Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?

[StuartJ]

Neither a jot nor a tittle of independently verifiable evidence is ever offered to demonstrate that there was a real-life character now known as Jesus the Christ.

We only have reports that people were following the Jesus cult.

And the cult propaganda itself.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

I was watching a vid recently where Christopher Hitchens thinks that the character of Jesus must have been based upon someone who did exist and did start a movement which did create some kind of a ripple effect. It seems reasonable to suppose this is the case, and that Rome eventually created Christianity out of that as a means of repressing and controlling the direction of the masses.

Why would Rome have invented an insurrectionist if they wanted to pacify the people? That's what Jesus was executed for, (percieved) insurrection against the state of Rome.

Also, I agree that there is, was a core reality behind Jesus. A real, reforming Jewish Rabbi, who was later mythologized. A very human tendency to make gods out of our heroes.

[Jagella]

Also, I agree that there is, was a core reality behind Jesus. A real, reforming Jewish Rabbi, who was later mythologized. A very human tendency to make gods out of our heroes.

But you don't need real heroes to create gods. Mythical heroes and mythical gods will do just fine. And if you want people to believe your heroes, saviors, and gods are real or historical, then just tell them. Many of them will believe you.

[marco]

Neither a jot nor a tittle of independently verifiable evidence is ever offered to demonstrate that there was a real-life character now known as Jesus the Christ.

We only have reports that people were following the Jesus cult.

And the cult propaganda itself.

On the basis that there is no smoke without fire, there was probably a prototype for
"the luminous figure of the Nazarene" as Einstein called him. Add a wedding feast here, an angel there or a visit from Moses and Elijah …. and how on earth did they know it was Moses and Elijah? ... and Jesus easily rises from the dead.


There is so much obvious fiction that one is tempted to say it is all fiction, but bits seem plausible and true. So Jesus probably was around and his deeds were magnified as years passed. He's now a God, usurping Yahweh himself. In the process the Holy Ghost is a god by-product of the Jesus narrative. Man writes great plays. But let's remember Muhammad, too, for he traversed the dangerous asteroid belt to get to Allah and bargain with him about daily prayers, also meeting Jesus and Moses and Abraham for good measure. Zillions believe this. What a work of art is man!

[RedEye]

I mean, you guys can doubt all you want, we actually expect you to doubt becuase you are non-believers and you are here debating against Christianity. Im just looking for any coherent/comprehensive explanation for the evidence from a non believing position...

Here is your opportunity to show that what I have stated is false as you claimed:

ref:Brainwashed%20...

My belief that Jesus is a myth starts with these observations:

1) No contemporary secular evidence of his existence. There were plenty of historians around and if Jesus had a fraction of the following which is attributed to him, someone should have noticed and recorded it.

2) The first person who mentions him (Saul/Paul) barely knows a single personal detail about the alleged life of Jesus. Not one parable and no Jesus as a teacher at all. Jesus performed no miracles according to Paul. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history --- there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.

3) The stories about Jesus become ever more elaborate as time goes on. First we have gMark which is relatively concise (no birth narrative and no resurrection). Then gMatthew adds more detail. Then gLuke adds even more detail. This is classical myth-making where the story evolves and new details are tacked on as time passes.

4) Most of what passes as Jesus stories is lifted straight out of preexisting Jewish and pagan Greco-Roman literature and thought. The material is just reworked and attributed to Jesus. When all of that is stripped away, there is barely anything left that is original in any way.

[Jubal]

On the basis that there is no smoke without fire,

Problem is - that's not true at all - neither literally nor figuratively. There IS literally smoke without fire; and there ARE myths with no historical base. It's a silly expression that isn't true.

Would you say the same about Zeus ? Bacchus ? Apollo ? Osiris ?
Of course not.

there was probably a prototype for "the luminous figure of the Nazarene" as Einstein called him.

So if Einstein believes it, it must be true ?
Holy fallacious appeal to authority, Batman !

Einstein is widely credited with the infamous saying :
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results�
which is complete and utter bulldust (the definitions of insanity actually fill a book an inch thick.)

Einstein knows nothing of ancient history, he is the perfect example of a fallacious authority - someone famous whose opinion is very well respected - except he is out of his field, making his opinion worthless.

The fallacy teaches us to ignore authorities out of their field like Einstein, but instead credit experts in the field. (Amazingly, this fallacy is increasingly frequently used to mean the exact opposite - that we should dismiss the views of experts !)

Jubal

[Jubal]

I mean, you guys can doubt all you want, we actually expect you to doubt becuase you are non-believers and you are here debating against Christianity. Im just looking for any coherent/comprehensive explanation for the evidence from a non believing position...

Please present your evidence that Zeus doesn't exist.
Otherwise that proves he does exist !

See ?
It doesn't work like that in reality.

If you believe Jesus Christ existed, then it is up to you to make the positive case (if you want anyone else to believe it.)

So far, you, and all other believers here have notably failed to present convincing historical evidence. We all know all the evidence by now, there is nothing new. It's not enough to convince anyone that doesn't already believe.

In fact the evidence is so bad - that studying it shocks many prior believers into scepticism, even mythicism.

The default historical position should therefore be :
* Jesus Christ did not exist
because the evidence is so poor, even where we would expect it; and what we have is so very much like myth.

It's only the dead weight of millenia of enforced faith that pretends it's the other way.

Jubal

[StuartJ]

Hmm ... this is the first topic I posted.

I like resurrections.

I've been here just over two months now ...

And not a single soul has offered anything more than "highly likely" for the possible existence of a human Jesus.

Feet of clay on which to build a faith-based belief system.

And as far as a fathered-by-the-Holy Ghost Jesus goes ...

No one begins to offer anything outside the cult propaganda and the imaginations of believers.

It looks to me to be as fictional as the fantastical tales associated with any other virgin-born god-man from any other culture.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

I was watching a vid recently where Christopher Hitchens thinks that the character of Jesus must have been based upon someone who did exist and did start a movement which did create some kind of a ripple effect. It seems reasonable to suppose this is the case, and that Rome eventually created Christianity out of that as a means of repressing and controlling the direction of the masses.

Why would Rome have invented an insurrectionist if they wanted to pacify the people? That's what Jesus was executed for, (percieved) insurrection against the state of Rome.

That doesn't match what we find in Matthew 26:

"64 “You have said so,� Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.�

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?�

“He is worthy of death,� they answered."

The charge against him was blasphemy.

Perhaps you have a source that supports your claim, "That's what Jesus was executed for, (percieved) insurrection against the state of Rome."

[Goose]

My belief that Jesus is a myth starts with these observations:

1) No contemporary secular evidence of his existence. There were plenty of historians around and if Jesus had a fraction of the following which is attributed to him, someone should have noticed and recorded it.

Which “plenty of historians� are those that were “around� at that time and in that region? Would you care to name them? The only one I can think of that doesn’t mention Jesus is Philo. The one Roman historian who reports much at all on first century Judea –Tacitus – just happens to mention Jesus. The main Jewish historian who reports on first century Judea – Josephus- likewise also happens to mention Jesus. So who are all these historians who “should have noticed and recorded� Jesus? Do tell.

2) The first person who mentions him (Saul/Paul) barely knows a single personal detail about the alleged life of Jesus. Not one parable and no Jesus as a teacher at all. Jesus performed no miracles according to Paul. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history --- there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.

Poor argument. Paul was writing pastoral letters to believers not writing a biography. So there’s no need to expect Paul to write copious details about the life of Jesus. Having said that, Paul is aware Jesus was born in the line of David, had a brother named James, was crucified, was betrayed, ate bread with his disciples, and instituted the ritual of communion as examples. Not to mention Paul attributes the miracle of the resurrection to Jesus.

3) The stories about Jesus become ever more elaborate as time goes on. First we have gMark which is relatively concise (no birth narrative and no resurrection). Then gMatthew adds more detail. Then gLuke adds even more detail. This is classical myth-making where the story evolves and new details are tacked on as time passes.

Can you elaborate here? Because a word count suggests this isn't true. How can each Gospel be adding “more detail� to the previous one when Luke (19,4812) has a word count relatively close to Matthew (18,346) and John (15,635) has far fewer words than both Luke and Matthew?

4) Most of what passes as Jesus stories is lifted straight out of preexisting Jewish and pagan Greco-Roman literature and thought. The material is just reworked and attributed to Jesus. When all of that is stripped away, there is barely anything left that is original in any way.

This doesn’t go to showing Jesus was a myth because even if we granted this argument we would still have left something about Jesus that is original by your own admission.

[NervyGuy]

My belief that Jesus is a myth starts with these observations:

1) No contemporary secular evidence of his existence. There were plenty of historians around and if Jesus had a fraction of the following which is attributed to him, someone should have noticed and recorded it.

2) The first person who mentions him (Saul/Paul) barely knows a single personal detail about the alleged life of Jesus. Not one parable and no Jesus as a teacher at all. Jesus performed no miracles according to Paul. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history --- there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.

3) The stories about Jesus become ever more elaborate as time goes on. First we have gMark which is relatively concise (no birth narrative and no resurrection). Then gMatthew adds more detail. Then gLuke adds even more detail. This is classical myth-making where the story evolves and new details are tacked on as time passes.

4) Most of what passes as Jesus stories is lifted straight out of preexisting Jewish and pagan Greco-Roman literature and thought. The material is just reworked and attributed to Jesus. When all of that is stripped away, there is barely anything left that is original in any way.

Add to your list the loss of Jesus' tomb. Isn't it odd that no one remembered where the tomb was? No one marked the spot? Even though Paul went to Jerusalem and spoke with Jesus' disciples, he never says a word about going to the tomb for a visit.

Also, the timing is off. How could there have been Christian congregations in distant cities only a year or two after the crucifixion... for Paul to persecute? Especially if Jesus was so unnoticeable by the historians of the day.