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...

[Jagella]

You say the evidence for Jesus and King Author is the same... How so?

I already posted the works in which King Arthur is mentioned. Jesus is mentioned in other works that are jumped on as evidence for his historicity. It appears that the historicity for a person as far as apologists are concerned is based on religious fervor rather than good evidence.

Anyway, I was reading what Hector Avalos has to say about Bible scholars and Biblical history. Many Biblical characters like Eve, Adam, Noah, and Jonah were once considered historical by Bible scholars. Of course the evidence started mounting that these figures are mythological, and scholars fought hard to maintain the view that these figures were real people. Eventually most Bible scholars waved the white flag and surrendered to the evidence against their position of historicity. Only the most "conservative" scholars refused to admit the obvious and to this day still insist that these figures were real people. I see the same thing happening now as the evidence mounts against the historicity of Jesus. I predict that most scholars will be forced to admit that Jesus, like Noah, only ever existed in legend.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Equating Jesus to fiction is irrational.

If equating Jesus to fiction is irrational, how 'bout that bunch that declares him the Truth(tm)?

Unproven assertions are just as close to fiction, as they are far from truth.


(Formatulational edit)

(2nd edit to correct fiction / myth deal)

[Tart]

You say the evidence for Jesus and King Author is the same... How so?

I already posted the works in which King Arthur is mentioned. Jesus is mentioned in other works that are jumped on as evidence for his historicity. It appears that the historicity for a person as far as apologists are concerned is based on religious fervor rather than good evidence.

Anyway, I was reading what Hector Avalos has to say about Bible scholars and Biblical history. Many Biblical characters like Eve, Adam, Noah, and Jonah were once considered historical by Bible scholars. Of course the evidence started mounting that these figures are mythological, and scholars fought hard to maintain the view that these figures were real people. Eventually most Bible scholars waved the white flag and surrendered to the evidence against their position of historicity. Only the most "conservative" scholars refused to admit the obvious and to this day still insist that these figures were real people. I see the same thing happening now as the evidence mounts against the historicity of Jesus. I predict that most scholars will be forced to admit that Jesus, like Noah, only ever existed in legend.

Ok, what historical evidence is there for King Author? You claimed to have showed some evidence, all i saw was a title of a book and a name of a person who studied it.... How is that anywhere comparable to the evidence spoke of in post 42?

What evidence is there to compare to the evidence of Jesus?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 42 by Tart]

As promised a reply to post 42...

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)

Ordinarily I would agree with you, however, you attempted to use Delphi to prove Paul's existence. Normally, Delphi would be used as secondary evidence, but not as primary (in this thread, it is the only if not the first thing you have used as hard evidence in support of that assertion), to give us a viable time period for which to place Paul (since it mentions Proconsul Gallio).
You may call me pedantic but I will not agree to this "certain thing".

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

Why are you citing Carrier, he of the Jesus is a myth position? This sounds to me like you're plugging in his name as an argument from authority, but given your own position, this would change really fast...

And we even have archaeological evidence supporting Paul.. Like we have archaeological evidence supporting Paul and his trials and the Book of Acts

I suppose you meant Delphi here? If so, I have to disagree, since Delphi does not mention Paul.
It talks about Gallio.

Since you have not, as of yet, retracted Gallio, I am forced to have Obama's law paper (linked to in an earlier post of mine) declared to be evidence of the existence of Spiderman. It talks about someone Spidey talked to, it gives us a time period for when Spidey lived.

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)

It's convenient that the only person who talks about Paul once being an enemy of Christianity and then its biggest champion is Paul himself. As a master of deception myself, that is a good tactic to get yourself into a position within a movement: claim to have once been its enemy and to have 'seen the light' (or some similar phrase).

Besides that, so what about his genuine beliefs. I honestly once had genuine beliefs that I was a resurrected robot prince from Jupiter.
Tart, I want to ask you this: if genuine beliefs are an indicator (in your mind) as to the validity of beliefs, then did my Jupiter-robot belief act as an indicator that I actually was such? Yes or no?

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

The Spiderman comic I linked earlier has Spiderman mentioning and talking to Obama. I can write articles indicating how close I am to well known figures - does that mean I did talk to them?

We also have letters who name James, John, Peter as authors

Authorship disputed among scholars. It's telling isn't it, that earlier you cited scholars in support of a position that you hold, but when it comes to the authorship of certain documents, you make no mention of this dispute.

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'm wondering when you'll ever get around to showing there was an historical Jesus, supposedly complete with Godly superpowers.

It is clear Paul is talking about the same Peter in the Book of Acts, and consequently the same Peter in the Gospels

Is it? How common of a name is Peter? I had an uncle, now deceased, with that name. What about back then? Was there only the one Peter?
You've got to stop making all these assumptions, and really show your work.

Likewise the same Peter who is attributed to writing His own epistles which as included in the scripture, that says he literally knew Jesus...

Peter the uneducated fisherman, very likely to have had no ability to write?

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

And...? Are letters all that are necessary to show a magical man-god existed, with magical powers?

We also have evidence in these letters that mention Jesus, that mention his crucifixion (from multitudes of sources, biblical and non-biblical )

Can we have these sources please? What exactly are they talking about?

they mention his trial by Pontius Pilate (both biblical and non-biblical sources)

Ditto for above

they is mentions of other Gospel events, like the transfiguration, the resurrection (biblical and non-biblical)

Oh? A non-biblical source referencing the resurrection? Like what? Please explain why this (as of yet unnamed source or sources) are not in the Bible?

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

Just because a book mentions people we know otherwise to be real/historical, doesn't mean the events in the book really did take place.
I refer you once again to my Spidey comic with Obama. You and I both know that despite having Obama, a real person, feature in it, that the events depicted within did not take place in reality.

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?

To answer your question: Spiderman. What you have offered as evidence for a historical Jesus (whatever that means exactly, you have yet to tell us...) I have done the same for Spidey.

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.

Such as? Delphi again? If that is all you have, then let me remind you that Delphi does not mention the trial(s) in Acts. Sure, it can give us a date range for Gallio...but that's it.

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

Can you name these extra-biblical sources? You keep alluding to them, but not naming them, citing them.
I'll do the same. I have an extra-comical source for Spiderman. No I'm not going to name it or cite it, just say that it's there.

Either way, the lives and deaths of these people does not serve to show a historical Jesus...ya know, the guy who's name is on the thread? It's almost like you forgot to talk about HIM.

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.

Does the existence of people who were converted by L Ron Hubbard's wife into Scientology after Hubbard's death logically mean that the claims made by Hubbard regarding Xenu are true?

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....

What exactly do you think you are arguing for? The existence of the religion of Christianity (which no-one here disputes), or the existence of it's reputed founder?

A critique from myself to yourself Tart is that you lack focus in your arguments. You often do not keep a close eye on what it is you say, what it is you want to argue for.

[Tart]

Thank you for the reply rikuomero... It is good to see someone is actually willing to reference the evidence i posted... Which has been ignored this entire thread.

[Replying to post 42 by Tart]

As promised a reply to post 42...

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)

Ordinarily I would agree with you, however, you attempted to use Delphi to prove Paul's existence. Normally, Delphi would be used as secondary evidence, but not as primary (in this thread, it is the only if not the first thing you have used as hard evidence in support of that assertion), to give us a viable time period for which to place Paul (since it mentions Proconsul Gallio).
You may call me pedantic but I will not agree to this "certain thing".

Fine maybe i jumped the gun claiming Delphi was evidence for Paul.. Although this certainly helps us establish the time frame Paul would be in contact with Gallio while he was the Proconsul of Rome... This is archaeological evidence backing up the Book of Acts, that Gallio was indeed historical, and a Roman Proconsul in the region of Achaia. At the same time Paul was depicted as being in contact with Gallio...

Is there any reason to believe this didnt happen?

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

Why are you citing Carrier, he of the Jesus is a myth position? This sounds to me like you're plugging in his name as an argument from authority, but given your own position, this would change really fast...

Ya so the reason i referenced is to establish a foundation of what everyone agree on, even the BIGGEST Christ Myth scholars (Price and Carrier)

As noted from this website, from the "Rule", and "evidence"

Strength of evidence

Not all evidence carries the same force. The better quality your evidence, the weightier your evidence would be. Quoting from a prestigious university would carry more weight than quoting from a high school senior's homework posted on his personal website.

Also, if you present evidence from commonly accepted sources, then it would give your evidence more strength. Even better is to present evidence that is from your opponent's side. So, if you are a non-Christian and you present evidence from a Christian website, it would be strong evidence.
viewtopic.php?t=16903

I dont think there is any good reason to believe Paul didnt exist, and didnt write his letters...

And we even have archaeological evidence supporting Paul.. Like we have archaeological evidence supporting Paul and his trials and the Book of Acts

I suppose you meant Delphi here? If so, I have to disagree, since Delphi does not mention Paul.
It talks about Gallio.

Since you have not, as of yet, retracted Gallio, I am forced to have Obama's law paper (linked to in an earlier post of mine) declared to be evidence of the existence of Spiderman. It talks about someone Spidey talked to, it gives us a time period for when Spidey lived.

Well i dont think there is any good reason to believe Paul didnt exist.. You compare Paul to Spider-man, but no one believes spiderman exists, and everyone believes Paul existed... Did Spiderman write any documents? Did he help establish a real existing church (or something like a church), that had real historical people in it, durying the time Paul was alive? Which thats another point, Paul grew up, got old, and died as a martyr, beheaded by the Romans... in the last 55 years, spider-man hasnt even aged at all... and... Spider-man is. A. KNOWN. FICTIONAL. PERSON.... Paul is a known historical person...

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)

It's convenient that the only person who talks about Paul once being an enemy of Christianity and then its biggest champion is Paul himself. As a master of deception myself, that is a good tactic to get yourself into a position within a movement: claim to have once been its enemy and to have 'seen the light' (or some similar phrase).

This just isnt true, the Book of Act's for example tell Paul was an Enemy of Christianity, which was not written by Paul... But even more so, its not just Paul giving us a testimony that he believes, as if he isnt revealing his intentions (which may be deceptive)... No, Paul gives very lengthy details of why he believes in Christianity. He helps establish Christian theology, he lays out the case of why Christianity is true, making the logical connections for Christ, and resourcing extra-biblical evidence, like naming many many people in the Church, and for the Resurrection, and the early disciples...

I dont even know how to make sense out of Paul having ill intentions... That would be like saying, not only did he flat out lie (which there is no evidence of), but all his reasoning, his zeal, his logic, and the evdience he gave, was all based on false beliefs he didnt actually believe...

That doesnt make sense.. Paul clearly believed...

Besides that, so what about his genuine beliefs. I honestly once had genuine beliefs that I was a resurrected robot prince from Jupiter.
Tart, I want to ask you this: if genuine beliefs are an indicator (in your mind) as to the validity of beliefs, then did my Jupiter-robot belief act as an indicator that I actually was such? Yes or no?

its funny, here you admit fine maybe Paul didnt lie, and had genuine beliefs, how is that different from me flat out lying?

You dont see the problem with that? You just gave Paul the benefit of the doubt that he was truthful in his beliefs, and compared it to you having, clearly not, truthful beliefs... Not only is that a false equivalent, i mean its not even a false equivalent, its like saying black = white... I cant even admit that this is a fallacy of the false equivalent...

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

The Spiderman comic I linked earlier has Spiderman mentioning and talking to Obama. I can write articles indicating how close I am to well known figures - does that mean I did talk to them?

So the entire point is that the evidence supports Paul existed, and Paul knew all the disciples...

In contrast, no one believe Spiderman exists, although Obama may have been featured in his comic.

But, this is the inverse of what im saying. You are making a case for Obama, and not for spider-man... We all agree Obama exists... What does Obama have to say about Spider-man?

We also have letters who name James, John, Peter as authors

Authorship disputed among scholars. It's telling isn't it, that earlier you cited scholars in support of a position that you hold, but when it comes to the authorship of certain documents, you make no mention of this dispute.

Says the man who claims "I honestly once had genuine beliefs that I was a resurrected robot prince from Jupiter."

If you think absurd arguments like this can be made legitimately... What matter does a dispute among scholars, of reasonable arguments, mean to you?

Besides, I believe Peter, James, and John wrote the Epistles that they signed.. What evidence is it not? The evidence clearly supports these men existed, and where prominent Christian leaders... Why would it be unreasonable that they didnt write these books?

But in the end... This is about establishing the historical evidence that Paul, Peter, James, John, Mark, Luke existed... The evidence support it...

And the evidence supports that some of these men literally knew Jesus.

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'm wondering when you'll ever get around to showing there was an historical Jesus, supposedly complete with Godly superpowers.

Nope, thats not the point of the discussion... Im not trying prove Jesus was a God, and im not even trying to prove Jesus existed.. I am simply establishing the historical evidence around Jesus, and questioning if this magnitude of historical evidence is anywhere comparable to Spider-man...

So far, you have mentioned 4 people being featured in the Spider-man comic... I mean, if we can establish 5 historical people existed in the Gospels, that is already a greater in magnitude amount of historical evidence then Spider-man... This is why im interested in you guys bringing your strongest existence for fictional people... Spider-man, is kind of a joke in this regards.

Because lets face it, there is minimal historical evidence in Spider-man... The best evidence is that 4 historical people were featured in the comic... And thats it...

It is clear Paul is talking about the same Peter in the Book of Acts, and consequently the same Peter in the Gospels

Is it? How common of a name is Peter? I had an uncle, now deceased, with that name. What about back then? Was there only the one Peter?
You've got to stop making all these assumptions, and really show your work.

Ya, so the reason we can make that distinction is because Paul said:

"I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised."

This is clearly the same Peter in the Book of Act's, and the Gospels... Whom Paul references, and claims to know, and actually claims to be right along side Peter claiming the Gospel with...

This is Paul, who everyone agrees exists, claiming to be right along Peter, knowing Peter... The same Peter, who was in contact with Jesus...

Likewise the same Peter who is attributed to writing His own epistles which as included in the scripture, that says he literally knew Jesus...

Peter the uneducated fisherman, very likely to have had no ability to write?

Notice* here you are giving Peter historical merit of his state of existence beyond the writings of the Bible... As you should, the evidence supports he existed..

There is also references to Peter, knowing and quoting the Hebrew Bible... Which means he could read and write...

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

And...? Are letters all that are necessary to show a magical man-god existed, with magical powers?

This is about establishing the historical evidence that is around Jesus... And seeing if any fictional person is anywhere comparable..

We also have evidence in these letters that mention Jesus, that mention his crucifixion (from multitudes of sources, biblical and non-biblical )

Can we have these sources please? What exactly are they talking about?

Here is 3 references.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man;] for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher [of such men as receive the truth with pleasure,] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."~Josephus (Antiquities 18: Chapter 3)

[N]either human effort nor the emperors generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts whom the crowd called Chrestians. The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular.~Tacitus

It was then that he learned the marvelous wisdom of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And" what else?"in short order he made them look like children, for he was a prophet, cult leader, head of the congregation and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books, and wrote many himself. They revered him as a god, used him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector"to be sure, after that other whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

For having convinced themselves that they are going to be immortal and live forever, the poor wretches despise death and most even willingly give themselves up. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws.~Lucian of Samosata

they mention his trial by Pontius Pilate (both biblical and non-biblical sources)

Ditto for above

Quotes are above.

they is mentions of other Gospel events, like the transfiguration, the resurrection (biblical and non-biblical)

Oh? A non-biblical source referencing the resurrection? Like what? Please explain why this (as of yet unnamed source or sources) are not in the Bible?

There is 1 reference above, and one suggestion of the Resurrection...

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

Just because a book mentions people we know otherwise to be real/historical, doesn't mean the events in the book really did take place.
I refer you once again to my Spidey comic with Obama. You and I both know that despite having Obama, a real person, feature in it, that the events depicted within did not take place in reality.

This is about the historical evidence around Jesus... Comparing in magnitude, if any fiction is even comparable... You are referencing Spider-man, a known fiction, and gave 4 people featured in the comic...

This isnt anywhere close to the New Testaments historical evidence...
We have dozens of real historical people in the new testament, and they arent just appearing in it as a feature to fiction...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... estament_2

We have real people in the Gospels, in fact everyone we can confirm is confirmed... We have the Disciples going on and interacting with real people, sharing their witnessing of Jesus to other real historical people... We have churches started on a foundation of the first disciples, who knew Jesus, who have many extra-biblical sources.. The trial and the death mentioned by historians themselves... And even the Resurrection having extra-biblical sources...

And you gave 4 featured people, in the spider-man comics.

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?

To answer your question: Spiderman. What you have offered as evidence for a historical Jesus (whatever that means exactly, you have yet to tell us...) I have done the same for Spidey.

Ok, you have 4 people being featured in spider-man as the totality of the historical evidence...

This link alone settles the debate. There is more historical evidence for the Gospels then spider-man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... estament_2


I have to go. Ill have to respond to the rest later...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 105:

...
Quoting from a prestigious university would carry more weight than quoting from a high school senior's homework posted on his personal website.
...

No.

The message is independent of the messager.

If some university declared the Moon wasn't there, and some high schooler agreed, would it fall from the sky?

It should never matter who it was that made a claim of truth, it should only matter if that claim could be shown to be it.

(Linkual edit)

(Then swapped me out an a for an e)

[Willum]

There are two or three things that lead rational people to discount the historicity of a son on God:

Reality: Observing that miracles don't happen. Gods and men should not be genetically compatible. Some miracles are impossible, even for omnipotence, and so on.
History: Were Jesus real, Lazarus would have had a history overwhelming any of the other Apostles. Everyone would want the opinions, philosophies and story of the man back from the dead. Were it true, WERE IT TRUE, it would be required reading in schools today.
Then there is no evidence of the witnesses themselves, there books were mostly written long after they were alive.

Also, we know that he supported paying Caesar's tax, or, in Latin, his tithes. Tithes to another god, using coins that were graven images giving homage to other gods. That is enough to make anyone believe he is fictional. Then he abrogated his Father's punishment for adultery, or if you believe it was a ruse, he abrogated the punishment for bearing false witness.

Also, all his carpentry works were lost. Imagine that, instead of fetching high prices at auction.

Assuming a non-miraculous Jesus, his father was a Tiberius Panderia, and a simple fraud.

[JoeyKnothead]

FromPost 107:

Excellent analysis.

Not that it's where your post is, but I fear folks might wanna slippery slope 'em an argument here.

It may well be perfectly rational to believe some dude strolled him into town, but it's a whole different 'nother thing to believe he was dead when he strolled him out of it.

[Aetixintro]

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...

I can support a kind of interpretative account of Jesus on par with Iraqi poetry from the same era given that the Bible is written 500 years or so after the alleged Death of Jesus.

However, given this "white cross" account of Jesus and the historical account of Jesus, I don't find any important theological difference. Either way, the Bible remains most holy and the message is the same as well. Jesus has won over death, regardless and sits next to God in Heaven.

It should be noted that the information on the Persian Immortals may well have been known to the authors of the Bible and thus Jesus may have been a symbolic person for this victory over death in dealing with various troubles which religious people have been suffering at the time, perhaps a bit like ours, overcoming the crazy people hell-bent for evil.

Ok?