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.

[NervyGuy]

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.

Every protestant preacher, in every church in America, preaches to believers in every sermon.

And every preacher's sermon is filled with details about the physical life of Jesus.

But Paul -- the most fervent follower of Jesus in the history of the world -- says nothing about that physical life. It seems curious, doesn't it?

[Goose]

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.

Every protestant preacher, in every church in America, preaches to believers in every sermon.

And every preacher's sermon is filled with details about the physical life of Jesus.

But Paul -- the most fervent follower of Jesus in the history of the world -- says nothing about that physical life. It seems curious, doesn't it?

Why did you snip off the following bit from my quote?

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.

Those points alone falsify your statment that "[Paul] - says nothing about that physical life."

Care to address those points rather than just snip them out as though they were never made?

[Tart]

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.

Sure atheists say this all the time. That is what atheism leads people to believe..... But we should be able to determine if this is true or not... So who exactly are you suggesting should have known about Jesus that didnt? Like specifically (names of people)?

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.

Well first of all, Paul's Epistles arent a bibliography of Jesus's life... So we need not expect him to mention every detail of Jesus life... He also didnt know the living Jesus, no one argues that... But Paul clearly knew the Disciples of Christ...

And that said, you are just flat out wrong... Paul does mention historical facts about Jesus, AND miracles Jesus did.

"In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you"~Paul mentioning the trial of Jesus with Pilate.

The crucifixion is all over Paul's Epistles... Saying Jesus was "hung on a tree",

"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."~Paul mentioning the authorities that crucified Christ

Paul also mentions knwoing James, who is Jesus brother "I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."~Paul

Paul also talks of Jesus being resurrected and revealing himself to Paul, and a list of other people that included the Disciples...

And this is just about Paul on Jesus.. Paul mentions tons of historical things, including mentioning knowing the Disciples who knew Jesus first hand. The other Epistles also mention historical things. Peter mentions the transfiguration, the Book of Hebrews mentions Jesus living

"During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears"~Hebrews

And im sure there is tons of more historically valid references all over the Epistles...

Where exactly are you drawing the line on history and myth? You dont think Paul is a myth... I suppose you dont think Peter is a myth, or James, or John? The same people in the Book of Acts, and consequently the same people in the Gospels... Where exactly are you suggesting myth meets history?

Paul who is historical, but was also written in a myth (assuming you think the Book of Acts is a myth)... How does that work?

And how do you come to terms with this stuff and the things you said in your point number 2?

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.

Well, many of these things are talked about in the Epistles, and other places...

So tell me, you say this is "classic" myth making? How is this different then, then an investigation in a real historical story, where more details might be unraveled as time goes by? How would you differentiate a real historical story from a myth?

(mind you, presuppositions that divine acts cant happen is not the question, the question is, according to you where more details are added on, how would you differentiate that from a real historical story that does the same?)

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.

Where did you get this idea from? Here is a video you should watch, can you give a response to it?





Also, do you have any response to my post # 13? How would you respond to it, and also make sense of your belief that Jesus is a myth?

[NervyGuy]

Why did you snip off the following bit from my quote?

Because they say nothing about an actual man who lived contemporaneously with Paul. It's just the recitation of some creed. Do you see anything specific in there which would tie Paul's Jesus to 30 CE Jerusalem?

Those points alone falsify your statment that "[Paul] - says nothing about that physical life."

Actually not. They aren't about a Jesus contemporary with Paul.

Care to address those points rather than just snip them out as though they were never made?

It's interesting that you complain about me not answering every word of your message -- meanwhile avoiding the meat, the central argument, of my own message.

Are you special, that you can behave in ways which you find improper when others behave in those ways?

[NervyGuy]

He also didnt know the living Jesus, no one argues that... But Paul clearly knew the Disciples of Christ...

Why didn't Paul know Jesus? Any ideas about that?

According to Luke (I think) Paul lived in Jerusalem during Jesus' ministry and was part of the Jewish authority.

So why didn't Paul notice when Jesus started making trouble? His co-religionists seemed to have noticed and were maybe even in charge of condemning Jesus to the Roman authorities.

And can you propose any idea for why the location of Jesus' tomb was lost to his followers? Why wouldn't Paul have known its location and visited it -- the holiest place in all of Christianity?

[Tart]

He also didnt know the living Jesus, no one argues that... But Paul clearly knew the Disciples of Christ...

Why didn't Paul know Jesus? Any ideas about that?

According to Luke (I think) Paul lived in Jerusalem during Jesus' ministry and was part of the Jewish authority.

So why didn't Paul notice when Jesus started making trouble? His co-religionists seemed to have noticed and were maybe even in charge of condemning Jesus to the Roman authorities.

And can you propose any idea for why the location of Jesus' tomb was lost to his followers? Why wouldn't Paul have known its location and visited it -- the holiest place in all of Christianity?

Why didnt Paul know Jesus? Could be many reasons... You say Paul lived in Jerusalem during Jesus ministry, but im not sure if that is true, you have a source?

Why was the location of Jesus' tomb lost to his followers?... Im not so sure it was... the Tomb and the place of the Crucifixion was known and in the open, up till the Romans took over Jerusalem. Rome came in, destroyed the temple, and they paved over these areas and erected their own temple on top of it, because they hated Christians...

Later the site was cleared and restored by Constantine in the 4th century...

"The first Christian emperor, Constantine ordered in about 326 that Hadrian's temple be replaced by a church. After the old temple was torn down and its ruins removed, the soil was removed from the cave, revealing a rock-cut tomb that Helena and Macarius identified as the burial site of Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of ... _Sepulchre

[Tart]

It seems like the things you are asserting, like Paul didnt know where Jesus Tomb was, that he didnt visit the site, that it was lost to its followers, and even that Paul lived in Jerusalem, these things dont seem to be true..

I dont know where you are getting this info, or if you are making it up in your own imagination to raise justification for your own doubt (id guess the latter)... But we see this all the time...

I dont get what it is, but atheists are so sure most of the time, of their own doubt. They think of themselves as like experts, and they just create doubt off of "facts" (quote on quote) they create in their head...

And people say we created God out of our imagination... Kind of bizarre

[Goose]

Why did you snip off the following bit from my quote?

Because they say nothing about an actual man who lived contemporaneously with Paul. It's just the recitation of some creed. Do you see anything specific in there which would tie Paul's Jesus to 30 CE Jerusalem?

Those points alone falsify your statment that "[Paul] - says nothing about that physical life."

Actually not. They aren't about a Jesus contemporary with Paul.

Care to address those points rather than just snip them out as though they were never made?

It's interesting that you complain about me not answering every word of your message -- meanwhile avoiding the meat, the central argument, of my own message.

Are you special, that you can behave in ways which you find improper when others behave in those ways?

Hold on a minute. You’ve blatantly shifted the goal posts here. You explicitly argued:

�But Paul -- the most fervent follower of Jesus in the history of the world – says nothing about that physical life.�

That statement is patently false. Paul mentions numerous details about Jesus’ physical life.

It’s only after the fact it was pointed out that your statement is false that you shifted to arguing Paul says nothing about a Jesus who lived contemporaneously with him. Which isn't necessary anyway. We already know Paul lived at the time of Jesus.

You go ahead and concede for me that your original statement is false and then we can look at the validity of your other questions and arguments here.

[NervyGuy]

Why didnt Paul know Jesus? Could be many reasons...

Yes, there could be a million of them. I'm asking if you can recite the one or two which seem most likely to you.

You say Paul lived in Jerusalem during Jesus ministry, but im not sure if that is true, you have a source?

In the Christian New Testament, there is a book called "Acts". Some people think it was written by Luke (as I mentioned in my last message.) If you'll look at the beginning of Chapter 22, you'll hear the writer say this: "Then Paul said: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.

Im not so sure it was... the Tomb and the place of the Crucifixion was known and in the open, up till the Romans took over Jerusalem.

So you're just making this up? Or do you have a reference for it?

Why didn't Paul ever say anything about the tomb? Can you suggest why he didn't seem to know about it?

Rome came in, destroyed the temple, and they paved over these areas and erected their own temple on top of it...

You're just making this up, yes?

Later the site was cleared and restored by Constantine in the 4th century...

Nah. In the 4th century, Constantine gave his wife the job of designating certain holy places, including the tomb. That's what the history books say, at any rate, so I've heard.

The first Christian emperor, Constantine ordered in about 326 that Hadrian's temple be replaced by a church. After the old temple was torn down and its ruins removed, the soil was removed from the cave, revealing a rock-cut tomb that Helena and Macarius identified as the burial site of Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of ... _Sepulchre

I don't think you should believe every story that a holy site tells about its origin on Wikipedia. Could be a mistake.

[NervyGuy]

It seems like the things you are asserting, like Paul didnt know where Jesus Tomb was, that he didnt visit the site, that it was lost to its followers, and even that Paul lived in Jerusalem, these things dont seem to be true..

Few things seem true to the faithful when those things contradict their existing faith.

I dont know where you are getting this info, or if you are making it up in your own imagination to raise justification for your own doubt (id guess the latter)... But we see this all the time...

I shouldn't have to teach you about the Book of Acts. I really shouldn't.

I dont get what it is, but atheists are so sure most of the time, of their own doubt. They think of themselves as like experts, and they just create doubt off of "facts" (quote on quote) they create in their head...

Ah. So I'm an atheist. I should have known that, I guess.

And you despise and ridicule atheists, so....

That settles the argument, I guess.

And people say we created God out of our imagination... Kind of bizarre

I don't know if it's bizarre or not, since I can't even make sense of it.

People definitely create God out of their imaginations. Is that something you want to talk about?