Jesus is a Myth!

[POI]

The Gospels are fiction and the Jesus character is a myth. There may have been a Jesus upon whom the character is based, but I doubt it.

Loosely, there was a church already in existence when Paul became an apostle (Galatians 2). I don't think we know anything about it, because that church was effectively destroyed by the sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul's Asian churches were effectively unmoored and they absorbed a sort of second- or third-hand tradition left over from the Jerusalem church. That tradition was allegorically retold in the Synoptics. Acts is a sort of theological textbook, allegorically describing the fusion of the Pauline churches and what little remained of the Jerusalem church through the conflict between its Peter and Paul characters and the resoliution of that conflict.

For debate: Was Jesus a real character from antiquity? If so, how do we know?

The stakes are very high for the Orthodox believer. Why? If Jesus never existed, it's completely game over. Christianity is dead before we ever get to ask if Jesus ever rose. If Jesus did exist, then we can still question his claimed actions(s) all the way up to him rising again....

**************************************

At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position. But I would sure love to see how this topic fleshes out among all the smarties who exchange within this arena

[POI]

So the person I responded to misspoke when they claimed Jesus humbled himself even unto the point of death? He just played a hoax and took a three day weekend?

Your response per se, as posted below, is the problem because Jesus is not dead.

“If he's alive today, then there was no death. So which do you believe?”

What problem are you referring to?

It’s about your agonizing and appalling problem in the hereafter if you firmly maintain your opinion about the Christ unto the end.

There is no evidence of any "hereafter". That's not a problem. But let's go with what you said just for fun...

If your god, ( the Abrahamic one) created me eons ago and knew what my thinking would be according to the brain it gave me as your bible says in so many words; and it can't be wrong, then it created me just to torture me can be the only logical conclusion. It programmed me to be skeptical of fairytale mythology that it knew would arise and who would be able to prove such a god's foreknowledge wrong? And that renders your god not to be one of benevolence, but of evil. A tyrant in the same vein as Stalin or Hitler. That would be why it according to your holy book admits to creating evil and calamity as well as confessing to the planned murders of Jobs family in the book of Job by saying it will destroy Job even though it had no cause to. I of a sense of decency and self respect could not worship such a beast.

But like I said, it's all myth anyway.

This is all a sidebar exchange, but I felt it compelling to chime in here... Sorry.

Yes. Basically, the Bible god is a sadistic voyeur, which is in direct conflict with one, or more, of the believed upon omni claims.

[SiNcE_1985]

.

Nothing else going on around here.

Might as well intellectually slap you around some more.

For debate: Was Jesus a real character from antiquity?

If you ain't gonna ask that about other people from antiquity, then don't ask it about Jesus.

We're gonna play ball fair, or not play it at all.

If so, how do we know?

How do we know Caesar was stabbed or that Hannibal rode war elephants to battle?

Because that's what the historical evidence shows, right?

Well, there ya go.

The stakes are very high for the Orthodox believer. Why? If Jesus never existed, it's completely game over. Christianity is dead before we ever get to ask if Jesus ever rose.

Yeah, no stuff, Sherlock.

If Jesus did exist, then we can still question his claimed actions(s) all the way up to him rising again....

We sure can.

At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position. But I would sure love to see how this topic fleshes out among all the smarties who exchange within this arena

At the moment, I'm personally a believer.

[Difflugia]

Might as well intellectually slap you around some more.

You know that high-pitched growling sound that toy breeds of dog make when they're being all fierce? The one where you think they're just playing, but then after a minute you realize that they're absolutely serious about trying to bite you? They try and try, but they just can't? Me too.

If you ain't gonna ask that about other people from antiquity, then don't ask it about Jesus.

Historians ask that all the time about all kinds of poorly-documented people.

Was Paul Bunyan a real person?
Was John Frum a real person?
Was Ned Ludd a real person?
Was Zeus a real person?
Was Uther Pendragon a real person?
Was Robin Hood a real person?
Was Bugs Bunny a real person?

If you assume that Jesus belongs in a different list, that's begging the question.

We're gonna play ball fair, or not play it at all.

Are you sure you want that standard applied to Christian apologetics?

How do we know Caesar was stabbed or that Hannibal rode war elephants to battle?

Because that's what the historical evidence shows, right?

How about you summarize the evidence for a historical Jesus as you know it? Let's get this intellectual slap off on the right foot.

Well, there ya go.

If you're trying to imply that the evidence for Hannibal's elephants or "et tu, Brute?" is as bad as the evidence for Jesus, that's what this thread is about. Just saying that it is, as though it's self-evident, isn't even a logical argument, let alone a slap from your intellect.

If Jesus never existed, it's completely game over.

Yeah, no stuff, Sherlock.

Why? Paul's Jesus didn't exist and he seems to have had a pretty viable Christianity. The Jesus of Revelation didn't exist and that seems to have been successfully incorporated (Martin Luther's misgivings excepted).

At the moment, I'm personally a believer.

And rocking with Hovind, no doubt.

[POI]

Might as well intellectually slap you around some more

The grossly misplaced self-confidence continues to be astounding.

Further, there's countless threads you could have selected for your own entertainment to engage. It's funny you should choose one of mine. And it's also funny that you chose this particular thread, being I stated the following in the OP --> "At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position. But I would sure love to see how this topic fleshes out among all the smarties who exchange within this arena".. Meaning, I quoted another interlocutor who has asserted a position, and I'd like to more-so set on the side-lines and see how his exchange with others unfolds?

I created this topic, as more-so being a spectator. I see this interlocutor has responded. I shall see if you "intellectually slap him around". I've got the popcorn ready.... Until you respond to him, I may as well address the rest of the nonsense you placed forth.

If you ain't gonna ask that about other people from antiquity, then don't ask it about Jesus.

Who says I haven't? I just wouldn't ask in this arena, as asking if Homer or King Arthur existed in a Christian debate forum would be silly.

We're gonna play ball fair, or not play it at all.

Aces

How do we know Caesar was stabbed or that Hannibal rode war elephants to battle?

Well, I would first want to know if these two folks really existed? If they did, these above claims (from inquiry) do not seem very far-fetched to also just assume happened, without much pushback. Meaning, if these two folks from antiquity met their burden of proof for their existence, it would not take much for me to also believe or conclude that Caesar was stabbed or that Hannibal rode an elephant. Now, if a claim from Caesar was that he instead walked on water, cured the blind, rose the rotting dead, battled Satan, or any other more-so far-fetched claims, then I'd probably need ALOT more evidence.

First things first... What standard(s) do we use to determine if such stated character(s) from antiquity really existed in reality?

1) Are the claims consistent and/or trustworthy?
2) Are the given source(s) reliable, as they also express other details? Meaning, do the other claims within these documents comport with (or) can they also be corroborated using external source(s)?
3) Is the given source(s) unbiased, via both religiously (and/or) politically?
4) Do the claim(s) exclude breaking immutable (and/or) "natural" law(s)?
5) Are the claim(s) backed by any substantiated relic(s)?

The more (no's) above, the worse off the odds are... The Bible looks to then be quite low on the probable 'truth-barometer.' Sorry.

Historians verify ancient claims by cross-referencing information across multiple types of evidence, including written sources, archaeological finds, and material artifacts, then critically evaluating each source's origin, purpose, and reliability. They look for corroboration, or multiple independent sources that agree, and use contextual analysis to determine if a claim is typical or unique. They also use techniques like comparing handwriting or linguistic style to authenticate documents and check for consistency with known historical or archaeological data.

[SiNcE_1985]

Was Paul Bunyan a real person?
Was John Frum a real person?
Was Ned Ludd a real person?
Was Zeus a real person?
Was Uther Pendragon a real person?
Was Robin Hood a real person?
Was Bugs Bunny a real person?

If you assume that Jesus belongs in a different list, that's begging the question.

Um, no.

There is a reason why the vast majority of modern scholars believe Jesus existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

*Check citation "g" of the wiki article in the second paragraph*

...and not those other characters you mentioned.

Among those scholars are both Christian and non Christian...and since believers and unbelievers don't agree on much, for them to come together in agreement on that point, goes to show where the weight of the evidence is.

Are you sure you want that standard applied to Christian apologetics?

Yeah.

How about you summarize the evidence for a historical Jesus as you know it? Let's get this intellectual slap off on the right foot.

How about you summarize evidence against Jesus' existence.

Because below, you said..

Why? Paul's Jesus didn't exist and he seems to have had a pretty viable Christianity.

That is a statement of knowledge and I'd like evidence for that claim.

As I said before, believers are always on the defense..while the skeptics get to make all these unproven (false) claims with impunity.

No, please provide evidence for your claim, sir.

And rocking with Hovind, no doubt.

Yeah, I rock with Bible-Believing Christians who challenges the claims of mainstream science and scientists, most of whom happen to be lead mostly by Biblical skeptics and critics.

[SiNcE_1985]

Further, there's countless threads you could have selected for your own entertainment to engage.

Ain't nobody talking about nothin.

It's funny you should choose one of mine.

Don't make the threads then.

And it's also funny that you chose this particular thread, being I stated the following in the OP --> "At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position. But I would sure love to see how this topic fleshes out among all the smarties who exchange within this arena"..

I'm one of the smarties.

Meaning, I quoted another interlocutor who has asserted a position, and I'd like to more-so set on the side-lines and see how his exchange with others unfolds?

Yeah, once again, concerning yourself with topics that just doesn't concern you.

Nothing about Jesus or Christianity should concern an unbeliever, unless they are effected by either...which they aren't.

I created this topic, as more-so being a spectator. I see this interlocutor has responded. I shall see if you "intellectually slap him around".

Like taking candy from a baby.

Who says I haven't? I just wouldn't ask in this arena, as asking if Homer or King Arthur existed in a Christian debate forum would be silly.

I'm sure there's a King Arthur forum somewhere on the world wide web you can ask those probing questions.

Well, I would first want to know if these two folks really existed? If they did, these above claims (from inquiry) do not seem very far-fetched to also just assume happened, without much pushback. Meaning, if these two folks from antiquity met their burden of proof for their existence, it would not take much for me to also believe or conclude that Caesar was stabbed or that Hannibal rode an elephant. Now, if a claim from Caesar was that he instead walked on water, cured the blind, rose the rotting dead, battled Satan, or any other more-so far-fetched claims, then I'd probably need ALOT more evidence.

Ohh, the old extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence spiel.

Gotcha.

First things first... What standard(s) do we use to determine if such stated character(s) from antiquity really existed in reality?

1) Are the claims consistent and/or trustworthy?
2) Are the given source(s) reliable, as they also express other details? Meaning, do the other claims within these documents comport with (or) can they also be corroborated using external source(s)?
3) Is the given source(s) unbiased, via both religiously (and/or) politically?
4) Do the claim(s) exclude breaking immutable (and/or) "natural" law(s)?
5) Are the claim(s) backed by any substantiated relic(s)?

The more (no's) above, the worse off the odds are... The Bible looks to then be quite low on the probable 'truth-barometer.' Sorry.

Historians verify ancient claims by cross-referencing information across multiple types of evidence, including written sources, archaeological finds, and material artifacts, then critically evaluating each source's origin, purpose, and reliability. They look for corroboration, or multiple independent sources that agree, and use contextual analysis to determine if a claim is typical or unique. They also use techniques like comparing handwriting or linguistic style to authenticate documents and check for consistency with known historical or archaeological data.

I get all that.

The Bible checks off those boxes...but #4 is problematic, for obvious reasons.

[POI]

Further, there's countless threads you could have selected for your own entertainment to engage.

Ain't nobody talking about nothin.

It's funny you should choose one of mine.

Don't make the threads then.

My point is I make threads where I plant the flag. I've repeatedly asked for ANY Christians to address this thread (viewtopic.php?t=38525) and no Christians have. Likely because it's a difficult one for Christians to 'justify'. Hence, it's better just to handwave it. Oh, that's right, you wrote the book on handwaving basic observation(s) which challenge your faith.

Here are some more notables you could have picked. where I make a claim:

viewtopic.php?t=42679
viewtopic.php?t=40608&start=690
viewtopic.php?t=40313&start=280
viewtopic.php?t=42605&start=50

I'm one of the smarties.

Then I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate. Thus far, my prior response still stands, at the top.

Yeah, once again, concerning yourself with topics that just doesn't concern you. Nothing about Jesus or Christianity should concern an unbeliever, unless they are effected by either...which they aren't.

In essence, I've told you before. If the vast majority of my country and surroundings were instead proposing/asserting the truthiness in 'Xenu', then I would likely be in a different forum, likely called 'debating Scientology.' Rather than invite discord among my close family and friends, I instead inquire here. Got it?

Like taking candy from a baby.

I've found that the ones who self-boast the most, (for which you are a prime example of this), are usually ultimately the ones who take the hardest 'L's. But the unfortunate reality remains, is that often times, you do not even realize you are taking these 'L's. But others do.

I'm sure there's a King Arthur forum somewhere on the world wide web you can ask those probing questions.

See my response above.

Ohh, the old extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence spiel. Gotcha.

Not really. I'm saying I dismiss or discard pretty much all far-fetched claims, whether they come from the present or the past. I think this is where the fork in the road happens. Meaning, you already pre-suppose and auto-include the far-fetched, where-as I do not. For example, where I would dismiss a far-fetched claim, you might instead just assume it happened and only try to discern whether the far-fetched claim was imposed by either 'evil' verses 'good'. Hence, when Alexander the Great claimed he was the son of Zeus, I would just dismiss this claim outright, where-as you might instead sometimes take a differing approach or direction.

I get all that. The Bible checks off those boxes...but #4 is problematic, for obvious reasons.

I do not believe the Bible checks off any of those boxes.

[Difflugia]

Um, no.

There is a reason why the vast majority of modern scholars believe Jesus existed.

Of course there is. The purpose of this thread, though, is for you to argue it.

Among those scholars are both Christian and non Christian...and since believers and unbelievers don't agree on much, for them to come together in agreement on that point, goes to show where the weight of the evidence is.

So, tell us about this weighty evidence. I was promised slapping!

How about you summarize the evidence for a historical Jesus as you know it? Let's get this intellectual slap off on the right foot.

How about you summarize evidence against Jesus' existence.

"Yeah, you better run!"

Are you sure you want that standard applied to Christian apologetics?

Yeah.

Because below, you said..

Why? Paul's Jesus didn't exist and he seems to have had a pretty viable Christianity.

That is a statement of knowledge and I'd like evidence for that claim.

You want to to play fair, but I need to prove that people in heaven don't exist? Make up your slapping intellect!

As I said before, believers are always on the defense..while the skeptics get to make all these unproven (false) claims with impunity.

No, please provide evidence for your claim, sir.

"One more step! I dare you!

Yeah, I rock with Bible-Believing Christians who challenges the claims of mainstream science and scientists, most of whom happen to be lead mostly by Biblical skeptics and critics.

I rock witrh subject-verb agreement.

[SiNcE_1985]

Of course there is. The purpose of this thread, though, is for you to argue it.

The onus is on the person making the claim, to provide evidence for this claim.

I'm not interested in playing ring-around-the-rosie with ya, pal.

You said that Paul's Jesus didn't exist; you made the claim, now back it up.

So, tell us about this weighty evidence. I was promised slapping!

It's in progress.

You want to to play fair, but I need to prove that people in heaven don't exist? Make up your slapping intellect!

I made up my mind that, if you can't prove your claims, it's best to not make such claims.

I rock witrh subject-verb agreement.

Brilliant!!

[Difflugia]

The onus is on the person making the claim, to provide evidence for this claim.

The only claim so far is that you're going to slap us with your mighty intellect.

I'm not interested in playing ring-around-the-rosie with ya, pal.

Exactly. All bark and no bite.

You said that Paul's Jesus didn't exist; you made the claim, now back it up.

My claim is that you don't actually know what any of the arguments are and I'm giving you the chance to prove me wrong. I'm not challenging your facts or logic, because you haven't provided any. Instead, I'm challenging your hubris. If you actually want to engage with the subject, I've already had the exact conversation you're bluffing about in this same thread. If you want to respond, here's your opportunity, or you can just keep shouting that your dad could beat me up if he were here. Like you said, there's not much going on.

So, tell us about this weighty evidence. I was promised slapping!

It's in progress.

Let me know when you think you've connected so I can wince appropriately.

You want to to play fair, but I need to prove that people in heaven don't exist? Make up your slapping intellect!

I made up my mind that, if you can't prove your claims, it's best to not make such claims.

I'll believe it when I see it.