical evidence". All it means is that the people within the culture that wrote the myths or false rumors used actual historical events as fodder for their fantasies.

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?

I wouldn't doubt that there was some sort of trial associated with an actual "historical Jesus". Like I said before, it wouldn't matter to me if you could prove that such an event took place with absolute historical certainty.

It is my understanding, however, there is there no official Roman record of any such trial. And Romans were well-known for keeping extremely detailed records.

None the less, I could see a Roman prefect ruling over the Jews and entertaining the Jews request to have Jesus placed on trial. According to the Gospel Rumors it wasn't much of a "trial". All that happened was that Pilate questioned Jesus superficially and then exonerated him and said that he finds no fault in him.

That may very well have happened.

The Gospel rumors claim that the Jewish Priests incited the mob to call for the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate then washed his hands of the whole affair and told the Jewish Priests to "see to it".

So even according to the Gospel rumors the crucifixion of Jesus was not a formal Roman Crucifixion at all, but rather a make-shift mob execution seen to by the Jewish Priests. No doubt with a few Roman soldiers who had been assigned to them for this task since the Jews where under Roman occupation and would not be permitted to do this on their own.

That much could certainly be true. So what?

In fact, I suspect that something along these lines did indeed happen. After all, it makes sense to me that some event like this must have taken place to serve as fodder for the rumors of Jesus as the "Christ".

So this is absolutely meaningless. This doesn't support the idea that everything contained in the Gospel must then be the "Gospel Truth".

Are you aware of the following?

In Greek mythology there is a tale about a fleet of navy ships that set out to do battle against a particular enemy. But Poseidon caused a great storm to overcome the naval fleet and sink ever single ship and kill every single navy sailor.

This is Greek mythology!

But wait a minute! Here's the catch!

Historians and archeologists later found records of this lost navy fleet and they even found evidence of the wrecked ships at the bottom of the sea where they were supposedly sunk.

Is this then evidence that Poseidon must be real?

Of course not!

All this tells us is that cultures tend to make up superstitious stories about real events and attribute the cause of those events to their Gods. That's all.

So, no, I wouldn't doubt that some smart-aleck preacher committed apostasy against the orthodox religion of his culture and ended up being crucified by a mob incited by angry priests. That makes sense, especially considering the culture and time period in question.

Was there then questions sparked about a possible "missing body" or "empty tomb". Sure, that's quite reasonable. Especially if Jesus actually survived this make-shift mob crucifixion. That would explain why he was never placed in the tomb in the first place. This could also explain why some people may have seen a wounded Jesus afterward. Keep in mind that even the Gospel rumors have Jesus retaining his wounds after the crucifixion. That should raise red flags for you right there in terms of theology. Why would an omnipotent God raise his Son from a grave and not heal his body to pristine health again?

So a lot of the claims made by the Gospel rumors may very well be based on actual historical events.

This DOES NOT give the Gospel Rumors "historical evidence" for everything they claim about these events.

Instead of getting bogged down in trying to find historical evidence for the claims made by the Gospel rumors that could never be shown to be true, (i.e. Jesus actually rising from the dead, a God speaking from the clouds, Jesus ascending to heaven on a cloud), you'd be far better off focusing on whether or not the whole paradigm makes any actual sense.

Would a truly omnipotent, omniscient God orchestrate such an absurdly brutal episode as this?

I think it's reasonable to conclude that no sane and trustworthy God would have ever designed such an ignorant ploy to try to "save" undeserved sinners from his own wrath.

Like I said in a previous post. This God would then need to damn me for simply not believing in such utter nonsense.

This religion, and this God, could not even be remotely interested in morality, when this entire paradigm as become nothing more than this God offering immoral people undeserved amnesty from his own wrath, if they simply believe these utterly absurd stories.

That alone should tell you everything you need to know to recognize that this religion cannot be true.

It doesn't even make any sense. Only immoral undeserving people will be "saved" via free undeserved amnesty, BUT ONLY, if they believe in these utterly absurd ancient stories written by less than a handful of religious fanatics.

~~~~~

And let's not forget that the entire Old Testament already makes no sense. We shouldn't even be considering whether a "Son of Yahweh" makes any sense when Yahweh himself makes no sense.

Show me the evidence for believing in Yahweh BEFORE you even bring up the question of Jesus and the New Testament.

If you can't make a case for Yahweh, then there's no point in even talking about Jesus. Jesus is nothing if not the Son of Yahweh.

So if you want to discuss the Bible with me, you need to start at Genesis 1:1.

And only after having justified the entire Old Testament can we move on to the NT.

Good luck with that.

[Tart]

Please... If you have question of the evidence im discussing about, you can refer post 24 or post 42...

[Divine Insight]

What you are calling "evidence" isn't evidence for the Jesus described in the Gospel rumors.

Consider the following:

There were most likely TWO different Jesus.

1. A possible actual historical preacher named Jesus.
2. The Jesus described by the Gospel rumors decades later.

The second Jesus would indeed be a totally fictional character. Just like Paul Bunyan has become a totally fictional character even thought there may have been an actual logger named Paul Bunyan that gave rise to the fictional stories of Paul Bunyan. The real Paul Bunyan may have even owned an ox, and carried a double-edge ax.

In a similar way there may have been a real Jesus. The real Jesus may have even be a real jerk who was a major trouble-maker which led up to his possible "crucifixion", which may have actually been a far lesser form of punishment.

Even the fictitious "Gospel Jesus" is said to have insulted the Jewish Chief priest on a regular basis. He was said to have sat around and publicly insulted them and accused them of all manner of hypocrisy. He may have also had a bad temper as the Gospels have him becoming angry with a fig tree even. And then they have him becoming violent right in the sacred temple and turning over money tables, etc.

The "real Jesus" may have been quite the troublemaker.

He may have also actually lost the vast majority of arguments he had with the Chief Priests of his day. The Gospel rumors have Jesus outsmarting the Chief Priest on a regular basis. So much so, that the only conclusion we can draw from this is that the Chief Priests must have been seriously stupid.

It's extremely unlikely that the "real Jesus" (if there was one), was anything at all like the "Gospel Jesus" created by the authors of the Gospel rumors.

This is why I keep asking, "What do you mean by Jesus?"

If you are talking about the one described by the Gospel rumors, then no, that "Jesus" most likely never existed.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 77 by Divine Insight]

Ok, and i outlined an overview of my case for the historical evidence, which id be happy for anyone to compare to any fictional and/or mythological person, to establish a justification for equating Jesus to fiction...

[Jagella]

Ya, so that would work if we wanted to appeal to authority...But lets not do that...

I never appealed to authority. Just read The End of Biblical Studies for a lot of evidence that makes Arthur as historical as King David.

What is the evidence for King Author?

We have the Historia Brittonum, the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Regum Britanniae, and the Legends of the saints all sources that mention Arthur. So Tart, please move the goal posts out of range. Remember: your salvation depends on a historical Jesus.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 77 by Divine Insight]

Ok, and i outlined an overview of my case for the historical evidence, which id be happy for anyone to compare to any fictional and/or mythological person, to establish a justification for equating Jesus to fiction...

Again, you have refused to answer the question:

What do you even mean by "Jesus"?

There is absolutely no way that you have even come remotely close to establishing any historical evidence for the Jesus described in detail by the Gospel rumors.

At the very best all you could ever possibly do is suggest that there is evidence that some guy may have existed that may have done some of the things that the "Jesus" described in the Gospel rumors is said to have done.

But that is hardly "evidence" for the historical reality of the "Jesus" described by the Gospel rumors.

As far as I can see, you are either expecting us to be extremely naive, or you are yourself jumping to totally non-sequitur conclusions that are not valid.

So which is it?

Are you expecting us to be this naive? Or do you seriously not see the problems of your own arguments, even after I have explained them as clearly as I could?