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.

[Goose]

Sure it is. When you insist that you know what my statement means -- but that I, its actual author, don't know what it means -- that's posturing. (Some might call it brute arrogance, but I am trying to be polite about it.)

I didn’t say you don’t know what your statement means. I said it was false.

Your error is your apparent belief that statements can be false all by themselves.

That’s not an error. Statements can be false all by themselves. Here let me show you one.

All men are immortal

That statement is false all by itself.

Just like this statement is false all by itself:

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

And since it was made all by itself any contextual elaboration to salvage it after the fact constitutes shifting.

A statement's truth often, perhaps always, depends on the speaker.

"Perhaps always"? That’s false too.

2+2=4

That statement is true independent of the speaker.

If, in the middle of a debate, NervyGuy claims that the sun rose this morning, Goose should not jump up and down and declare and insist and insist again that "The statement is false! The statement is false! The sun does not rise.

But I wouldn’t do that in that case. The sun rising is a commonly used metaphor. I use it myself all the time. Nor is that metaphor analogous to the absolute statement:

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

You see, 'that physical life' means 'that physical life as described in the Christian gospels.'

Okay then let’s plug it in.

“But Paul -- the most fervent follower of Jesus in the history of the world – says nothing about that physical life [as described in the Christian gospels]. �

So how does that change the statement to not being false?

Anyway, don't feel silly about claiming that "it's been shown false" when it was, in fact, exactly true.

I don’t feel silly, it was and still is false. Go ahead and prove me wrong by proving it true.

Which supports my theory, of course. If they'd known anything about a physical Jesus, they would surely have told Paul all about it.

I’m sure they did. In fact the word Paul uses in Galatians 1:8 to describe the purpose of his first visit to Jerusalem is ἱστο�ε�ω. It implies Paul went to Jerusalem to see Peter with the purpose of enquiring into, examining, investigating things.

Yet Paul never says a thing about that physical Jesus. Not a word.

Nothing eh?

�23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.� 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.� 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.� – 1 Cor 11

Does that look familiar? Where do you suppose Paul picked that up?

I suppose you could just say Paul invented it and later Gospel writers used it. But then if you say that you’ve erected an argument that won’t allow any historical details. Any detail is subsequently dismissed as made up.

So you reckon that the boys in Jerusalem never told Paul anything about (the 30 CE) Jesus' preachings?

Why would I reckon that?

Why not share Jesus' gospel with Paul?

I’m sure they shared many things with Paul. Why wouldn’t they?

It's because they'd never known a physical Jesus, I think.

You “think�? What evidence do you have that the boys in Jerusalem didn’t know a physical Jesus?

Mark wouldn't create him for another 40-50 years, setting his Jesus character back into the Jerusalem of the early Christian church.

If Mark created Jesus then how did Paul come to know about him?

Now you will say it was a different Jesus. But of course it was the same one that we agreed on. The one that was the Son of God, who died and rose again. Those characteristics are common in Paul’s writings and the Gospels.

Paul didn't visit with the disciples of Jesus. He met with early church leaders. That's my best guess about it.

Well your best guess is hardly enough to overturn the words of Paul himself in his letter to the Galatians.

Remember when I talked about modern Protestant preachers and their sermons? Will you address that now? Why do ALL preachers load ALL their sermons with specific details about the life of the Gospel Jesus, yet Paul never mentions a single such detail in all his letters? He was a fanatic about Jesus. How can anyone, with a straight face, argue that he just never felt like mentioning his contemporary, Jesus Christ?

What do modern Protestant preachers have to do with anything when Paul did mention Jesus Christ? And he mentioned numerous details about Jesus.

Tons of stuff. Ignorance of the tomb's location. Christian churches already in distant cities at the time of the supposed crucifixion, even though Jesus was apparently not noticed by secular folk. The Synoptic Gospels, clearly plagiarisms. All sorts of stuff.

You’ve just rattled off several assertions that you’ll need to elaborate on and how they tie in to your argument.

The problem is that we -- you and I -- can't even get past Paul's silence regarding the historical Jesus.

What silence? Paul says plenty about the historical Jesus. I provided some examples in this post and you snipped them right out when you responded in this post remember? When I asked why you did that, you just said, “Because they say nothing about an actual man who lived contemporaneously with Paul� in this post. But of course those details you snipped off do say something about an actual man who lived contemporaneously with Paul. You just ignored them and asserted they don’t.

I mean if you are just going to ignore the evidence what’s the point in debating with you?

The Gospel Jesus was not a real historical person, at least as far as I can figure. He didn't live at the same time as the writer of the Paulines.

Yes, yes. You’ve asserted that several times now. Please, go ahead and prove it.

Yeah. They're professional HJ-Game players. They make money at it. So they have a dog in the fight just like many Christians do. They get mad when anyone tries to make their main game piece dissolve away into non-historicity.

That’s quite the critique of two well respected atheist scholars. I sure hope you have some seriously good argumentation to back all this rhetoric up with.

Not that I've ever read one of their books. I've just heard about them.

Never read one of their books but you have quite the negative opinion of them. Hmm...

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 75 by RedEye]

RedEye...

What exactly would you suggest as an explanation for the evidences of Christianity?

We aren't discussing the evidence for Christianity in this thread. We are discussing whether Jesus was a fictional character, ie. whether Christianity came to be built around a fiction.

How would you explain the existence of Christianity? Its origins, its beliefs?

The same way Judaism and all other religions started. Someone (Saul/Paul) had an idea and the idea evolved and was expanded upon over time by others who followed him. Most of what we call Christianity today (the major doctrines of the religion) owes its origins to Paul. By rights it should be called Paulianity, not Christianity. Just as Islam owes its origins to their prophet and scribe Mohammad. (In contrast, Jesus wrote not one single thing. Everything he is alleged to have said comes from later anonymous writers and a very high proportion of it is borrowed from preexisting wisdom stories and parables). When you look closely a historical Jesus has a habit of evaporating away into nothing.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 90 by RedEye]

We are discussing whether Jesus was a fictional character, ie. whether Christianity came to be built around a fiction.

Precisely the topic ...!

Thank you.

So far, in this discussion ...

And as ALWAYS ...

The possibility of a non-fictional Jesus character is "highly likely" at the very best.

Which leaves the windows of the Dome of Heaven wide open for ...

POSSIBLY NOT AT ALL.

Even if Absolute Certainty is NEVER attainable ...

I am of the opinion that folks need a lot more than is available for the Jesus character to found a religion on ...

Especially one that claims their Leader - the Jesus character from the propaganda pamphlets - IS the capital-G Creator "God" of all that is within - and everything that is beyond - human comprehension.

[NervyGuy]

That’s not an error. Statements can be false all by themselves. Here let me show you one.

All men are immortal

That statement is false all by itself.

Yeah. You just don't understand how language works. I don't mean that as an insult, just an observation. (And very few people do have that understanding, so don't feel bad about it.)

Anyway, let me try one more time... by addressing your example.

The statement above was made by Stan Lee. He was talking to his assistant about a new comic book world he was imagining and creating in which all men are immortal.

So the statement is not false. It is true. Absolutely true... yes?

As I've tried to explain to you (and as I've just now proven with your example), statements can't be true all by themselves. They depend on the speaker's intent.

Do you think Stan Lee's assistant would have been justified to jump up and insist, "No, Mr. Lee, your statement is false! It's a false statement!"

But I suspect that you're not quite ready to engage these matters in the way which productive dialogue requires, at least for me, so I'm going to step aside.

You can prove me wrong, if you're interested. You can even bring me back to the table.

All you have to do is address what I've just said to you, above, about "All men are immortal" in a clear and open way. If you'll do that, I'll come back and discuss the (non)historical Jesus with you.

If you reply, please be sure to address these two simple questions:

When Stan Lee made that statement, was it true?

Would his assistant have been right to insist that his statement was false?

[Wootah]

Yeah. You just don't understand how language works. I don't mean that as an insult, just an observation. (And very few people do have that understanding, so don't feel bad about it.)


But I suspect that you're not quite ready to engage these matters in the way which productive dialogue requires, at least for me, so I'm going to step aside.

Moderator Comment
Hi Nervy Guy,

Please cut out all references to whomever you are debating with from your arguments. It's best to put the onus on yourself to assume that you didn't explain adequately or step aside from the debate without the comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[StuartJ]

Atheist-type folks in this debate topic (well me at least) have quite openly acknowledged the possibility that there really was a real human Jesus.

I may have missed something, but I don't remember one person of faith acknowledging the possibility that Jesus WAS/IS a fictional character ....

The silence on this and a number of other topics speaks very loudly indeed.

[marco]

Atheist-type folks in this debate topic (well me at least) have quite openly acknowledged the possibility that there really was a real human Jesus.

I may have missed something, but I don't remember one person of faith acknowledging the possibility that Jesus WAS/IS a fictional character ....

The silence on this and a number of other topics speaks very loudly indeed.

Faith doesn't do fifty percent: all or nothing, Stuart. You would expect Jesus to have supplied answers for future Thomases. Nope - his beatitudes continued with "Blessed are those who believe things without evidence; for I am their God." He said there would be false messengers. A pointless precaution if he hasn't supplied passport details for himself. He said he'd be back pretty soon, with a gang of angels. We are waiting.


Some meandering minstrel told poor people they were rich and rich people they were poor; his main theme was that people should get on with each other, and some suppose this world-shattering suggestion could only have come from the lips of a God. The fact we have absolutely nothing concrete by way of date details for the man tells us all we need to know. He was born under a wandering star and left under a cloud. If what he says has any value, he'll come back on one.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

Yes. Now that I've been thinking properly about Jesus Christ and The Bible, I think it's clear that Jesus is a fictional character representing difficulties in the World for all religious people of Abraham. Therefore, Christianity sides with both Judaism, Islam and probably Bahai Faith too.

That being said, it should also be clear that I support the "common" suspicion or perception that there are 1000 Jesus Christ persons in the 100 % Christian Bible (also confirmed by OR gate testing, Quantum Computing).

Thus, the main point with Jesus Christ in the Bible is to tell about the difficulties and also to say that to crucify "the 1000 Jesus Christs" has been utterly CRUEL!

There should be 5 tables for The Holy Bible of Septuagint / Vulgate or other that tells the very story of the 1000 Jesus Christs in a summary fashion. Note!

IMO.

[marco]

I think it's clear that Jesus is a fictional character representing difficulties in the World for all religious people of Abraham.

And of course Abraham is another fictional character given that he spoke to a fictional god called Yahweh. But perhaps the Neanderthal, Adam, was a real character with a real wife, and an orchard.

Jesus was probably a real guy around whom miracles spread like rumours.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 97 by marco]

You seem to lack the sensitivities to consider the history of the Bible at all.

I haven't mentioned the metaphysics of God in this context.

For the God Deniers, the so-called one-line Atheists, this discussion is for the issue of Jesus and Jesus Christ and as such your answer does not appear pertinent.

You should know the history of ancient poetry and other literature such as the Iraqi one, but I suspect you do not care that much given your very short reply to me and not to the starter of this discussion.

Why don't you relate to StuartJ instead?